Samsung Electronics union start vote on strike-risk wage proposal SEOUL, May 22 (AJP) - Unionized members of Samsung Electronics on Friday begin vote on whether to accept a tentative wage settlement agreed last week that would create a profit-linked special bonus system and remove the risk of a disruptive strike. The six-day electronic voting window opened at 2 p.m. Friday and will run through 10 a.m. Wednesday. The electorate consists of the 70,850 union members registered as of 2 p.m. on Thursday — a figure that has decreased significantly from a peak of around 77,000 amid recent internal discord. The landmark agreement will be finalized and become legally binding if a majority of eligible members participate and more than half vote in favor. Otherwise, both sides must return to the negotiating table. The tentative 2026 wage agreement, reached Wednesday after marathon government-mediated negotiations, introduces a “Special Management Bonus” funded by 10.5 percent of the semiconductor division’s business performance. It also includes a new housing loan program offering up to 500 million won ($365,000) and an average wage increase of 6.2 percent, consisting of a 4.1 percent base-pay hike and a 2.1 percent performance-based increase. Local securities firms project Samsung Electronics to post operating profit of around 300 trillion won this year amid the AI-driven semiconductor boom. Based on those forecasts, approximately 31.5 trillion won would be allocated for the special management bonus pool. Employees in the memory division — the company’s main earnings engine — are estimated to receive up to 600 million won in combined bonuses this year, including the existing Overall Performance Incentive (OPI). Under the agreement, the special management bonus will be paid entirely in treasury shares after taxes, effectively turning the payout into a large-scale stock compensation scheme. Employees in non-memory businesses such as System LSI and Foundry, which are expected to remain loss-making this year, are also projected to receive at least 160 million won in special bonuses under a rule allocating 40 percent of the semiconductor division’s common performance pool across all DS units. “This tentative agreement is the result of the utmost efforts by the Enterprise Union and the joint struggle committee,” said Choi Seung-ho, head of the Samsung Electronics branch of the Enterprise Union, in a message to members Thursday. “We will consider the outcome of this vote as the report card our members give to the union.” 2026-05-22 10:09:17

South Korean student filmmaker wins award at Cannes SEOUL, May 22 (AJP) - Filmmaker Jin Mi-song has won a gong at this year's Cannes Film Festival which wraps up this weekend, organizers said on Friday. Jin took home second prize with her short film "Silent Voices" in the La Cinef section, the prestigious festival's student film competition featuring short live-action and animated works by emerging filmmakers from universities around the world. This year's lineup included 14 live-action and five animated short films selected from about 2,750 submissions from film schools around the world. Jin's 17-minute short film follows a day in the life of a South Korean immigrant family living in New York. It portrays how they quietly deal with their personal struggles and emotions. Jin said she was surprised by the award and thanked the jury for recognizing her work, as well as the cast and crew of "Silent Voices." She graduated from Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul and is currently studying at Columbia University in New York. Meanwhile, the top prize went to New York University film school student Lucas Acher for "Laser-Cat," which tells the story of a teenager's one-night journey to find and rescue his crush's severely wounded cat. 2026-05-22 09:48:07

ASIA DEEP INSIGHT: Enriched uranium, shadow of Hormuz and Search for "Noah Accord" A 5,000-Year-Old Persian Civilization and a 250-Year-Old American Superpower Stand at the Edge of History The Middle East in May 2026 speaks outwardly of cease-fires and endgame negotiations. Yet beneath the language of diplomacy, the region still stands atop an enormous powder keg. President Donald Trump repeatedly declares that “the war will end very soon.” But beneath the negotiating table, the most dangerous fault lines are becoming sharper, not weaker. At the center of the confrontation lies a single issue: Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium. At the White House on May 21, Trump stated bluntly, “We will take it.” He reaffirmed Washington’s position that the United States must secure and ultimately destroy Iran’s estimated 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity. This is no mere technical dispute over nuclear verification procedures. It is the symbolic heart of the war itself — and, politically, the visible victory Trump believes he must bring home. For Trump, this conflict has been framed as a war to halt Iran at the threshold of nuclear weapons capability. The image of American authorities physically removing Iran’s highly enriched uranium and destroying it would represent a historic spectacle of strategic triumph. In Trump’s eyes, it would surpass the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement reached under President Barack Obama and become the defining diplomatic achievement of his presidency. Yet that very demand has become Iran’s absolute red line. Iran’s leadership has reportedly hardened its position against any overseas transfer of enriched uranium. From Washington’s perspective, the issue concerns nuclear nonproliferation and regional security. From Tehran’s perspective, it concerns national dignity, regime survival, and civilizational pride. Inside Iran, moreover, a dangerous new psychology has begun to emerge after the war. “North Korea possessed nuclear weapons and was not attacked. Iran did not possess them — and was.” That perception is rapidly hardening attitudes inside the Revolutionary Guard and among Iran’s hard-line factions. Increasingly, the argument is not necessarily that Iran must immediately build a bomb, but that it must preserve the capacity to do