The conflict with Iran has already entered a new phase. The clashes between the US, Israel, and Iran are escalating beyond airstrikes into a quasi-full-scale war involving naval, cyber, and proxy warfare simultaneously. The instability in the Strait of Hormuz is driving up energy and logistics costs, impacting the global economy as a whole. The United States is reallocating its forces in the Middle East, recalibrating its global strategy.

This is highly likely to lead to a dispersion of forces in East Asia and demands for expanded roles from allies. While a prolonged war of attrition is discussed as the most realistic scenario, the possibility of limited ground operations cannot be ruled out. The current situation is not merely a regional conflict but a process of reordering US security strategy, and its repercussions will inevitably extend to the Korean Peninsula.

The United States is seeking to institutionalize allies' military burden-sharing through the Iran conflict. This aligns with a structural shift in US security policy aimed at streamlining global fronts and managing China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea as a single strategic axis.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of the world's crude oil passes, is a key strategic point that the US defines as an "international public good that allies must protect together." Within this context, South Korea's approach of viewing Middle Eastern issues as external matters is no longer tenable. International politics requires reading the calculations hidden behind the surface of statements.

The message the US is sending to China is a prime example. Amidst the prolonged conflict in the Middle East, the US is demanding China share responsibility for maritime security while simultaneously sending a signal of deterrence, urging China not to escalate tensions in the South China Sea and Taiwan. If China creates new tensions while the US faces increased maritime security burdens in Hormuz and the Red Sea, the US will have to manage both the Middle East and Indo-Pacific fronts simultaneously. Therefore, while the US message may appear as a request for cooperation, it is, in reality, closer to a strategic warning to curb China's maritime expansion and prevent the escalation of fronts.

The message to North Korea should be interpreted in the same vein. President Trump's statement of "dialogue without preconditions" is, on the surface, a conciliatory gesture, but in reality, it is a signal of deterrence, urging North Korea not to escalate tensions during the Middle East conflict. The US needs to focus its strategic capabilities on the Iran conflict and does not want a new military crisis to emerge on the Korean Peninsula. This is not a diplomatic approach to persuade North Korea but a pragmatic judgment to manage the fronts.

The message to South Korea is even more direct. While mentioning dialogue with North Korea, President Trump specifically pointed to South Korea, Japan, and China, demanding their participation in defending the Strait of Hormuz. Furthermore, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee has clearly communicated the necessity of cooperation in Middle East maritime security to the South Korean government. If South Korea adopts a passive stance, the US is highly likely to interpret it as a lack of commitment to the alliance, which could lead to increased US pressure across all areas, including defense cost negotiations, the operation of US Forces Korea, and trade and technology negotiations.

The US has a precedent of redeploying some US Forces Korea personnel during past operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it can move its forces at any time if necessary. This is a prime example illustrating the asymmetry of the alliance structure.

President Trump's recent remarks are not mere diplomatic rhetoric. He is sending a message to the entire West that "the United States remains the world's strongest power, and allies must prove that resolve through action." This is not an individual request directed at a specific country but part of a structural movement by the US to redefine allied burden-sharing in the context of the Middle East conflict.

In the Iran theater, the US is reconfirming its military superiority by applying new warfare methods in practice, such as precision strikes, electronic warfare, and directed energy weapons. These changes are a clear signal to all potential challengers, including North Korea. While North Korea may be tempted to raise tensions by exploiting the US focus on the Middle East, the US's advanced capabilities have reached a level where they can neutralize North Korea's outdated air defense systems in a short period.

If North Korea misjudges this situation, the consequences could be fatal. Ultimately, Trump's remarks are interpreted as a warning to both allies and adversaries, showcasing US power and stating, "Do not test the US's strategic recalibration at this time."

Ultimately, the current situation poses a significant question for South Korea: Will South Korea remain a nation that only receives the protection of its alliance, or will it stand as a nation that shares the responsibilities of the alliance? This question is not about diplomatic rhetoric but about national survival strategy. When the world order is shaken, alliances are tested not by declarations but by actions. And the nation standing on that testing ground right now is none other than the Republic of Korea.

We must prevent a war on the Korean Peninsula due to the misjudgment of a communist state and a power vacuum, similar to the Korean War, as a result of our government's immature policy decisions.

◆ Park Pil-kyu

Editorial Board Member, Hankook Ilbo

ROK Army Academy Class of 40