Analysis of South Korea's Potential Deployment to the Strait of Hormuz

If South Korea's military deployment to the Strait of Hormuz materializes, it could enhance U.S.-South Korea relations, protect energy transport routes, and expand cooperation with Middle Eastern countries, according to diplomatic and security experts. However, concerns about potential Iranian retaliation, the safety of South Korean troops, and domestic public opinion divisions are challenges the government must address.
 
On September 7, Ajou Economics interviewed three experts—Shin Beom-cheol, a senior researcher at the Sejong Institute; Min Jeong-hoon, a professor at the National Diplomatic Academy; and Jang Ji-hyang, a senior researcher at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies—to discuss the expected benefits and risks of the deployment to the Strait of Hormuz.
 
The experts agreed that the purpose and method of the deployment, along with international cooperation, are crucial, but they expressed differing views on the timing and alternatives for the government's response.
 
The most immediate expected benefit is the improvement of U.S.-South Korea relations. By contributing to U.S. efforts, South Korea could alleviate pressure from President Donald Trump and create favorable conditions for negotiations between the two countries. Similar to past deployments in Iraq, the key will be whether military contributions can be linked to enhanced influence over alliance management and issues on the Korean Peninsula.
 
Min stated, "The deployment will help manage U.S.-South Korea relations," adding that South Korea's support could positively impact the overall relationship during challenging times for the U.S. He emphasized the need for South Korea to secure corresponding benefits, such as specific commitments from the U.S. regarding the revision of the nuclear agreement and the transition of wartime operational control.
 
Shin acknowledged the potential for improved U.S.-South Korea relations but cautioned that deployment alone would not immediately resolve bilateral issues. He stressed the importance of comprehensively examining complex matters to prioritize negotiations.
 
If dialogue between North Korea and the U.S. resumes, there is also concern about the possibility of South Korea being excluded from discussions, known as 'Korea passing.' Shin suggested that this concern may have influenced the South Korean government's consideration of deployment, as managing relations with the U.S. could expand South Korea's influence on North Korean issues.
 
Min also believed that South Korea's contribution could create a favorable environment for discussions, including those related to North Korea. However, he cautioned that it is difficult to predict specific outcomes, noting that deployment does not guarantee South Korea's participation in U.S.-North Korea talks or leadership on the Korean Peninsula issue.
 
The potential for expanded cooperation with Middle Eastern countries was also highlighted. Jang emphasized that the deployment should not be viewed solely in the context of U.S.-Iran relations but should also consider relationships with Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.
 
These nations are key energy suppliers to South Korea and important partners in nuclear and defense sectors. Jang assessed that if South Korea provides substantial assistance to Gulf countries facing regional security crises, it could lead to future economic cooperation, including defense exports. However, he noted that South Korea's response has been somewhat delayed compared to European countries that have already begun supporting Gulf nations.
 
On the other hand, a major risk factor identified is the deterioration of relations with Iran. Shin warned that South Korea could become a target for Iran, and South Korean companies operating in the region might also face retaliation. Min highlighted the critical challenge of ensuring the safety of South Korean citizens and military personnel amid the risk of becoming embroiled in conflict.
 
Jang pointed out that the threat from Iran is a significant risk factor that distinguishes this situation from past deployments in Iraq. He emphasized that relying solely on communication with Iranian diplomatic authorities may not be sufficient to manage military risks, and the purpose of the deployment—protecting freedom of navigation and conducting non-combat missions—must be clearly articulated.
 
Consequently, experts suggested that not only the decision to deploy but also the scope and nature of the mission are crucial. Min proposed utilizing patrol aircraft and logistical support vessels instead of sending combat troops, stating, "It is necessary to participate within an international cooperation framework with countries like the UK and France to avoid concentrated attacks from Iran and uphold the justification for deployment." He also urged continuous communication with Iran regarding the purpose and scope of South Korea's involvement to reduce the risk of misjudgment and conflict.
 
Shin noted that various options, including arms support and the use of the Cheonghae Unit, should have been prioritized in discussions to persuade the U.S. He added that the appropriateness of the timing and method of the Hormuz deployment as a measure to improve U.S.-South Korea relations should be carefully evaluated.
 
Evaluations of the government's response have been mixed. Shin pointed out that the government's rapid shift in stance following U.S. complaints could raise questions about policy consistency. Jang also criticized the missed opportunity to contribute alongside the international community and deemed the response as delayed.
 
Conversely, Min argued that the government aimed to minimize intervention considering the safety of the military, making it difficult to assert that an earlier response would have improved the situation. He explained that even if limited support had been provided initially, there was no guarantee that there would not have been additional U.S. demands or Iranian backlash.
 
Domestic political burdens also remain. Min emphasized that the government must actively explain the purpose and necessity of the deployment to prevent divisions in public opinion. If casualties occur during operations, it could lead to a deterioration of relations with Iran and raise accountability issues regarding the government's decisions and safety measures. He concluded that negotiations to secure diplomatic benefits, along with clear mission parameters and measures to protect military personnel, should be core criteria in the decision-making process regarding deployment.