트럼프, 이란과의 전쟁 재개로 중간선거 위험 증가
Why is Trump risking midterm disaster by resuming an already unpopular war with Iran? - The Guardian
지정학적 긴장 고조는 불확실성을 증가시키고 글로벌 불안정성에 대한 위험 프리미엄을 높입니다.
핵심 요약
휴전 직후 이란 공습 재개는 전쟁 장기화 및 중간선거에 부정적 영향을 미칠 위험이 있습니다.
핵심요약
- 트럼프는 휴전 후 불과 한 달 만에 이란에 대한 공습을 재개했습니다.
- 베르사유에서 서명된 양해각서(MoU)가 무산되었다고 판단한 후 공습을 재개했습니다.
- 이란은 미국 동맹국들에 대해 드론 및 미사일 공격으로 보복했습니다.
- 이러한 전쟁 재개는 유권자들에게 인플레이션으로 인한 연료 및 생활비 부담을 가중시켜 중간선거에 불리하게 작용할 수 있습니다.
도입
본 기사는 트럼프 전 대통령이 이란과의 전쟁을 재개하는 결정이 중간선거에 미치는 정치적, 경제적 위험을 분석하며 투자자들이 주목해야 할 지정학적 리스크를 제시합니다. 휴전 직후의 군사적 행동 변화가 선거 결과에 미칠 잠재적 영향을 평가하는 것이 핵심입니다.
본문 1: 지정학적 리스크와 외교적 모순
트럼프 행정부의 외교 정책은 일관성보다는 고위험-고수익 전략으로 특징지어집니다. 기사에 따르면, 트럼프 대통령이 휴전 협정 직후 공습을 재개한 것은 베르사유에서 서명한 양해각서(MoU)가 무산되었다는 판단에 근거합니다. 이는 외교적 약속과 실제 군사 행동 사이의 모순을 드러냅니다. 이러한 행동은 공화당 내 네오콘 보수 세력으로부터 비판을 받았던 양해각서에 대한 일종의 후퇴로 해석될 수 있으며, 이는 동맹국과의 관계 설정에 있어 예측 불가능성을 높입니다. 이처럼 외교적 목표와 군사적 실현 사이의 불일치는 국제 관계의 변동성을 심화시키고, 이는 장기적인 안정성을 저해하는 요인으로 작용합니다.
본문 2: 경제적 영향과 선거 불확실성
군사적 결정이 정치적 결과에 미치는 영향은 경제적 측면과 밀접하게 연결되어 있습니다. 이란과의 전쟁 재개는 인플레이션 압력에 직접적인 영향을 미치며, 이는 연료 및 생활비 상승으로 이어져 일반 유권자들의 경제적 부담을 가중시킵니다. 이러한 경제적 부담은 특히 중도층 유권자들의 지지 기반을 약화시키는 요인으로 작용할 수 있습니다. 따라서 군사적 결정이 경제적 비용을 증가시키는 것은 단순한 외교 문제를 넘어 선거 결과에 직접적인 영향을 미치는 변수로 작용합니다. 트럼프 행보가 유권자들의 실질적인 경제적 고통과 연결될 때, 이는 정치적 지지율에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있다는 점을 간과해서는 안 됩니다.
본문 3: 장기적 전망과 위험 관리
이러한 전쟁 재개는 단기적인 군사적 목표 달성보다는 장기적인 국제 관계의 안정성에 더 큰 위험을 초래할 수 있습니다. 이란의 보복 공격은 걸프 지역의 동맹국들에게 추가적인 불안정성을 야기하며, 이는 지역 전체의 안보 환경을 악화시킵니다. 투자자들은 이러한 지정학적 불확실성이 에너지 시장과 글로벌 공급망에 미치는 파급 효과를 지속적으로 모니터링해야 합니다. 특히, 외교적 합의가 무산되었을 때 발생하는 군사적 충돌 위험은 잠재적인 경제적 손실로 이어질 수 있으므로, 위험 관리 전략을 재검토할 필요가 있습니다.
결론
트럼프의 군사적 결정은 외교적 일관성과 경제적 현실 사이의 복잡한 균형을 요구하며, 이는 중간선거의 정치적 결과에 중대한 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 향후 투자자들은 지정학적 리스크가 어떻게 경제적 인플레이션과 선거 지지율로 연결되는지에 대한 상호작용을 면밀히 관찰해야 합니다. 이러한 복합적인 변수들은 향후 시장의 변동성을 예측하는 데 중요한 지표가 될 것입니다.
Original Article
Why is Trump risking midterm disaster by resuming an already unpopular war with Iran? - The Guardian
Less than a month after hailing a ceasefire, Trump resumed strikes on Iran, a move experts warn could prolong the war and hurt Republicans ahead of midterms
For half a century, Donald Trump has performed a public high-wire act based on high-stakes risks and shattering time-honored norms to get what he wants.
