이란 전쟁 확산: 걸프 국가들의 지정학적 취약성 심화
The age of contained conflict is over. The Iran war is spiralling out of control - Gulf News
지정학적 불안정성은 시스템적 위험을 증가시켜 시장의 불확실성과 위험 회피 포지션을 유발합니다.
핵심 요약
이란의 대리 세력 활동으로 인해 걸프 국가들이 직접적인 위협에 노출되었으며, 이는 지역 안보의 불안정성을 증명합니다.
핵심요약
- 7월 20일, 이란의 공격으로 쿠웨이트의 발전 및 담수화 플랜트가 타격을 입었습니다.
- 바레인에서 적대적인 드론이 공중 방어 시스템을 공격했습니다.
- 예멘의 후티 세력이 홍해의 주요 통로인 바브 알 만답 해협을 봉쇄하고 유조선에 대한 공격을 감행했습니다.
- 이란의 대리 세력 활동으로 인해 미국 동맹국인 5개 걸프 국가가 보복 공격의 영향을 받았습니다.
도입
본 기사는 이란과 미국의 대리전이 지역 내에서 '통제된' 상태에서 벗어나 어떻게 확산되고 있는지에 대한 지정학적 위험을 분석하는 데 중점을 둡니다. 투자자들은 이러한 지정학적 불안정성이 에너지 공급망과 주요 해상 무역로에 미치는 영향을 이해해야 합니다. 지역 내 갈등이 확대될수록 걸프 국가들의 경제적 안정성과 글로벌 에너지 시장의 변동성이 증가할 수 있다는 점이 핵심입니다.
본문 1: 물리적 충돌과 인프라 공격의 확산
이란이 보복 공격을 감행하면서 물리적 충돌이 지역 내로 직접 확산되고 있습니다. 7월 20일 쿠웨이트의 발전 및 담수화 시설 공격은 지역 내 인프라에 대한 직접적인 위협을 보여줍니다. 또한 바레인에서 발생한 드론 공격과 요르단 아카바 지역에서의 미사일 및 드론 공격은 국경을 넘어 인접 국가들의 안보 시스템에 대한 위협을 가했습니다. 이러한 사건들은 갈등이 국지적인 충돌을 넘어 인접 국가들의 기반 시설에 대한 공격으로 확대되고 있음을 시사합니다. 이는 지역 내에서 물리적 안전 보장 체계가 붕괴하고 있음을 의미하며, 이는 투자 심리에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다.
본문 2: 해상 무역로와 에너지 공급망의 취약성
갈등의 또 다른 핵심 축은 해상 무역로의 통제입니다. 예멘에서 활동하는 후티 세력이 홍해의 주요 통로인 바브 알 만답 해협을 봉쇄하고 사우디산 유조선에 대한 공격을 감행한 것은 에너지 공급망에 직접적인 위협을 가했습니다. 이 행동은 지역의 해상 운송 안전을 심각하게 저해하고, 글로벌 원유 및 석유 제품의 가격 변동성을 키울 수 있는 잠재적 위험을 내포합니다. 걸프 국가들은 이러한 해상 경로를 통해 에너지 자원을 수입하고 수출하므로, 이 경로가 불안정해질 경우 경제적 타격이 불가피합니다. 이는 지역 경제의 취약성을 드러내는 중요한 지표입니다.
본문 3: 대리전 구조와 장기적 위험 전망
이란이 레바논의 헤즈볼라, 예멘의 후티, 이라크의 다양한 민병대 등 지역 전역에 대리 세력을 구축하고 지원한 것은 이란의 지정학적 목표를 달성하기 위한 전략이었습니다. 이러한 대리전 구조는 갈등의 복잡성을 심화시키고, 지역 내 모든 국가들이 이란의 영향력 아래 놓이게 만듭니다. 장기적으로 볼 때, 이러한 대리전의 연쇄 반응은 지역 질서의 지속 가능성을 위협하며, 국제 사회의 개입이 필요한 복잡한 지정학적 문제로 발전할 가능성이 높습니다. 따라서 걸프 국가들은 단기적인 충돌 위험뿐만 아니라 장기적인 지정학적 리스크 관리에 더욱 집중해야 할 것입니다.
결론
이란과 그 대리 세력의 활동은 기존의 지역 내 '통제된' 안보 환경이 종식되었음을 명확히 보여줍니다. 물리적 공격과 해상 무역로의 봉쇄는 걸프 국가들의 경제적 안정성에 직접적인 위협이 되고 있습니다. 향후 상황은 대리전의 연쇄 반응과 국제 사회의 개입 여부에 따라 예측하기 어려우므로, 투자자들은 지정학적 변동성에 대한 민감도를 높여야 할 것입니다. 특히 에너지 및 해상 무역 관련 종목에 대한 위험 평가가 더욱 중요해질 전망입니다.