so. Thus, the gap between Washington’s demand for total removal and Tehran’s insistence on domestic retention or dilution remains immense. Trump, meanwhile, is eager to conclude the conflict quickly. The reasons are not merely diplomatic. They are deeply economic and political. The American economy continues to struggle under the weight of inflation and elevated interest rates. Prolonged instability in the Middle East threatens oil prices, shipping costs, and ultimately gasoline prices for American consumers. That is why Trump repeatedly emphasizes that “gas prices will fall when the war ends.” Ahead of November’s midterm elections, inflation represents a potentially lethal political vulnerability. American voters often react more immediately to fuel prices and household costs than to geopolitical abstractions. Trump understands this instinctively. Yet the war has already evolved beyond a simple bilateral confrontation between the United States and Iran. The Strait of Hormuz now stands at the center of the crisis. Iran has begun openly signaling the possibility of imposing transit fees or other restrictions in Hormuz — the narrow maritime artery through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and LNG supplies pass each day. Should Tehran move from rhetoric to action, the consequences for the global economy could be immediate and severe. Secretary of State Marco Rubio responded with an unusually direct warning, declaring that any attempt by Iran to impose transit charges would render diplomatic agreement “impossible.” Washington is already considering bringing the matter before the United Nations Security Council. But Hormuz is not merely a shipping dispute. It is a question of world order itself. For thousands of years, the Persian Empire stood astride the trade and civilizational routes linking Mesopotamia, Central Asia, India, and the Mediterranean. Iran’s leadership remains deeply conscious of that geopolitical inheritance. The United States, by contrast, views freedom of navigation as a foundational principle of the postwar international system. Thus both sides confront the same waters while carrying entirely different historical memories. More troubling still is the growing strain upon America’s military resources. According to reports in The Washington Post, the United States has expended more than 200 THAAD interceptor missiles during the conflict — nearly half its stockpile. American naval forces in the eastern Mediterranean have also launched large numbers of SM-3 and SM-6 interceptors. The problem is increasingly clear: Production cannot keep pace with consumption. America’s missile defense architecture was originally designed primarily for deterrence in the Indo-Pacific, especially against China and North Korea. Yet the Middle East war is rapidly consuming those strategic reserves. Naturally, this has unsettled both South Korea and Japan. Discussions regarding the possible redeployment or depletion of THAAD systems have already begun to raise concerns across Northeast Asia. Ironically, Trump’s “America First” doctrine is now confronting its own contradiction. The United States is expending enormous strategic assets to defend Israel, while growing voices inside America question why U.S. military stockpiles should be depleted in Middle Eastern conflicts. Even American think tanks have begun warning that the Middle East is undermining Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy. This helps explain Trump’s oscillation between escalation and conciliation. His rhetoric swings almost daily between threats and diplomacy because the strategic contradictions are becoming increasingly difficult to manage. Another major variable is Russia. President Vladimir Putin has revived the idea of transferring Iran’s enriched uranium to Russia — echoing arrangements proposed during the 2015 nuclear negotiations. On the surface, it appears to be a mediation effort. In reality, it is also a geopolitical maneuver. Putin understands that involvement in resolving the Iran crisis could provide Moscow with leverage in broader negotiations with Washington, particularly over Ukraine and sanctions policy. Trump’s dismissive response — effectively telling Putin to focus on Ukraine instead — reflected precisely that suspicion. The Middle East today is therefore no longer a regional war alone. It is a condensed battlefield of 21st-century geopolitics, where the interests of the United States, Iran, Israel, Russia, Europe, and China intersect simultaneously. Negotiations continue outwardly. Yet the negotiations remain extraordinarily fragile. Trump needs a victory. Iran cannot afford the image of surrender. Israel seeks the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear potential. Russia hopes to expand its diplomatic influence through mediation. And the global economy trembles at every shift in the winds of Hormuz. The war may pause temporarily. But the geopolitics of the Middle East are far from over. And here the world confronts a deeper truth. This conflict is not merely a dispute over uranium enrichment. It is a collision between two historical consciousnesses — and between two civilizations. On one side stands the United States, a 250-year-old superpower that shaped the modern global order through military strength, financial dominance, technological innovation, and the architecture of globalization itself. On the other stands Iran, heir to a Persian civilization stretching back more than 5,000 years. Modern Iran is not simply another Middle Eastern state. Behind it stand the memories of Cyrus the Great, Darius, and the Achaemenid Empire — a civilization that once connected Mesopotamia, Central Asia, India, and the Mediterranean into one vast imperial network. The West often views Iran merely as a “problem state.” But within the Iranian historical imagination, they are not a minor power. They see themselves as descendants of an ancient civilization. That difference in historical consciousness shapes everything. Washington approaches the nuclear issue as a matter of international security and nonproliferation. Tehran approaches it as a matter of national survival and civilizational dignity. For