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.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.