As power politics returns, Korea must stand on its own - The Korea Times

Summary

The U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran signal the end of an older model of global politics and the emergence of a new one. To ensure its survival, Korea must address its vulnerabilities and security blind spots, develop a new strategic playbook and fully commit to self-reliance. Traditionally, interstate military operations have been conducted within the strategic framework of diplomatic, informational, military, and economic instruments of national power. This model, systematized during the Cold War through U.S. national security decision-making structures and joint doctrine, has long served as a foundation for the integrated application of national power. Since then, it has been widely adopted in military doctrines and strategic planning processes worldwide. From this perspective, recent U.S. military action against Iran carries significant strategic implications. Notably, the United States — the very architect of this framework — appears to be prioritizing military pressure over fully integrated coordination with diplomatic, informational and economic tools. This has raised concerns within the international community that the global order is shifting from a norms-based system toward a more power-centric one. The United States now appears to favor rapid strategic responsiveness over multilateral processes grounded in comprehensive authorization from the United Nations Security Council. Compared to past operations such as the 1991 Gulf War, which were conducted within a U.N.-centered collective security framework, current actions emphasize speed and operational flexibility over multilateral legitimacy. This points to the emergence of a “post-legitimization” pattern as a possible model for future interventions, with states acting first and providing justification later. Significant changes are also evident in the informational domain. Rather than clearly articulating ultimate objectives and end states, the United States has maintained strategic ambiguity while preserving operational initiative. At the same time, by integrating satellite surveillance, signals intelligence and cyber monitoring systems, it has secured a precision intelligence advantage. This enables targeted pressure on facilities linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and missile forces, reinforcing the reality that information superiority is central to gaining operational initiative in modern warfare. From a military standpoint, the most defining feature of the current conflict is the structural asymmetry between U.S. and Iranian capabilities. The United States relies on limited but highly precise long-range strike capabilities, including carrier strike groups, strategic bombers, precision-guided munitions and global intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems. Iran, by contrast, employs asymmetric strategies centered on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including proxy forces, mine warfare, coastal anti-ship missiles, unmanned aerial systems and ballistic missiles. In constrained maritime environments such as Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, these asymmetric capabilities can significantly amplify strategic impact. In this sense, the conflict represents a classic contest between long-range precision strikes and anti-access/area denial strategies. Economic dynamics have also shifted. Following Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz — through which nearly 20 percent of global crude oil passes — the United States signaled a potential release from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve to stabilize prices while simultaneously increasing sanctions pressure. In doing so, it has leveraged both energy resources and the dollar-based financial system, demonstrating a comprehensive approach that mobilizes military, energy and economic tools to compel strategic outcomes. Taken together, these developments underscore a clear reality: The international system is no longer anchored in a stable, norms-based order. National strategic judgment is increasingly taking precedence over collective consensus, marking a broader shift from cooperation toward competition. Korea must respond to this evolving security and economic environment with strategic clarity and long-term vision. First, in the diplomatic domain, Korea should build a multilayered strategic network spanning the Middle East, Europe and the Indo-Pacific region, while institutionalizing security cooperation to safeguard critical energy routes. Second, in the informational domain, it must strengthen national-level intelligence capabilities by integrating reconnaissance satellites, maritime surveillance and cyber defense systems. Third, in the military domain, Korea should expand its ability to deploy mobile task groups to protect distant sea lines of communication and enhance sustained maritime control, particularly through submarine forces. Over the long term, acquiring continuous deterrence assets such as nuclear-powered submarines should also be considered. Fourth, in the economic domain, Korea should institutionalize economic security by expanding strategic petroleum reserves, diversifying energy imports and strengthening supply chain resilience in key sectors including defense manufacturing, shipbuilding and semiconductors. As a trade-dependent nation, Korea must draw clear lessons from the Middle East conflict. Security is not guaranteed by rhetoric but by capability. In a transforming international order, survival depends on preparedness for external threats. Emotional responses and wishful thinking offer little strategic value. The world is steadily moving toward an era of strategic self-reliance and Korea stands at the center of that transformation. Ret. Navy Capt. Moon Keun-sik is adjunct professor at Graduate School of Public Policy of Hanyang University in Seoul.