미국, 이란 전쟁으로 1320억 달러 지출…경제 성장률 2.5%로 하락
Was It Worth It? The True Cost of Trump’s Iran War - Council on Foreign Relations
이란 전쟁으로 인한 경제적 파장으로 단기 시장 심리가 흐려질 전망입니다.
핵심 요약
이란 전쟁으로 미국이 1320억 달러 지출하며, 세계 경제 성장률이 2.5%로 떨어졌습니다.
핵심요약
- 이란 전쟁으로 미국이 1320억 달러 지출
- 가솔린 가격 1갤런당 4.56달러로 정점 기록
- 비료 가격 47% 급등
- 이란 사망자 3,375명 이상
- 세계은행, 전세계 경제 성장률 2.5%로 하향 조정
도입
이란 전쟁은 미국과 글로벌 경제에 미치는 영향이 크기 때문에 투자자에게 중요한 주제입니다. 이 전쟁은 인플레이션 압력과 공급망 차질을 심화시켜 장기적인 경제 전망에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 또한, 에너지 시장 변동성과 지정학적 리스크가 증가하면서 투자 전략에 대한 재검토가 필요합니다.
본문 1: 에너지 시장 변동성 확대
이란 전쟁으로 가솔린 가격이 1갤런당 4.56달러로 급등하며, 에너지 시장 변동성이 확대되었습니다. 이는 소비자 물가 상승 압력을 가중시켰으며, 특히 운송 및 제조업에 종사하는 기업들의 원가 부담이 증가했습니다. 이러한 에너지 가격 상승은 인플레이션을 악화시켜 중앙은행의 금리 인상 압력을 높일 수 있습니다. 장기적으로 에너지 시장의 불안정성은 투자자들에게 리스크를 제공할 수 있으며, 에너지 관련 주식의 변동성을 높일 수 있습니다.
본문 2: 글로벌 경제 성장률 하락
세계은행이 전세계 경제 성장률을 2.5%로 하향 조정하며, 이란 전쟁의 경제적 영향이 글로벌 규모로 확대되고 있음을 보여주었습니다. 이는 특히 개발도상국에 대한 영향을 크게 미칠 수 있으며, 국제 무역과 투자 활동에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 글로벌 경제 성장률의 하락은 기업들의 매출과 수익성에 직격탄을 가할 수 있으며, 이는 주가 하락과 같은 시장 반응을 초래할 수 있습니다. 투자자들은 글로벌 경제 전망을 고려하여 포트폴리오를 조정해야 할 필요가 있습니다.
본문 3: 지정학적 리스크 증가
이란 전쟁은 중동 지역에서의 지정학적 리스크를 높였으며, 이는 에너지 공급망과 국제 무역에 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 이러한 리스크는 기업들의 운영 환경을 악화시켜, 특히 에너지 및 운송 분야에 종사하는 기업들의 수익성에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 또한, 지정학적 불안정성은 투자자들에게 추가적인 불확실성을 제공하며, 이는 시장 변동성을 높일 수 있습니다. 장기적으로 지정학적 리스크의 증가는 글로벌 경제와 시장 전망에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다.
결론
이란 전쟁은 미국과 글로벌 경제에 미치는 영향이 크며, 에너지 시장 변동성 확대, 글로벌 경제 성장률 하락, 지정학적 리스크 증가와 같은 다양한 요인들을 고려해야 합니다. 투자자들은 이러한 리스크를 고려하여 포트폴리오를 조정하고, 장기적인 시장 전망을 재검토해야 할 필요가 있습니다. 향후 에너지 시장 동향과 지정학적 상황 변화를 주의 깊게 모니터링하는 것이 중요합니다.
Original Article
Was It Worth It? The True Cost of Trump’s Iran War - Council on Foreign Relations
Max Boot is a historian, bestselling author, and foreign-policy analyst. His latest book, a biography of Ronald Reagan titled Reagan: His Life and Legend , is his third New York Times bestseller.
With the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Wednesday, the Iran war is over, at least for now. The full ramifications are not yet obvious. We do not know, for example, what restrictions on its nuclear program, if any, Iran will ultimately agree on as part of the follow-on negotiations—though the economic windfall President Donald Trump is offering Tehran up front greatly lessens the Islamic Republic’s incentive to compromise. But one thing can already be said with confidence: The war was not worth the high price paid for it.