that very reason, brute force alone cannot resolve this crisis. What is needed instead is a new civilizational imagination. Perhaps what the Middle East now requires is something resembling a “Noah Accord.” The region has already witnessed one historic breakthrough in the form of the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab states. Those agreements drew symbolic power from the shared Abrahamic heritage of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. But perhaps the next step requires an even broader vision. Before Abraham came Noah — the ancestral figure of humanity itself in the traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam alike. Noah represents survival, reconciliation, and the rebirth of civilization after catastrophe. The Middle East today needs more than another technical nuclear agreement. It needs a renewed framework for coexistence. Neither America nor Iran can fully destroy the other’s historical identity. The United States may pressure the Iranian regime, but it cannot erase Persian civilization. Iran, meanwhile, cannot overturn the American-led international order through direct confrontation. Eventually, both sides will have to compromise. And that compromise must become more than a transactional bargain. It must allow both civilizations to preserve dignity while stepping back from catastrophe. East Asia has long carried philosophical traditions emphasizing coexistence rather than annihilation. Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism all contain variations of the idea that absolute victory achieved through destruction rarely endures. Korea, in particular, understands this deeply. For centuries, Korea survived between great powers — China, Japan, Russia, and later the United States. Korean historical consciousness therefore places enormous value not only on balances of power, but on balances of relationship. That perspective may hold an important lesson for Washington and Tehran alike. The United States must leave space for Iran’s dignity. Iran, in turn, must move beyond a posture of total rejection toward the international system. Creative compromise remains possible. Highly enriched uranium could be placed under multinational management involving neutral states, Russia, or the International Atomic Energy Agency rather than becoming a direct symbol of Iranian surrender to Washington. Ultimately, the central question is not who wins. It is whether humanity can step back from the edge of another prolonged civilizational conflict. Because the global economy is already approaching dangerous limits. Hormuz is one of the central arteries of the world economy. If it is destabilized, oil prices, shipping, insurance, financial markets, and supply chains will all experience shockwaves. For South Korea, the implications are especially serious. South Korea depends heavily upon imported energy from the Middle East. The industrial foundations of companies such as Samsung and SKhynix, as well as the manufacturing systems of Hyundai Motor, ultimately rely upon stable flows of oil and LNG. A prolonged Hormuz crisis could simultaneously weaken the Korean won, intensify inflationary pressures, and destabilize maritime logistics. The security implications may be even greater. America’s depletion of missile defense inventories during the war has already exposed the limitations of U.S. strategic capacity. Washington cannot indefinitely sustain simultaneous pressures in the Middle East, Ukraine, the Taiwan Strait, and the Korean Peninsula without difficult trade-offs. For Seoul, this reality demands increasingly sophisticated strategic thinking. The U.S.–Korea alliance remains indispensable. But South Korea must also preserve diplomatic flexibility with the Middle East, China, and even Russia where necessary. Energy security, supply-chain resilience, semiconductors, AI infrastructure, and strategic autonomy are no longer merely economic concerns. They are becoming matters of national survival. The world speaks constantly of the AI revolution. Yet humanity finds itself once again confronting its oldest questions. How can civilizations coexist? How far should great powers exercise force? Can humanity move beyond cycles of war? A 5,000-year-old Persian civilization and a 250-year-old American superpower now stand before those questions together. And the world waits for their answer. 2026-05-22 09:36:24

[[AJP Spiritual Asia ②]] Hinduism and civilization of the soul How an Ancient Indian Faith Became One of Humanity’s Great Spiritual Rivers Humanity in the 21st century is once again confronting its oldest and most enduring questions. Artificial intelligence now learns human language. Robots are increasingly replacing human labor. Algorithms not only predict consumption patterns but also begin to anticipate human judgment itself. Material civilization has achieved unprecedented abundance, yet the inner life of humanity appears more restless, fragmented, and spiritually anxious than ever before. Why do human beings exist? Where did we come from, and where are we going? Technology has advanced at an astonishing speed, yet the fundamental questions of human existence remain unresolved. At precisely this moment, humanity is turning its gaze once more toward Asia. And at the center of that spiritual reawakening stands Hinduism — one of the oldest and most enduring civilizational traditions in human history. Hinduism is not merely a religion. It is a vast spiritual universe, a philosophical civilization, and a profound attempt to understand the relationship between humanity, nature, consciousness, and the cosmos itself. Today, more than one billion people live within the cultural sphere shaped by Hindu thought, while nearly every layer of Indian civilization — philosophy, literature, art, ethics, politics, and social life — bears its imprint. Yet the influence of Hinduism extends far beyond the Indian subcontinent. Buddhism and Jainism emerged from the wider Hindu civilizational world. Hindu philosophical ideas traveled across Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and eventually East Asia through trade routes, pilgrimage networks, and centuries of