핵심요약

• 트럼프 행정부는 이란 전쟁을 결정하는 과정에서 자신의 고문들을 무시하고 진행했습니다.
• 해버먼은 트럼프의 운영 방식을 '자국 내에서의 정권 교체'로 규정했습니다.
• 대통령실 상황실은 에프스타인 파일과 같은 위기 상황에 대응하는 통신 허브로 활용되었습니다.
• 대통령의 권한이 현대 역사상 유례없는 수준으로 확장되었다고 분석됩니다.

도입

본 기사는 도널드 트럼프 행정부의 리더십 스타일과 그로 인해 발생한 지정학적 및 내부 통치 구조의 변화가 투자 환경에 미치는 영향을 분석하는 데 중요합니다. 행정부의 권한이 재정립되고 확장되는 과정은 국제 관계의 역학 변화뿐만 아니라, 기업 활동에 영향을 미치는 규제 환경과 정책 불확실성을 증대시키기 때문에 투자자들은 이러한 구조적 변화를 심층적으로 이해해야 합니다.

본문 1: 행정부 권한의 재정립과 리더십의 변화

매기 해버먼은 트럼프 대통령의 행정부 운영이 기존의 틀을 벗어난 새로운 형태의 권력 행사로 설명합니다. 그녀는 트럼프가 자신의 고문들의 의견을 무시하고 이란 전쟁을 진행시킨 사례를 언급하며, 이는 기존의 의사결정 구조가 해체되고 새로운 형태의 권력 관계가 형성되었음을 시사합니다. 이러한 행정부 내 권력의 집중과 확장은 정책 결정의 일관성과 예측 가능성에 영향을 미치며, 이는 장기적인 거시경제 환경의 불확실성을 높이는 요인으로 작용합니다. 투자 관점에서 볼 때, 리더십의 급격한 변화는 정책의 지속성과 시장의 신뢰도에 직접적인 영향을 미치므로, 이러한 내부적 역학 관계를 면밀히 살피는 것이 필수적입니다.

본문 2: 위기 관리와 내부 통제 실패의 연관성

트럼프 행정부의 사례는 외교적 결정(이란 전쟁)과 내부 사안(에프스타인 파일)이 어떻게 상호작용하는지를 보여줍니다. 해버먼이 언급한 대통령실 상황실이 외교적 위기뿐만 아니라 에프스타인 파일과 같은 내부 사안을 다루는 통신 허브로 기능했다는 점은, 최고위층의 의사결정 과정에서 정보 관리와 내부 통제 시스템의 취약성이 드러났음을 의미합니다. 이러한 위기 관리 과정에서의 정보 흐름과 의사결정 과정의 투명성 부족은 정부의 신뢰도를 약화시키고, 이는 궁극적으로 국제적 리스크와 국내 정책의 안정성에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 기업 경영 환경에서 내부 통제와 투명성은 필수적이며, 이러한 정치적 불안정성이 반영된 환경은 기업의 운영 리스크를 평가할 때 반드시 고려해야 할 요소입니다.

본문 3: 지정학적 불확실성과 장기적 전망

트럼프 행정부의 리더십 변화와 권한 확장은 중동 및 유럽 지역의 지정학적 역학 관계에 장기적인 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 이란 전쟁과 같은 대외 정책 결정은 지역 안보의 불안정성을 심화시키며, 이는 에너지 시장, 국제 무역 흐름, 그리고 글로벌 공급망에 직접적인 변동성을 야기합니다. 또한, 행정부 권한의 비정상적인 확장은 국제 규범과 동맹 체제에 대한 신뢰를 약화시켜, 장기적으로는 국제 시스템의 안정성에 대한 의문을 제기할 수 있습니다. 따라서 투자자들은 단기적인 정책 변화뿐만 아니라, 이러한 구조적 변화가 국제 질서에 미치는 장기적인 파급 효과와 잠재적인 제도적 리스크를 종합적으로 분석해야 합니다.

결론

결론적으로, 트럼프 행정부의 사례는 행정부 권한의 변화가 외교 정책과 내부 위기 관리에 어떻게 영향을 미치는지 보여주는 중요한 시사점을 제공합니다. 행정부의 권한 확장이 정책 결정의 예측 가능성을 저해하고 내부 통제 시스템의 취약성을 노출시켰다는 점이 핵심입니다. 향후 투자자들은 지정학적 리스크와 내부 거버넌스 리스크가 복합적으로 작용하는 환경 속에서, 정책의 일관성과 제도적 안정성을 핵심 지표로 삼아 미래 전망을 예측해야 할 것입니다. 특히, 행정부 권한의 재편이 글로벌 공급망과 국제 협력에 미치는 영향을 지속적으로 모니터링할 필요가 있습니다.

