Flashpoints | Security | East Asia

How Will South Korea Respond to the Iran-US Conflict?

Amid U.S. requests for naval involvement in the Strait of Hormuz, Seoul has three options: leveraging, minimizing, or compensating.

ROKS Incheon (FFG-811), the lead ship of the Incheon-class frigate in the Republic of Korea Navy, as pictured in 2013.

“Abandonment” vs “entrapment” is a classic alliance dilemma in geopolitical crises. A country may fear that it may be abandoned by its allies during a war. Alternatively, a country may fear being drawn into a costly war as a result of its alliance commitment. For U.S. allies, the ongoing Iran-U.S. military conflict has resulted in a new round of diplomatic challenges to navigate between these risks of abandonment or entrapment. 

The Trump administration has asked multiple countries, including South Korea, to form a naval convoy to protect oil transports from Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. South Korea’s response so far has been equivocal. While joining a multilateral statement condemning the strait’s blockade, South Korea’s Foreign Ministry has evaded a specific response on whether and how it would intervene. As the conflict in the Persian Gulf escalates, South Korea’s equivocation strategy, however, faces increased pressure.

As a long-time U.S. ally, South Korea has participated in multiple overseas military conflicts. During the Vietnam War, South Korea deployed combat troops to fight alongside U.S. forces. During the Iraq War, South Korea initially deployed noncombatant troops, but later expanded its commitment to combat peacekeeping forces. During the Russia-Ukraine War, South Korea’s participation was more restrained. While participating in international sanctions on Russia and exporting arms to Europe and the United States, South Korea has refrained from sending lethal arms directly to Ukraine. 

As the South Korean government engages in difficult negotiations with the Trump administration over trade agreements, security deterrence on the Korean Peninsula, and prospects for renewed diplomatic talks with North Korea, it faces risks in declining President Donald Trump’s request for assistance. Even if the Trump administration does not engage in direct punishment, South Korea may suffer costs from the United States’ shifting of strategic resources and commitment. The relocation of U.S. military assets from South Korea to the Middle East, for example, causes security anxieties for the South Korean government.

Participation in the conflict, however, also poses risks. First is the reputational risk. As the military conflict encounters controversies internationally and within the United States, the South Korean government is wary of being perceived as an active conflict participant. Second is the diplomatic risk. South Korea is reluctant to be drawn into a long-term conflict with Iran, which would result in adversarial relations with Iran’s regime. Third is the security risk. The deployed South Korean navy may be exposed to attacks or even casualties in the Strait of Hormuz. With uncertainty on how long the conflict will last, South Korea may become trapped in the Middle East, even as security risks in the Asia-Pacific increase. 

For South Korea, the optimal outcome would be the quick suspension of the conflict and subsequent reopening of Hormuz without the need for international intervention. The prolonging of the conflict and subsequent pressures from the United States, as well as the adverse impact on South Korea’s economy and security, may motivate the South Korean government to consider alternative bargaining strategies within alliance negotiations: leveraging, minimizing, or compensating.

Leveraging is when a country makes a counterdemand for reciprocal concessions. A country may agree to participate in its ally’s war, but bargain for rewards that would substantially........

© The Diplomat