intellectual exchange. Concepts such as karma, reincarnation, meditation, liberation, and cosmic harmony have deeply influenced the spiritual imagination of humanity. Even in the modern West, Hindu ideas have quietly entered mainstream culture through yoga, meditation, mindfulness, and holistic approaches to human consciousness. The renewed global interest in Hinduism during the age of artificial intelligence is therefore no accident. Hinduism views the human being not merely as a producer, consumer, or biological mechanism, but as a spiritual existence intimately connected to the universe itself. The origins of Hinduism reach deep into antiquity. Most historians trace its formation to around 1500 BCE, when Indo-Aryan peoples entered the Indian subcontinent and gradually merged their Vedic traditions with the older cultural foundations of the Indus Valley Civilization. That civilization, centered in what is now Pakistan and northwestern India, possessed sophisticated urban planning, advanced drainage systems, and remarkably organized cities. Some scholars even argue that early forms of meditation and yogic symbolism may already have existed there. The Aryan peoples who followed regarded nature and the cosmos as sacred realities. Their hymns, prayers, and rituals were eventually compiled into the Vedas — among the oldest surviving sacred texts in human history. The word “Veda” itself means “knowledge” or “wisdom.” The Vedas were never merely religious manuals. They contained poetry, cosmology, philosophy, ritual practice, ethical reflection, and meditations on the relationship between humanity and the divine order of the universe. Unlike many major religions, Hinduism has no single founder. No solitary prophet established its doctrines, and no single historical event marks its birth. Rather, Hinduism evolved gradually over thousands of years as diverse philosophies, rituals, myths, folk traditions, and spiritual disciplines converged into one vast civilizational current. In this sense, Hinduism is simultaneously a religion, philosophy, culture, and a way of life. Among its most profound philosophical foundations are the concepts of Brahman and Atman. Brahman refers to the ultimate cosmic reality — the eternal and infinite ground of all existence. Atman refers to the deepest essence of the individual self or soul. Hindu philosophy ultimately teaches that the human soul and the cosmic reality are fundamentally one. Humanity, nature, and the universe are therefore not separate entities but interconnected dimensions within a single cosmic order. This spiritual vision matured further in the Upanishads, the philosophical texts that form the later layer of Vedic thought. The Upanishads shifted attention inward, asking not merely how the universe functions, but what the true nature of consciousness itself might be. In this worldview, the human being is far more than flesh and material existence. Each person carries within them a spark of universal reality. True wisdom is attained not through external conquest, but through inner awakening and self-realization. Hinduism also places extraordinary emphasis on karma and reincarnation. Human life does not end with death. The soul moves through countless cycles of birth, death, and rebirth. Every human action leaves consequences. Compassionate actions generate harmony; destructive actions produce suffering. This moral and spiritual law is known as karma. The ultimate purpose of human life, therefore, is not merely wealth, status, or worldly achievement. It is liberation — moksha — freedom from ignorance, attachment, and the endless cycle of rebirth. Through spiritual discipline, ethical living, meditation, and self-knowledge, the individual seeks union with ultimate reality. Such ideas resonate powerfully in the age of artificial intelligence. Modern technological civilization increasingly defines human value through efficiency, productivity, speed, and data. Hindu thought, by contrast, insists that the essence of humanity lies in consciousness, soul, and spiritual awareness. Human beings are not machines that merely calculate. They are living participants in a cosmic order. Hinduism is also deeply pluralistic in spirit. Its pantheon contains countless deities, among them Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. Yet beneath this diversity lies a profound philosophical unity. The many gods are often understood as different manifestations of a single transcendent truth. This spiritual flexibility allowed Hindu civilization to absorb and coexist with remarkably diverse traditions across centuries. To be sure, Hindu society also produced grave historical contradictions, most notably the caste system, which imposed rigid social hierarchies and enduring inequalities. Yet alongside these injustices, Hindu philosophy continued to nurture traditions emphasizing inner freedom, spiritual equality, and the universality of the soul. The influence of Hinduism upon world history has been immense. The clearest example is Buddhism itself. Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, emerged from the Hindu cultural world. Many foundational Buddhist concepts — karma, rebirth, meditation, spiritual discipline, and liberation — evolved within that broader intellectual environment, even as Buddhism later challenged aspects of Vedic ritualism and caste hierarchy. Across Southeast Asia, Hindu civilization also left enduring marks upon architecture, kingship, literature, and culture. The temples of Angkor Wat in Cambodia, the Hindu traditions of Bali, and aspects of Thai royal culture all bear witness to this historical influence. Through Central Asia and the Silk Road, Hindu philosophical ideas also interacted indirectly with other religious and intellectual traditions. In this sense, Hinduism became one of the great unseen currents flowing beneath the spiritual history of Eurasia. In the modern era, Hindu spirituality has entered global consciousness in entirely new forms. Yoga and meditation are now practiced across continents. Major corporations in the United States and Europe increasingly embrace mindfulness and contemplative practices as responses to stress, fragmentation, and emotional exhaustion within technological society. The reason is becoming increasingly clear: human beings cannot survive on technology alone. Perhaps this is the deepest message Hinduism offers humanity. Human beings do not exist in isolation. We are connected to one another, to nature, and to the cosmos itself. Thousands of years ago, Indian sages looked inward and sought the hidden structure of reality within the human soul. Today, humanity once again stands before those same questions. How far can technology carry humanity? And after technology transforms civilization, can humanity still remain truly human? Across the silence of millennia, Hinduism seems to answer: “Human beings are not merely creatures that calculate. They are souls that carry the universe within them.” 2026-05-22 09:03:10

