Donald Trump is again raising pressure in the Middle East. The United States, targeting Iran, has even raised the possibility of controlling the Strait of Hormuz, stepping up military and diplomatic pressure. The strait is a key route for global crude shipments and is vital for South Korea, since a large share of the Middle Eastern oil it imports passes through it. The situation is spreading beyond a regional dispute into a broader crisis tied to U.S. efforts to check China, a reshaping of global supply chains and energy security.
The Lee Jae-myung government has faced a difficult foreign-policy test soon after taking office. Washington is pressing allies to expand their roles, and European countries are accelerating talks on international cooperation to secure maritime safety. Lee has recently been reported to be considering joining an international video conference led by Britain and France on the Strait of Hormuz issue.
South Korea’s government, however, must guard against what it calls “pragmatic diplomacy” without clear principles. Pragmatism should mean flexibility anchored in national interests. Without a clear standard, pragmatism can look like indecision. Approaches that either strain ties with the Middle East to avoid displeasing the United States, or heighten concerns about cracks in the U.S.-South Korea alliance by focusing only on Middle East variables, both carry risks.
South Korea relies on its alliance with the United States as the core of its security, while its energy structure remains heavily dependent on the Middle East. That makes the Hormuz issue more than a simple choice between sides. It can directly affect international oil prices, the exchange rate, inflation and industrial competitiveness. Markets are already voicing concern that a prolonged Middle East risk could weigh heavily on South Korea’s growth outlook and financial markets.
The problem, the article argues, is that South Korea’s diplomacy still appears driven by short-term responses. Each time tensions rise, officials are seen adjusting positions and debating how far to go, without a clear sense of strategic priorities. Standards remain unclear on how much to cooperate if the United States demands support, where to draw the line between military involvement and maritime security assistance, and what role to play between economic sanctions and diplomatic mediation.
Japan has long managed Middle East risks as part of its security and energy strategy. China, too, has focused its diplomatic capacity on stabilizing energy supply even under U.S. pressure. By contrast, South Korea is often criticized for seeing its foreign-policy direction shift with each change of government. Diplomacy, the article says, should be a national survival strategy, not an extension of domestic politics.
For Lee’s stated goal of “pragmatic diplomacy centered on national interests” to have real meaning, the government must first define what those interests are. National interest is not the same as a government’s political calculations. Managing relations with the United States matters, but so do energy security and industrial stability. Once foreign policy is approached through domestic political camps, national strategy is bound to wobble.
The Hormuz situation also highlights structural vulnerabilities in South Korea’s economy, the article says. Its crude import structure still depends heavily on the Middle East, and preparations for maritime logistics risks are not sufficient. That is why discussions on diversifying supply chains, expanding strategic stockpiles and redesigning energy security must move forward together. Diplomatic rhetoric alone cannot prevent a crisis.
What is needed now is not a binary debate over whether to side with the United States or the Middle East, but a strategy that clearly defines South Korea’s national interests and follows that standard consistently. Alliances are important, but cannot come ahead of national interests. At the same time, national interest should not be used as a pretext to damage trust in an alliance. Diplomacy ultimately requires balance.
Trump’s pressure is likely to intensify. The world is already moving toward a new order in which the economy and security are intertwined. South Korea, the article says, has reached a point where it can no longer hold out with an ambiguous stance. The Lee government must show not just the word “pragmatic,” but the standards by which it will steer the country.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.