미국-이스라엘의 이란 전쟁, 전략적 재앙으로 판명
The war on Iran was a strategic disaster for America and Israel - Middle East Eye
중동 지opolitical 리스크 분석이 단기적으로 시장에 미치는 영향이 미미해 중립적인 입장을 유지합니다.
핵심 요약
미국은 아프가니스탄과 이라크에서 20년 동안 수조 달러를 지출했지만 목표를 달성하지 못하며 전략적 패배를 경험했습니다.
핵심요약
- 미국은 아프가니스탄과 이라크에서 20년 동안 수조 달러를 지출했지만 목표를 달성하지 못했습니다.
- 이란과의 전쟁은 핵 풍부화나 미사일 문제보다 서아시아의 힘 균형이 핵심 쟁점이었습니다.
- 파괴와 승리는 다른 개념이며, 파괴가 많다고 승리가 아닌 경우도 있습니다.
- 미국은 베트남과 아프가니스탄에서도 대규모 파괴를 일으켰지만 정치적 목표를 달성하지 못했습니다.
- 이란은 군사 인프라 타격, 리더 암살, 경제 타격 등 extensive damage를 입었지만 전략적 패배는 아닙니다.
도입
이 기사는 미국과 이스라엘이 이란과 맞서며 전략적 패배를 경험한 과정을 분석하며, 투자자들에게 중요한 교훈을 제공합니다. 특히, 군사적 우위가 항상 정치적 승리로 이어지지 않는다는 점을 강조하며, 중동 지역에서의 투자 리스크를 재평가할 필요성을 시사합니다.
본문 1: 군사적 파괴와 정치적 승리의 괴리
기사는 미국이 아프가니스탄과 이라크에서 20년 동안 수조 달러를 지출했지만 정치적 목표를 달성하지 못했음을 강조합니다. 이는 군사적 파괴가 정치적 승리로 이어지지 않을 수 있다는 점을 보여주며, 중동 지역의 정치적 불안정성이 지속될 수 있음을 시사합니다. 투자자들은 군사적 충돌이 발생하는 지역에서의 투자 리스크를 재평가할 필요가 있습니다.
본문 2: 서아시아 힘 균형의 변화
이 전쟁은 핵 풍부화나 미사일 문제보다 서아시아의 힘 균형이 핵심 쟁점이었습니다. 이는 중동 지역의 정치적 구조가 변화하고 있음을 의미하며, 기존의 힘 균형이 무너질 수 있음을 시사합니다. 투자자들은 중동 지역의 정치적 변화에 주목하며, 새로운 힘 균형이 형성되는 과정을 모니터링할 필요가 있습니다.
본문 3: 파괴와 승리의 재정의 필요성
기사는 파괴와 승리가 다른 개념이며, 파괴가 많다고 승리가 아닌 경우도 있다는 점을 강조합니다. 이는 군사적 충돌이 발생하는 지역에서 투자 리스크를 평가할 때 파괴의 정도만으로 승패를 판단하지 말아야 함을 시사합니다. 투자자들은 군사적 충돌이 발생하는 지역의 정치적 상황과 경제적 여건을 종합적으로 고려할 필요가 있습니다.
결론
이 기사는 미국과 이스라엘이 이란과의 전쟁에서 전략적 패배를 경험한 과정을 분석하며, 군사적 우위가 항상 정치적 승리로 이어지지 않을 수 있다는 점을 강조했습니다. 투자자들은 중동 지역의 정치적 불안정성과 힘 균형의 변화를 모니터링하며, 군사적 충돌이 발생하는 지역의 투자 리스크를 재평가할 필요가 있습니다. 향후 중동 지역의 정치적 변화와 경제적 여건을 주목할 필요가 있습니다.
Original Article
The war on Iran was a strategic disaster for America and Israel - Middle East Eye
When neoconservative writer Robert Kagan, who spent decades as a cheerleader for America's forever wars, warned that the confrontation with Iran could become one of the greatest strategic defeats in modern American history, many dismissed his assessment as alarmist and exaggerated.
After all, the conventional wisdom in the West is that Iran had suffered extensive damage. Its military infrastructure was targeted, its foremost leaders, senior commanders and scientists were assassinated, its economy was battered, and the Axis of Resistance absorbed serious blows across multiple fronts.
How could anyone speak of Iranian victory under such circumstances?
The answer depends on a question that war experts and military historians have wrestled with for centuries: how should victory be measured?
If wars are judged by the amount of destruction inflicted, then the side possessing overwhelming military superiority will almost always appear victorious. Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that destruction and victory are not the same thing.
The United States destroyed vast portions of Vietnam and still failed to achieve its objectives, while the Soviet Union inflicted enormous damage in Afghanistan and still withdrew in defeat.
The US spent two decades in Afghanistan and trillions of dollars only to watch the government it had built collapse within days of its departure. In Iraq , it carried out regime change and attempted social engineering before having to withdraw in humiliation after facing fierce resistance and spending trillions of dollars.
In each case, military power has proven it can destroy but not necessarily dictate political outcomes. This distinction is essential for understanding the recent confrontation between Iran and the US-Israel axis.
The war was never fundamentally about nuclear enrichment , nor was it simply about missiles, sanctions or Iranian support for regional allies.
At its core, it was a fight over the future balance of power in West Asia. Washington and Tel Aviv sought to consolidate a regional order built on Israeli supremacy and American dominance, while forcing Iran to abandon the policies and alliances that had made it the principal obstacle to that project.
By that measure, the war ended not with an Iranian surrender but with a profound failure of the American-Zionist project.
To understand Iran's victory, one must begin before the first missile was launched.
On 22 September 2023, standing before the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled his vision of a "New Middle East".
The stereotypes and perceptions built through years about Iran being run by an irrational theocratic 'regime' proved not only overblown but also strategically costly
The map he displayed effectively erased Palestine , treating a question long considered the central issue of the region as a problem that had already been solved.
The future, according to this vision, belonged to normalisation agreements under the so-called Abraham Accords , economic corridors, technological integration and strategic partnerships linking Israel to the Persian or Arab Gulf and beyond.
The Abraham Accords were only the beginning.
Israel's integration into US Central Command, expanding relations with US-allied Gulf states, and the proposed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), all pointed towards a regional order in which Israel would emerge as the dominant military, economic and technological power.
The Zionist regime would provide security, Iran would be isolated, Palestine would be marginalised and resistance movements would be weakened or eliminated. The region would finally be reorganised around Israeli supremacy backed by American power.
The events of 7 October 2023 shattered that vision.
What followed was more than a war on Gaza ; it was a regional struggle over the future political order of the Middle East. The subsequent campaigns against Gaza, Lebanon , Yemen , Syria , Iraq and eventually Iran, as well as the attempt to confiscate wide areas in the West Bank , were all connected to this larger objective.
The very outcome that Netanyahu and his Zionist and imperialist allies sought to prevent ultimately became the defining consequence of the war. Palestine returned to the centre of global politics, and Iran survived the assault designed to break it.
The assumptions underlying much of the American and Israeli strategy rested on the belief that sustained military pressure, economic warfare, an extensive sanctions regime, cyber operations, assassinations and internal unrest could eventually trigger political collapse or force strategic capitulation.
For years, discussions in Washington and Tel Aviv revolved around various forms of regime change or collapse, whether through maximum pressure, internal fragmentation, elite divisions, economic exhaustion or social upheaval.
None of these succeeded. The Islamic Republic suffered greatly, particularly economically, but its system remained intact. State institutions continued to function, command structures remained operational, leadership succession took place without systemic disruption, and government ministries continued their work.