Two South Koreans return home after release from Israeli seizure of Gaza-bound vessels SEOUL, May 22 (AJP) - Two South Koreans detained after Israeli forces seized vessels bound for the Gaza Strip returned home on Friday following their release. They were Kim Dong-hyeon, who was aboard the Gaza-bound humanitarian aid vessel Kyriakos X when it was seized by the Israeli navy in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea near Cyprus last Thursday, and Kim Ah-hyun, who was aboard another vessel, Rina al Nabulsi, which was seized by Israeli forces in waters near the Gaza Strip two days later. The two Kims flew home together, arriving at Incheon International Airport at around 6:30 a.m. after being released and deported along with a larger group of foreign activists earlier in the week. Their release came as several countries including Brazil, Indonesia, Spain and Turkey condemned Israel's interceptions as illegal under international law and several summoned Israeli envoys in protest. The two said their ultimate goal is "the liberation of Palestine," vowing that their voyage will continue until then. They also plan to hold a rally later in the day near the Israeli Embassy in central Seoul to denounce Israel. 2026-05-22 08:58:41

Korea's May consumer sentiment sharply rebounds on strong exports and equities SEOUL, May 22 (AJP) -South Korea’s consumer sentiment rebounded sharply in May, returning to optimistic territory after briefly slipping below the long-term average a month earlier, as robust exports and a record-setting stock rally outweighed concerns over prolonged Middle East tensions and rising energy prices, central bank data showed Friday. Sentiment about current economic conditions and future prospects improved even as inflation expectations hovered near 3 percent, reinforcing the case for maintaining a monetary tightening bias to contain inflationary pressures from imports and wage increases. The Bank of Korea said the Composite Consumer Sentiment Index (CCSI) rose to 106.1 in May from 99.2 in April, marking the strongest monthly increase since the post-pandemic rebound period and pushing sentiment back above the long-term average benchmark of 100. The recovery was broad-based across nearly all major categories. Consumers’ assessment of current economic conditions jumped 15 points — the strongest gain since October 2020 — to 83, while expectations for future conditions also surged 14 points to 93. Expectations for living standards climbed five points to 97, while household income expectations rose two points to 100. Consumer spending outlook also improved two points to 110, supported by strong stock-market returns and generous bonus payouts from high-performing technology companies. Housing sentiment strengthened notably as expectations for home prices surged eight points to 112, reversing part of the weakness seen earlier this year. Wage outlook sentiment also edged up two points to 122. Expectations for interest rates eased slightly, with the interest-rate outlook index slipping one point to 114, though it remained historically elevated. Consumers also appeared somewhat more optimistic about employment conditions. The employment outlook index rose six points to 88 after falling sharply in April, reflecting hopes that the export-driven recovery would generate broader spillover effects across the economy despite ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. Inflation concerns, however, remained elevated. Consumers’ perceived inflation rate over the past year rose to 3.0 percent in May from 2.9 percent in April, while one-year-ahead inflation expectations eased only slightly to 2.8 percent after hitting 2.9 percent the previous month. Longer-term inflation expectations for three and five years ahead remained anchored at 2.6 percent. The survey showed petroleum products remained the dominant driver of inflation concerns, with 85.2 percent of respondents citing oil-related products as a key factor behind expected price increases over the next year. Public utility charges and industrial goods followed. The inflation outlook follows Thursday’s producer price data, which pointed to mounting upstream cost pressures across the economy. The Bank of Korea said the producer price index rose 2.5 percent in April from the previous month and 6.9 percent from a year earlier, led by a surge in petroleum and chemical products. Prices of coal and petroleum products jumped 31.9 percent on-month, while overall energy prices rose 7.9 percent. The broader domestic supply price index, which measures prices of goods and services supplied to the domestic market, climbed 5.2 percent on month in April, while the total output price index surged 3.9 percent. The debt market has increasingly priced in a higher-for-longer rate environment as inflationary pressure persists alongside a stubbornly weak currency. The five-year government bond yield has neared 4 percent and the 20-year paper topped 4.2 percent, while even the one-year note traded at 3.165 percent, sharply above the benchmark policy rate of 2.5 percent. The Bank of Korea is scheduled to hold its rate-setting meeting next Thursday. 2026-05-22 08:46:16