The approach has paid off handsomely, helping him survive multiple bankruptcies to reach billionaire status and numerous legal and political scandals to be elected US president twice.
Now a leader who once owned some of the world’s best-known casinos may be about to take the biggest gamble of his presidency by restarting a war with Iran less than a month after agreeing to a ceasefire that he hailed as necessary to stop an economic crisis on a par with the Great Depression .
In the past week, Trump has ordered a resumption of strikes against Iranian military and infrastructure targets after concluding that the memorandum of understanding (MoU) he signed in the Palace of Versailles on 17 June was dead in the water. Iran has retaliated with drone and missile strikes against US allies in the Gulf. The MoU was the subject of biting criticism from the Republicans’ neoconservative wing, who denounced it as a capitulation to Iran.
Less than four months before November’s midterm elections in which Democrats are seeking to recapture both houses of Congress, Trump appears to be flirting with electoral disaster in re-stoking a war that is already unpopular with voters – not least for its inflationary impact on fuel and living costs.
“There’s basically no timeline in which this makes any sense for preserving [Republicans’] midterm performance,” said Curt Mills , executive editor of the American Conservative, a magazine promoting isolationist foreign policy goals favored by Trump’s “American first” supporters.
“I think it’s a total loser. It’s evidence that Trump doesn’t really care about the midterms. He’s like Icarus with the sun with this stuff – it seems to be a personal vendetta with the Iranians.”
Beyond the electoral impact, experts warn that escalation could lead inexorably to a land invasion of Iranian territory – a decision which could in turn bring on the sort of long-term “forever wars” he previously foreswore and condemned past presidents for.
“My initial assessment was that this would just be another blip, some cyclical violence, and then we go back [to the ceasefire and negotiations],” said Nate Swanson , a former state department and White House adviser on Iran. “But the escalation has already exceeded what I thought was possible.
“I see this as an effort to re-establish leverage and try to renegotiate the MoU, but it is highly risky with potentially devastating consequences – and, in my view, likely to be a failure.”
At the heart of the renewed violence is control over the strait of Hormuz , a strategically-vital waterway which was a conduit for 20% of the world’s energy exports before the war started on 28 February and which has now emerged as Tehran’s biggest bargaining chip as it seeks to resist pressure to make concessions on issues such as its nuclear program and support for proxies such as Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia group.
The MoU was intended to pave the way for a 60-day ceasefire during which negotiations would take place on Iran’s nuclear program.
At the same time, Iran would reopen the strait – having closed it in response to the US and Israeli attacks, causing global oil prices to soar – in exchange for significant sanctions relief, including the right to sell its oil in international markets and the unfreezing of billions of dollars of assets.
Iran fired on commercial vessels belonging to neighboring Gulf kingdoms after they used, with US naval protection, a shipping lane close to the shores of neutral Oman rather than previously used routes off the Iranian coast, where Tehran’s officials could control passage and charge “service” fees that Washington DC and its allies say are tantamount to illegal tolls.
Some analysts have blamed the flare-up on poor US negotiating, supposedly leading to misunderstandings and ambiguities in the MoU, which makes no mention of shipping lanes.
But Vali Nasr , a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies argued that the MoU’s collapse was a consequence of US and Iranian miscalculation.
“I don’t think there was a misunderstanding. I think this is exactly what Trump intended,” he said.
He cited recent comments by JD Vance, the US vice-president, suggesting that the MoU was signed to give an opportunity to replenish strategic oil reserves, thereby weakening Iran’s negotiating hand while temporarily easing the pressure on fuel costs.
“The MoU was mainly a breather for Trump to try to get what he wants, which is to get control of the strait or take it away from Iran,” Nasr said. “Trump is trying to take it away from them before he negotiates, so they are not in a position to resist his demands on the nuclear issue or anything else.
“Iran also made a gamble that it could basically use the 60 days in order to get some economic relief by bringing imports into the country, while making its position stronger. The bottom line is that there may have been a miscalculation. But there is no misunderstanding.
“Trump may have overestimated what he can do militarily, and again falls short [and decides] ‘I have to set up something else.’ The Iranians are also overestimating how much they can resist. This is something neither side knows.”
The potential for miscalculation is heightened by the absence of Iran specialists in Trump’s administration.
Swanson – who has said he was forced out of his state department post after a critical tweet from the rightwing influencer, Laura Loomer – blamed the deficiency on Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, who he said had “physically removed” key personnel.
“I’m struck by some of the leaks that have come out about decision-making in this war, where Rubio is reportedly skeptical about the regime change aims that the Israelis propose to Trump, but then says nothing,” said Swanson, now with the Atlantic Council. “He’s basically neutralized the [state] department, then stays quiet [but] privately tries to clear his name in the aftermath.”