The shift came after Donald Trump on Saturday openly urged energy-dependent countries — including South Korea — to send naval forces to the Strait of Hormuz to secure global shipping lanes threatened by Iran.
The remark signals a potential change in Washington’s wartime strategy. While the United States escalates air and missile strikes against Iranian military infrastructure, the responsibility for safeguarding maritime energy routes may increasingly fall on U.S. allies whose economies depend on those supply lines.
In a social-media post Saturday, Trump named several countries he believes should contribute naval assets.
“Many countries, especially those affected by Iran’s attempted closure of the Hormuz Strait, will be sending warships,” he wrote, citing China, France, Japan, South Korea and Britain. “The countries of the world that receive oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage, and we will help — a lot.”
For Seoul, the message underscores how quickly a Middle East war could spill into the strategic calculations of U.S. allies in East Asia.
Little sign of the war ending soon
The conflict began when U.S. and Israeli forces launched coordinated strikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities on Feb. 28. Since then, the confrontation has steadily escalated.
U.S. forces have reportedly struck more than 90 Iranian military targets, including infrastructure on Kharg Island, the terminal responsible for roughly 90 percent of Iran’s crude exports.
Iran has responded by tightening its grip on the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow waterway through which about one-fifth of global oil shipments normally pass.
Shipping traffic has plunged to a fraction of normal levels as tankers avoid the area amid drone, missile and mine threats. Oil prices have already approached $100 per barrel, reviving fears of a new inflation shock across energy-importing economies.
Washington appears reluctant to commit large ground forces. Instead, the emerging strategy emphasizes airpower and coalition maritime security. That framework inevitably places pressure on countries like South Korea.
South Korea imports roughly 70 percent of its crude oil from the Middle East, much of it transported through the Strait of Hormuz.
From Washington’s perspective, this creates a straightforward argument: the economies most dependent on Gulf energy should help secure the shipping routes that sustain them.
But for Seoul, the question is far more complicated.
Sending South Korean naval vessels into the Persian Gulf would represent not only a military decision but also a diplomatic and domestic political calculation — one shaped by history, law and geography.
South Korea, having received international support during its own war, is no stranger to overseas military missions.
The country’s largest foreign deployment occurred during the Vietnam War, when more than 300,000 South Korean troops served alongside U.S. forces between 1964 and 1973.
Since democratization in the late 1980s, however, Seoul has adopted a more cautious approach.
Overseas missions have generally been framed as peacekeeping, reconstruction or maritime security operations.
South Korean forces have participated in operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, while the navy has maintained a permanent presence in the Gulf of Aden through the Cheonghae Unit since 2009.
The Cheonghae Unit was originally deployed to combat piracy near Somalia, escorting commercial vessels through one of the world’s most dangerous shipping corridors.
In 2020, during an earlier confrontation between Washington and Tehran, Seoul quietly expanded the unit’s operational zone to include waters near the Strait of Hormuz.
Rather than joining the U.S.-led International Maritime Security Construct coalition directly, South Korea opted for an independent mission focused on protecting its own shipping.
The arrangement allowed Seoul to support maritime security while avoiding the appearance of participating in a military coalition targeting Iran.
Any new deployment would face domestic legal hurdles. Under South Korean law, overseas troop deployments typically require approval from the National Assembly unless they fall under narrowly defined missions such as peacekeeping or anti-piracy operations.
Even when legally feasible, foreign deployments remain politically sensitive.
Public opinion in South Korea has historically been cautious about involvement in distant conflicts — particularly wars perceived as being driven by the strategic priorities of larger powers.
Sending naval escorts to protect shipping could potentially be framed as a defensive maritime security mission. Direct participation in combat operations against Iran, however, would almost certainly trigger a much deeper domestic debate.
Perhaps the most significant strategic constraint lies much closer to home.
South Korea remains technically at war with Kim Jong Un’s regime following the armistice that ended the Korean War in 1953. Maintaining deterrence against North Korea remains the central priority of the South Korean military.
If U.S. forces are drawn deeper into a prolonged Middle East war, questions could emerge about the availability of American assets traditionally deployed on the Korean Peninsula — including missile defense systems and airpower.
For that reason, analysts say Washington is unlikely to encourage large-scale participation by Northeast Asian allies in the Middle East theater.
“The United States does not want to create vulnerabilities in East Asia while concentrating on Iran,” said Yasuyuki Matsunaga of Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
Still, even limited maritime missions could create political and strategic ripple effects. The situation highlights a classic challenge in alliance politics: the risk of entrapment as the country relies heavily on the U.S. security umbrella to deter North Korea.
Yet policymakers have long worried that alliance obligations could eventually draw the country into conflicts far from the Korean Peninsula. The Hormuz crisis may represent precisely such a scenario.
While the war itself is unfolding thousands of kilometers away, the globalized nature of energy markets and alliance networks means its consequences are already reaching East Asia. And for Seoul, the decision may ultimately hinge less on military necessity than on economic survival.
If the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted and energy markets tighten further, protecting oil supply routes could become a national security issue in its own right.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.