Trump's Red Line: Iran's Enriched Uranium and the Shadow of Hormuz 2026 May has seen the Middle East publicly discussing ceasefires and peace negotiations, yet it remains precariously positioned atop a massive powder keg. President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that "the war will soon end." However, beneath the negotiation table, the most dangerous flashpoints are becoming increasingly evident. At the center of this tension is a single issue: Iran's enriched uranium. On May 21, Trump asserted at the White House, "We will secure it." He reaffirmed the U.S. intention to acquire and dispose of 440 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium held by Iran. This is not merely a technical issue in nuclear negotiations; it symbolizes the entire conflict and represents a "visible victory" that Trump needs for domestic political reasons. Trump has characterized this war as one aimed at stopping Iran from reaching the brink of nuclear weapons capability. For Trump, the act of securing enriched uranium and transporting it back to the U.S. or a third country could serve as a historic achievement, surpassing the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) established under former President Barack Obama in 2015. However, this point also represents an absolute red line for Iran. The Iranian leadership has reportedly solidified its stance against the export of enriched uranium. While this is a matter of eliminating potential nuclear weapon capabilities from the U.S. perspective, for Iran, it is a question of national pride and regime survival. Moreover, a dangerous collective psychology is forming within Iran as a result of this war. The sentiment that "North Korea, which possesses nuclear weapons, has not been attacked, while Iran, which does not, has been" is gaining traction. This perception is likely to harden the Iranian regime's stance. Analysts suggest that a strategic mindset emphasizing the need to maintain the "potential" to develop nuclear weapons is taking root within Iran's military and Revolutionary Guard. Thus, a significant gap remains between the U.S. demand for "complete removal" and Iran's desire for "domestic preservation and dilution." Trump is eager to expedite a resolution to the negotiations, driven not only by diplomatic concerns but also by domestic political and economic pressures. The U.S. economy continues to grapple with high inflation and interest rates. The prolonged conflict in the Middle East is exacerbating international oil prices and logistics costs, directly impacting American consumers through rising gasoline prices. Trump's repeated assertion that "gas prices will drop once the war ends" reflects this reality. With the midterm elections approaching in November, inflation poses a critical threat. American voters are more sensitive to immediate issues like gas prices and living costs than to democracy or geopolitics. Trump is acutely aware of this political landscape. However, the conflict has already escalated beyond a simple U.S.-Iran confrontation. The situation in the Strait of Hormuz exemplifies this escalation. Iran has effectively begun to leverage the "Hormuz toll" card. The Strait of Hormuz is a vital artery for global energy, with approximately 20 million barrels of oil and LNG passing through daily. Should Iran impose tolls or military pressure in this region, the global economy would face immediate repercussions. In response, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly warned that "if such actions materialize, diplomatic agreements will be impossible." The U.S. is already considering responses at the United Nations Security Council level. The Hormuz issue transcends mere maritime navigation rights. It is intrinsically linked to global hegemony. The Persian Empire has historically been at the center of civilization and trade through the Strait of Hormuz and the Silk Road for thousands of years. The Iranian leadership remains acutely aware of this geopolitical legacy. Conversely, the U.S. views "freedom of navigation in international waters" as an absolute principle. Ultimately, both sides are clashing over the same body of water with vastly different historical memories and strategic concepts. An even more pressing issue is the rapid escalation of U.S. military fatigue, which is occurring faster than anticipated. According to reports from The Washington Post, the U.S. has utilized over 200 THAAD interceptors during this conflict, nearing half of its total stockpile. Naval vessels in the Eastern Mediterranean have also deployed significant numbers of SM-3 and SM-6 interceptors. The problem lies in the production rate not keeping pace with consumption. The U.S. missile defense system was originally designed as a key component of its Indo-Pacific strategy to deter both China and North Korea. However, the ongoing conflict in the Middle East is rapidly depleting these reserves. Consequently, South Korea and Japan are also left on edge. In fact, discussions about the potential redeployment of THAAD in South Korea have begun to shake the security structure in Northeast Asia. Interestingly, Trump's "America First" policy appears to be caught in a paradox at this juncture. The U.S. is exhausting significant strategic assets and intercept systems to defend Israel. However, dissatisfaction is growing domestically over why U.S. weapon stockpiles are being depleted in the Middle East. Even American think tanks are beginning to express concerns that the Middle East is encroaching on the Indo-Pacific strategy. This is precisely why Trump continues to oscillate between war and negotiation. The mix of hardline rhetoric and conciliatory messages is a daily occurrence. Another intriguing variable is Russia. President Vladimir Putin has already reintroduced the "Russia export" card, suggesting a plan to send enriched uranium to Russia for compromise, similar to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. On the surface, this appears to be a mediation proposal. However, it conceals a completely different calculation. Putin aims to secure leverage in negotiations with Trump by intervening in the resolution of the Iran conflict. This strategy seeks to create negotiation space with the U.S. regarding the Ukraine war and sanctions against Russia. Trump's irritation at Putin's suggestion to "focus on the