There is, first, the human cost . The U.S. lost thirteen troops in the conflict, while Iran lost over 3,375 people, including 170 killed in what was likely a Tomahawk missile strike on a girls’ school. Twenty-six people who were also killed in Iran’s missile and drone attacks on Israel, and dozens more in various Gulf states. At least two thousand people have been killed in Lebanon where Israel has mounted a major offensive in response to Hezbollah attacks.
Then there is the economic cost. Moody’s Analytics estimates that the war has cost U.S. consumers and taxpayers about $132 billion so far and counting. The largest share of that came through the price at the pump. Gasoline prices peaked at an average of $4.56 a gallon before dropping once it appeared that the two sides might come to an agreement. Fertilizer prices also climbed about 47 percent during the war, indirectly contributing to rising food costs. Persian Gulf countries and the Global South were hit even harder than the United States. As a result of the war, the World Bank downgraded its global forecast for economic growth this year to 2.5 percent —the lowest level since the Covid-19 pandemic.
Finally, there is the military cost. According to The Wall Street Journal , the deputy secretary of defense just told members of Congress last week that the department will be requesting $80 billion in supplemental funding to cover the cost of the war and other expenses. That is almost certainly a massive underestimate. It does not include, for example, the cost of repairing the twenty U.S. bases in the region that suffered damage from Iranian attacks. The United States will also need to pay to repair or replace the forty-two U.S. military aircraft , both manned and unmanned, that were lost or damaged in the conflict.
It will be even harder and costlier to replace all of the high-end U.S. missiles employed in the conflict. The U.S. fired more than one thousand Tomahawk cruise missiles and more than 1,500 air-defense missiles. The expended munitions include more than half of the prewar inventory of Patriot missiles, which are desperately needed by Ukraine to defend against Russian missile attacks. Replacing those stockpiles could take up to six years, the Wall Street Journal reports , and in the meantime the United States will be less prepared for a major conflict against China or Russia.
Other states in the region also suffered major damage. The Gulf states suffered an estimated $58 billion in damage, according to one estimate . The damage to Iran is even more extensive; by some estimates, it will cost $300 billion to rebuild. And yet Iran emerged with most of its drones and missiles intact. Its nuclear program was set back by bombing—particularly the strikes conducted by U.S. and Israeli aircraft in June 2025. Iran is not believed to have undertaken any enrichment since then, though the regime still retains an estimated eleven tons of enriched uranium along with bomb-making know-how and capacity.
But while international negotiations with Iran have long centered on the country’s nuclear program, this conflict allowed Iran to unveil a new economic weapon of mass destruction: using drones, missiles and mines, it was able to close the Strait of Hormuz to all but a trickle of the usual maritime traffic. Because the Strait normally carries 20 percent of the world’s oil, its closure plunged the world into an energy crisis and forced Trump to end the war without achieving his objectives of regime change, the destruction of Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, or the end of its support of regional proxies such as Hezbollah.
The generous terms of the MOU—under which the U.S. pledges to offer Iran sanctions waivers followed by a total lifting of sanctions, giving Iran access to frozen funds, and even providing a $300 billion reconstruction fund—can be seen as largely the cost of re-opening the Strait. That cost may grow, because under the agreement, Iran only pledged to allow free access through the critical waterway for sixty days. Tehran has given every indication that it will then try to charge, in coordination with Oman, “user fees” that amount to tolls by another name. That would be a violation of the principle of freedom of navigation that the U.S. has upheld since its wars against Barbary Pirates in the earliest days of the republic.
In sum, the Iran war cost a lot—in economic, military, and human terms—and delivered little tangible benefit. It may, in fact, embolden and empower Iran. Tehran can now boast of having survived a joint U.S.-Israel attack and emerging with its regime intact, even if a few of the players at the top have changed. Iran can now use the funds it receives from the lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of assets to rebuild not only its economy but also its military capacity—and to increase support for proxy groups like Hezbollah.
Trump is a master of political messaging, but it will be hard for him to spin this conflict as anything other than a grievous defeat.
This work represents the views and opinions solely of the author. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.