---

원문 링크: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMibkFVX3lxTFBXdkVmczItUTZpQVFrOTJBdTZneGItaXJYdnB2T3ZSZkdyNFFFUTF1RTdScTlmYXlMVGFEcDF5SzFmYXRmZWZYa1ZMNlNuQ1lCcERCMTVYZHBEV0RnN1VYdS1TMjNrMDZqaTA1MWR3?oc=5

“Regime Change” Author Maggie Haberman on Trump’s Imperial Presidency, Epstein Files & War on Iran - Democracy Now!

Sign up for Democracy Now!'s Daily Digest to get our latest headlines and stories delivered to your inbox every day.

We continue our conversation with Maggie Haberman, whose recent book with fellow New York Times journalist Jonathan Swan, Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump , digs into the handling of the Epstein files and the president’s decision to wage war on Iran.

Haberman says Trump “basically ignored many of his own advisers and just went ahead” with the war on Iran after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed regime change would be easily accomplished during a briefing in the Situation Room.

“This is a government run by … about a half-dozen people, give or take,” says Haberman. The way Trump has been operating the government during his second term is “a form of regime change in our own country,” says Haberman. “This is a reimagining of the U.S. presidency, an expansion of executive power on a level we have not seen before in modern history, in some ways ever.”

AMY GOODMAN : I mean, there is so much here. For example, talk about the use of the war room, as you describe it, both in a piece in the Times Magazine but also in your book, “Inside the White House Freakout Over the Epstein Files.”

MAGGIE HABERMAN : Yeah, the Times Magazine headline was, I think, pretty precise. So, we describe in this book a handful of what were many meetings in the White House Situation Room, which is a meeting where — a room where presidents have — and it’s a series of conference rooms, but there’s this large conference room that people have seen pictures of presidents sitting in. The complex itself is where President Obama monitored the raid to kill Osama bin Laden. It is where presidents have talked about wars.

It is also what became essentially a crisis comms hub for the Trump team — not the president, he was not in these meetings, but his team — trying to deal with the general issue of the Epstein files, which Trump wanted nothing to do with. Trump obviously was very close with Jeffrey Epstein in the 1990s. He often talks about a falling out, that we still don’t totally understand, in the 2000s. But his name was in these files. And some of that was public already. But he just didn’t want to hear about it at all. And he had several people in his government who had repeatedly talked about transparency in these files once they got in office. The problem is, the president did not want anything to do with this.

So, they then were in these meetings trying to figure out what they could put out to the public, how to handle Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime associate and girlfriend. And it ends up in these remarkable moments where they are discussing, among other things, you know, an uncorroborated secondhand allegation made to a reporter a decade earlier about Trump, you know, sleeping with a woman who — in Jeffrey Epstein’s house, and that the woman — that Trump had had a nipple fetish and that he had clearly abused her body, according to this secondhand account, which had already been public. But this was the kind of thing they found themselves talking about in the Situation Room. It was not really, in those meetings that we focused on, about justice for these victims. Now, there were other discussions on that front, but that was not what this was.

AMY GOODMAN : And talk about who was there.

MAGGIE HABERMAN : It was the top levels of the White House and the DOJ . It was the chief of staff; the vice president; Pam Bondi, then the attorney general, who they mostly all blamed for comments that she had made publicly and how she handled it; Todd Blanche, now the attorney general, then the deputy attorney general; Kash Patel, the FBI director; Dave Warrington, then the White House counsel. The list goes on, and that’s a partial list. I mean, there were more than a dozen people.

AMY GOODMAN : And it’s so significant, Todd Blanche, given that he is the attorney general now.

AMY GOODMAN : The questions he was just asked by Kristen Welker on NBC about whether he would be independent, and he took great affront. He’s the one who handled the Epstein files.

MAGGIE HABERMAN : He was the person who was overseeing the majority of how this was dealt with. Pam Bondi talked about that in House testimony. And while she was certainly present in a bunch of these meetings and aware of what was happening, it is true that Blanche is who the White House tasked with this. And he was tasked with this because they believed that he would be, you know, clear with them about what was there and be clear with them about how they would move forward. There is a total eradication of the norm of DOJ independence that has existed since Watergate. What this White House will say is it is an agency of the executive branch, there is no actual independence. In this case, the middleman just doesn’t exist.