Ukraine issue" stems from this dynamic. Ultimately, the current situation in the Middle East is not merely a regional war. It is a microcosm of 21st-century complex geopolitics involving the U.S., Iran, Israel, Russia, Europe, and China. While negotiations appear to be underway, they remain precarious. Trump needs a victory, Iran must avoid the image of capitulation, Israel aims to eliminate Iran's nuclear potential entirely, and Russia seeks to expand its influence through mediation. The global economy is also sensitive to even the slightest shifts in the winds of the Strait of Hormuz. While the war may pause temporarily, the geopolitics of the Middle East are far from resolved. This situation raises profound questions for the world. This conflict is not merely about nuclear negotiations; it represents a direct clash between two histories and two civilizations. On one side is the United States, a superpower with a 250-year history. On the other is Iran, inheritor of a 5,000-year-old Persian civilization. The U.S. has shaped the modern world order. From the dollar and military power to technology and finance, much of today's global system operates around the U.S. In just 250 years since its independence in 1776, the U.S. has become the most powerful nation in human history. Conversely, Iran is not merely a Middle Eastern country. Its roots trace back to the Persian Empire of Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great. The Achaemenid dynasty managed a vast multi-ethnic empire as early as the 6th century BC, creating a network of civilizations connecting Mesopotamia, Central Asia, India, and the Mediterranean. While the Western world often views Iran as a "rogue state," Iranians do not see themselves as a small nation. They consider themselves the "heirs of civilization." This fundamental difference in perception shapes how the U.S. and Iran interpret each other. The U.S. views the Iranian nuclear issue as a matter of international security and non-proliferation, while Iran perceives it as a question of national regime and civilizational pride. This is precisely why what is needed now is not merely a logic of power. Instead, a new imagination at the level of human civilization is required. This could embody the spirit of the 'Noah Accord.' The Middle East has already undergone a significant transformation with the Abraham Accords, established between Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain. This agreement, which recognizes Abraham as a common ancestor for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, has become a symbol of civilizational reconciliation beyond a mere diplomatic document. Now, a greater imagination is necessary. Noah is a common ancestor of humanity predating Abraham. In the traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Noah symbolizes "human survival and reconciliation." What the Middle East needs now is not just nuclear negotiations. It is about establishing an order where humanity can survive together. Neither the U.S. nor Iran can fully subjugate the other. The U.S. can shake the Iranian regime with military power, but it cannot erase the pride of Persian civilization. Conversely, Iran cannot completely dismantle the U.S.-centric world order. Ultimately, both sides will have to compromise at some point. This compromise must not merely be a transaction but a peace that acknowledges each other's dignity, history, and civilizational pride. In the East, there has long been a philosophy of "coexistence." The belief is that a victory that completely defeats the opponent does not last long. Within the traditions of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, East Asia has sought harmony amidst conflict. South Korea also shares such historical experiences. It has had to survive among powerful nations like China, Japan, the U.S., and Russia. Thus, Koreans value not only the balance of power but also the balance of relationships. This mindset is now needed in the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. must allow Iran to maintain at least a semblance of dignity. Iran, in turn, must move away from outright rejection of the U.S. international order. For instance, instead of directly exporting enriched uranium to the U.S., a compromise could involve transitioning to an internationally managed system or a joint management approach involving Russia, neutral countries, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Ultimately, the key is not about winning or losing. It is about whether humanity can take a step back from the brink of war. This is especially critical as the global economy is nearing a breaking point. The Strait of Hormuz is the lifeblood of global energy. If it is disrupted, international oil prices will soar, and the entire logistics, shipping, insurance, and financial markets will be shaken. This is particularly fatal for countries like South Korea. South Korea has a very high dependency on energy imports. Oil and LNG from the Middle East are lifelines for its industries. The semiconductor factories of Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, as well as Hyundai Motor's production lines, ultimately rely on stable energy supplies. If the Hormuz crisis deepens, the won may weaken, and inflationary pressures could rise simultaneously. As an export-driven economy, South Korea would also be directly impacted by global maritime logistics instability. The larger issue is security. The U.S. has significantly depleted its THAAD interceptor stockpile during this conflict. Some reports indicate that nearly half of the stockpile has been used for Middle Eastern defense. This could have implications for security in Northeast Asia. U.S. strategic assets are not infinite. The limitations of managing conflicts in the Middle East, Ukraine, the Taiwan Strait, and the Korean Peninsula simultaneously have become evident in this war. Ultimately, South Korea must consider a more complex strategy moving forward. The U.S.-South Korea alliance remains crucial. However, South Korea must also maintain a certain level of diplomatic space with the Middle East, China, and Russia. Energy security, supply chain stability, and the reliability of the semiconductor and AI industries are now matters of national survival strategy, not just economic issues. The world is now discussing the era of the AI revolution. Yet paradoxically, humanity stands once again before the oldest questions. How will civilizations coexist? How far will great powers go in using force? And can humanity transcend war? The 5,000-year-old Persian civilization and the 250-year-old United States now face these questions. The world awaits their answers.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-22 07:45:00