Original Article
The age of contained conflict is over. The Iran war is spiralling out of control - Gulf News
On July 20, Iranian strikes hit a power and water desalination plant in Kuwait. Firefighters battled the blaze while several power generation units were forced offline. About 470km away, in Bahrain, a hostile drone attacked the Kingdom’s air defence systems, targeting the civil air navigation equipment and overflight air traffic within the Bahrain Flight information Region. While officials said traffic was unaffected, Iran wished it to be so.Days earlier a satellite and early warning station in Qatar was attacked. According to the Ministry of Interior a child suffered a minor injury from a falling shrapnel after intercepting the missile. In the same stretch, Jordan found itself amid several rounds of drones and missile fires. Early warning sirens and plumes of smoke took over the vibrant city of Aqaba, as strikes targeted US military positions in the country, killing several American troops. Meanwhile the Iranian backed Houthis in Yemen opened a new front in the war, announcing a maritime blockade against Saudi Arabia, closing the Bab Al Mandab Strait, the gateway to the Red Sea, to Saudi-flagged and Saudi-bound shipping. By July 22, the threat had become action: the group claimed an attack on two Saudi oil tankers transiting through the Red Sea, setting both ablaze..Why Gulf states remain exposed to the US-Iran conflict. Five countries, five close allies to the United States, have all borne the brunt of Iran’s retaliatory attacks this week, whether from Iran directly or the proxies fighting in its orbit. What ‘contained’ used to meanThe regional order that held for the past two decades relied on a fairly consistent logic. Wars stayed largely within defined geographic bounds, contained by international agreements and managed by international alliances.Meanwhile, Iran built and backed proxies across the region, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Houthis in Yemen to various militias in Iraq, precisely so that its rivalries with the United States, Israel, and the Gulf states could be fought at arm’s length rather than head-on. Direct strikes between Tehran and Washington were rare, and even when they happened, they were carefully calibrated to avoid triggering a wider conflict. .Did Iran overplay its Hormuz leverage? Why attacking commercial ships during 60-day ceasefire may have cost Tehran its greatest strategic miscalculation. Gulf States caught between a close ally and an unpredictable neighbour learned to live with a certain background level of tension that never quite tipped over into open conflict on their own territory. It was not the type of peace and de-escalation the region wanted but it was survivable, and it gave space for the region’s economies to function despite the risk sitting under the surface.The battlefield has expandedToday however, the war no longer stops at military or commercial targets. Look past the list of the capitals and sectors attacked, and you will see a pattern emerging. Water plants, civil aviation, and commercial shipping are being drawn into the equation one after the other and the consequences of it are being absorbed by countries who are not actually party to the conflict. Much of that pattern started with Iran. Its repeated attacks on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, following its closure of the waterway, is what pushed Washington to respond in kind. In a post on Truth Social, President Donald Trump vowed to “bomb and destroy” Iranian bridges or power plants for every ship targeted in Hormuz. On X, Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi answered, describing Iran’s defence doctrine as an eye for an eye. He warned that any attack on its infrastructure will trigger more attacks and only “expand the war”. Ceasefires are not ceasing the fire In the span of about 100 days the United States and Iran have ratified two separate agreements intending to halt hostilities. The first was a two-week ceasefire reached in early April through talks mediated by Pakistan. The second was more ambitious - a 14-point memorandum of understanding signed in mid-June aiming to move beyond a temporary ceasefire by establishing a broader framework for de-escalation. It included re-opening the Strait of Hormuz, lifting the US naval blockade on Iran, and setting out a roadmap for sanctions relief..Has the US quietly changed its objectives in Iran?. Yet, both agreements collapsed within weeks. The memorandum collapsed due to unresolved disagreements over freedom of navigation through Hormuz, and its collapse was followed by a new cycle of strikes, broadening the scope of the conflict and diminishing the chances of going back to the negotiation table. Hence, if there is one thing to be learnt from this war it is that agreements today are becoming short-lived pauses between rounds of confrontation. None are rested on firm foundations, nor are they addressing the issues fuelling the conflict. Even negotiations have shifted from seeking a lasting settlement to buying time and preventing the next strike.This is a habit that is not confined to the Iran track alone. This week in Washington D.C. President Trump met the Lebanese leader Joseph Aoun at the White House. During their discussions Trump pledged to support Lebanon. However, he offered no timeline for the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon despite facilitating a trilateral framework earlier in June promising to do so.The pattern keeps recurring - agreements are signed, pledges are made but the mechanisms that would ensure their implementation are always left unfulfilled.The longer this cycle continues, the higher the costs become for all sides involved, and the more difficult it becomes to contain the escalation itself. The United States, which has sought to contain the Iranian conflict while maintaining military pressure, is already facing growing financial and strategic burdens. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told a Senate committee this week that the Pentagon requires nearly $70 billion in additional funding for the war in Iran. Which underscores how quickly a conflict initially framed around limited objectives can evolve into a prolonged and a costly military commitment.What does this mean for the Gulf?If this war has exposed anything, it is that the Gulf is no longer distant from the way regional conflicts are fought. The repeated targeting of shipping lanes, air navigation systems, energy facilities, and water infrastructure highlights a dangerous erosion of the boundaries that once limited the impact of regional conflicts. It demonstrates how quickly a confrontation between two sides can extend beyond the battlefield, effecting essential services, creating risks for civilian populations, and disrupting countries that are not involved in the conflict.This cannot become the new norm. Civilian infrastructure and non-belligerant states should not become instruments of confrontation nor tools of retaliation. The Gulf states have invested heavily in building resilient economies, advanced infrastructures, and regional connectivity. Preserving these gains requires ensuring that future conflicts do not normalise attacks on assets that serve millions of civilians and underpin regional security. As efforts continue to bring the war to an end, Gulf states should have a voice in shaping what comes next, not only to prevent a repeat cycle of this crisis, but also to ensure that future regional disputes do not once again spill over onto those who are not part of them..Shamma Ahmed Alqutbah is a Researcher at TRENDS Research & Advisory