AMY GOODMAN : Talk about the briefing, Maggie Haberman, in the war room that Benjamin Netanyahu gave —

AMY GOODMAN : — leading up to the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, how unusual this is.

MAGGIE HABERMAN : Right. This is an unusual meeting in the Situation Room, that large conference room, from the other end of the spectrum. This is actually about matters of governance. There are few things as important as how a president takes the country to war. And that is what this meeting was about. But this was a foreign leader sitting in the Situation Room. Trump normally sits at the head of that big conference table. And in this instance, in our reporting — and again, we get into this in detail in the book; this was really the last reporting we did for this book — Trump moved his seat so they were sitting across from each other, which said something about Netanyahu and the level of respect that Trump was conferring on him. But we could not find any other example of a foreign head of state being present with the president of the United States in person for this kind of a meeting.

And in this meeting, Netanyahu made the case for a regime change scenario, trying to pull the U.S. in. Various steps would happen. Various things were unlikely to, you know, be constricting, according to Netanyahu. He portrayed the Iranian regime as fairly easy to topple. And he played this video for the president in the conference room, which was of, you know, possible leaders who could take over, which most of the U.S. government did not take very seriously.

Trump, however, liked the sound of this. Trump, at the end of this presentation, said something to the effect of “Sounds good to me.” And while there were more conversations with his own government, it was clear to his own advisers how appealing this was to Trump. Trump was acting on instinct. This was after the Maduro raid in Venezuela earlier in the year. He believed the Iranian regime was a paper tiger, based on how it had responded the previous year during the 12-day war. And the president basically ignored many of his own advisers and just went ahead.

AMY GOODMAN : Do you think Epstein also drove some of this? I mean, you had Epstein dominating the headlines in December. So, then he attacks Venezuela, gets Maduro and his wife, wipes the headlines off, very successful for President Trump. Then they’re creeping back in again in February. The whole operation was called Operation Epic Fury, which many dubbed “Epstein Fury.”

AMY GOODMAN : What drives Trump? What drove him into — the man who fought endless wars?

MAGGIE HABERMAN : We don’t have reporting suggesting this was an active diversion or an active distraction, although, obviously, Trump likes distractions. And we talk about that in the book, as well. We have a scene early on where they were looking at ways to wipe the controversy over an OMB memo that had gone out, you know, off the front pages. And one of the things they were talking about was, you know, “Let’s talk about sending migrants to Gitmo.” That was one possibility. So, obviously, he likes distractions. But we don’t have reporting suggesting that this was the active method behind it. It almost doesn’t matter, though. He was expanding his own power. That is the main focus for him now.

AMY GOODMAN : So, you have Netanyahu in the Situation Room. And now you have Trump on this secret flight. And it turns out, I think it was The Washington Post exposé saying, that the CIA didn’t hold much stock in Israeli intelligence that Trump was being targeted on this plane.

MAGGIE HABERMAN : So, we actually have different reporting on that And again, this is all still emerging. But our understanding is that this is actually a separate threat stream from what the Israeli government had been discussing. In real time, the CIA , according to our reporting on what was motivating them to get the president out, did not have a confidence assessment one way or the other in real time. Now, they later, I think, looked at it and were less confident. But that was not — I think things are getting conflated here. But again, we are all still trying to figure out what happened.

AMY GOODMAN : We’re talking to Maggie Haberman, co-author of Regime Change . Let’s talk about the inner circle. Talk about people like Stephen Miller, how he rose to power, how important he is to Trump, what this immigrant crackdown is all about. Talk about the Rubio-Vance competition to succeed President Trump. I thought it was interesting that Rubio was on the plane that possibly was targeted. He was left on the plane. And it then turned out that Trump is telling people behind the scenes that he’s for Vance now?

MAGGIE HABERMAN : Trump is quite capable of saying different things to different audiences, as you and I both know, and I think that that will continue. I think that Vance is likely, you know, to be the nominee, which at the moment he seems like he will be. Trump will get with him. I don’t think Trump is going to make it easy for Vance or anyone who is the Republican nominee, because Trump does not like attention shifting elsewhere. And Trump’s legacy is less about policy, in his mind; it’s about Trump. So, that’s one piece of it.

Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMibkFVX3lxTFBXdkVmczItUTZpQVFrOTJBdTZneGItaXJYdnB2T3ZSZkdyNFFFUTF1RTdScTlmYXlMVGFEcDF5SzFmYXRmZWZYa1ZMNlNuQ1lCcERCMTVYZHBEV0RnN1VYdS1TMjNrMDZqaTA1MWR3?oc=5