Eli Lilly's New Obesity Drug Shows 28% Weight Loss in Clinical Trials Eli Lilly's next-generation obesity treatment has demonstrated an average weight loss of over 28% in late-stage clinical trials, surpassing the weight loss rates seen in previous major obesity drug studies, drawing significant market interest. On May 21, Reuters reported that Eli Lilly announced its experimental obesity drug, retatrutide, resulted in an average weight reduction of 28.3% over 80 weeks among participants. The trial focused on obese patients without diabetes and the figure is based on the highest dosage group of 12 mg. According to Eli Lilly, more than 45% of patients in the highest dosage group lost over 30% of their body weight, a reduction comparable to that achieved through obesity surgery. Kenneth Custer, president of Eli Lilly's cardiovascular and metabolic health division, stated, "This level of weight loss is what has been expected from obesity surgery." Retatrutide works by targeting three hormonal pathways related to weight control, including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and glucagon receptors. Its broader mechanism of action compared to existing GLP-1 drugs enhances its weight loss effects. The results exceed the weight loss rates reported in previous major obesity treatment trials. Eli Lilly's Zepbound and Novo Nordisk's Wegovy showed approximately 15-20% weight loss in separate studies. Adverse effects were reported at lower rates than in earlier trials. While sensory side effects were a concern in previous studies, the incidence in the highest dosage group for this trial was 12.5%, down from 20.9% in earlier trials. About 11% of patients in the highest dosage group discontinued treatment due to side effects. Eli Lilly aims to launch retatrutide as early as next year, pending regulatory approval. The results from this trial are expected to serve as key data for the approval application to regulatory authorities.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-22 07:19:18

Trump Announces Deployment of 5,000 Additional U.S. Troops to Poland President Donald Trump announced that the United States will deploy an additional 5,000 troops to Poland. This announcement follows confusion surrounding the planned deployment of 4,000 troops to the country. On May 21, Trump stated on his Truth Social platform, "The U.S. will send an additional 5,000 troops to Poland." He cited the election of Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president he supported, as a key factor in this decision. Prior to this announcement, there had been controversy regarding the deployment of the initially planned 4,000 troops, with reports from Reuters and the Associated Press indicating that the Pentagon had canceled the deployment plan. However, U.S. Vice President JD Vance and the Polish government clarified that the troop reduction was merely a temporary delay, not a cancellation. This announcement comes amid ongoing discussions about the realignment of U.S. forces stationed in Europe. The Trump administration has urged NATO member countries to take on a greater role in European defense, with discussions about the potential reduction of U.S. troop levels in Europe. Poland has emerged as a key hub for Eastern European security following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It serves as a major conduit for military and logistical support to Ukraine and is a critical point on NATO's eastern front. The Polish government has stated that it plans to allocate 4.8% of its GDP to defense spending this year. Trump's announcement is seen as a reaffirmation of the U.S. commitment to Poland's defense amid discussions about the realignment of U.S. forces in Europe. However, details regarding the timing and composition of the troop deployment have yet to be disclosed.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-22 07:07:07

U.S. State Department: Iran's Toll Proposal Would Block Diplomatic Agreement Mark Rubio, U.S. Secretary of State, identified Iran's proposal for a toll in the Strait of Hormuz as a significant obstacle to U.S.-Iran diplomatic negotiations. While some positive signals have emerged in talks between the two nations, the issue of tolls in the Strait has become a critical factor in determining the feasibility of an agreement. On May 21, Reuters reported that Rubio stated in a press conference, "If Iran implements a toll system in the Strait of Hormuz, a diplomatic agreement will become impossible." He emphasized, "No one in the world supports a toll system," adding that imposing such fees is unacceptable and cannot happen. Rubio characterized Iran's toll proposal as a "threat to the world" and "completely illegal," arguing that charging commercial vessels for passage through the Strait undermines international navigation norms. The Strait of Hormuz is a vital corridor for global oil transportation. Iran has leveraged its control over the Strait as a bargaining chip in negotiations, while the U.S. views the imposition of tolls or passage permits for vessels as actions that disrupt international maritime order. Rubio's remarks indicate that the U.S. considers the toll issue not merely a secondary concern in nuclear negotiations but a condition for any agreement. However, Rubio left some room for negotiation with Iran. He noted, "There are good signals in talks with Iran," but added, "I don't want to be overly optimistic." He assessed that the Iranian regime is somewhat divided and stated, "We need to watch the developments over the next few days."* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-22 07:00:00