Wars often begin with justifications, but they ultimately leave behind devastation, bloodshed, and bills to pay. The current war in Iran, initiated by the United States and Israel, follows this pattern. It started under the banners of 'security' and 'deterrence,' but as time passes, the rapid depletion of military supplies, declining national economies, and a contracting global economy have become evident. What runs out first are not victory flags but missile stockpiles and public patience.
Recent analyses from U.S. media and think tanks starkly illustrate this reality. Following the 'Grand Fury' operation, the U.S. military has used over 1,100 long-range stealth cruise missiles (JASSM-ER), leaving approximately 1,500 in stock. Each missile costs around 16 million won, originally prepared for a potential full-scale conflict with China. Nearly half of these have been expended in the Iranian theater. More than 1,000 Tomahawk missiles have also been launched, costing about 53 million won each, which is ten times the annual procurement amount. Additionally, over 1,200 Patriot interceptor missiles have been used, exceeding last year's total production by double.
The war speaks not only through gunfire but also through numbers. The cost of ammunition used in the first two days alone reached $5.6 billion, with total war expenses already surpassing $28 billion to $35 billion. Daily costs are nearing $1 billion. This is not merely military spending; that money could have funded healthcare for the American middle class, student loans for young people, or the restoration of aging urban infrastructure.
Ultimately, the burden of war falls on the citizens.
However, the more fundamental issue of this war is not just the depletion of U.S. military supplies. Israel is also no longer in a position to maintain 'unlimited defense.' The Iron Dome, regarded as the world's most advanced air defense system, has shown clear limitations in this prolonged conflict. In a scenario where short-range rockets, drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles are launched simultaneously, the Iron Dome must prioritize interception, leading to saturation in some critical areas. The cost of a single interceptor missile exceeds the price of dozens of attack drones. When defense becomes more expensive than offense, sustainable warfare becomes impossible.
Israel, in particular, has had to manage simultaneous threats from the northern Hezbollah front, the Gaza Strip, and long-range threats from Iran. Air defense is not merely a technical issue but a matter of inventory depth, ultimately determining national security. No matter how sophisticated the system, if interceptor missiles are in short supply, the skies will be vulnerable. In fact, some strategic facilities and industrial infrastructure are under threat, and citizens' psychological fatigue is rapidly increasing. The myth of a 'perfect shield' has cracked in this war.
Iran's situation is no different; it is even more structural. Iran has maintained a 'resistance axis' centered around the Revolutionary Guard, but in this prolonged conflict, missile production facilities, underground storage sites, drone assembly plants, air defense radar networks, and command and control systems have been heavily targeted. The loss of long-range ballistic missile production lines and key air defense bases is difficult to recover in the short term. While missile launches may continue superficially, if sustainable production capacity collapses, the ability to conduct war will rapidly weaken.
Sanctions, foreign exchange depletion, difficulties in procuring industrial components, and restrictions on importing precision guidance systems are already pressuring the Iranian economy. Missiles cannot be produced by will alone; semiconductors, special metals, precision machinery, and supply chains are necessary. The longer the war drags on, the greater the likelihood that Iran's economy will collapse before its military.
Ultimately, both Israel and Iran have entered a phase where they must avoid mutual destruction rather than calculate victory. One side's defense is dwindling, while the other side's production base is collapsing. The United States is depleting its ammunition stockpiles, and the alliance front in Europe and Asia is weakening. This is no longer a question of 'who will win.' The key fact is that continued fighting will weaken everyone.
More seriously, the justification for the war itself is rapidly running out. The U.S. has spoken of eliminating nuclear threats, while Israel has claimed self-defense for survival. Iran has shouted resistance, dignity, and anti-imperialism. However, as time passes, each side's justification loses its persuasiveness. Civilian fatigue, international fatigue, and ally fatigue accumulate, leaving no one with a clear answer to the question of 'why are we fighting.'
Wars are inherently more political when they are short. The longer they last, the more commercial they become. The military-industrial complex thrives while citizens' lives crumble. Oil prices rise, exchange rates fluctuate, and supply chains become unstable again. For a trade-dependent country like South Korea, this is a matter of survival. A surge in oil prices creates a chain reaction of shocks across petrochemicals, aviation, logistics, and food. Exchange rate instability dampens corporate investment sentiment and raises the cost of living for households. A war without justification ultimately holds the entire global economy hostage.
The question is now clear: Will we continue to fight, or will we choose to survive?
The difficulty of negotiations for both sides is evident. First is the issue of regime. For Iran, nuclear capability is not just a technology but an insurance for regime survival. Iran has seen what happened to Libya's Gaddafi after he gave up his nuclear program. Conversely, for Israel, Iran's nuclear capability is an existential threat. The insecurity of one side becomes the fear of the other.
Second is domestic politics. The Israeli leadership's political foundation shakes the moment they lose their hardline stance. Iran's revolutionary regime also cannot easily choose retreat. The United States, facing an upcoming election, finds it politically difficult to withdraw from the Middle East. While peace is necessary, politicians often prioritize approval ratings over peace.
Third is the regional order. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, and even Russia and China all have vested interests. The Middle East is not a chessboard but a multi-layered Go board, where one move can shake multiple directions. Therefore, a structural agreement is needed, not just a simple ceasefire.
Here, we need new imagination. It is time for a Noah Accord that goes beyond the Abraham Accords. The Abraham Accords marked a turning point in Middle Eastern diplomacy in 2020 when Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain first agreed to normalize relations under U.S. mediation, followed by Sudan and Morocco. The key point is that the previous official stance of 'no normalization with Israel before resolving the Palestinian issue' has been shaken in the face of reality. The U.S. provided security guarantees, arms sales, and economic support, while Arab nations chose to contain Iran and secure their interests. The process involved strong diplomatic coordination from Washington, confidential working-level negotiations, and official signing at the White House. Reality took precedence over ideals, and national interests over emotions.
However, this was primarily an adjustment of interests between states. What is now needed is a deeper civilizational agreement. We must return to a more fundamental common ancestor than 'the father of faith' Abraham. That ancestor is Noah, 'the new ancestor of humanity.' According to Genesis 10, Elam, understood as the ancestor of Iran, is placed in the lineage of Shem, Noah's son. Israel is also a descendant of Shem, and Abraham is above that lineage. Among Shem's descendants is Eber, from which the term 'Hebrew' is derived. Ultimately, Iran and Israel are not distant civilizations but brother nations that have diverged from the same root.
AJP, the English news agency of AJU News Corporation, has always been uncomfortable with the media's simplistic interpretation of the Middle East as 'Arab versus Israel.' The Middle East is not solely an Arab world. There are Persians, Turks, Kurds, and Jews. Iran is not an Arab nation. The 5,000-year-old civilization of Persia is independent. Any so-called Middle East expert should at least be aware of this historical structure.
Jeremiah records the judgment of Elam's pride but also states, 'In the latter days, I will bring back the captives of Elam' (Jeremiah 49:39). Judgment and restoration coexist. This is not just religious comfort but also insight into international politics. Complete destruction does not create a sustainable order. Only recoverable peace can forge the future.
The Noah Accord must start here. First, the nuclear issue must be addressed within the framework of regime guarantees. Second, a multilateral security guarantee system for the region, including Iran and Israel, must be redesigned. Third, economic cooperation, supply chain stability, and joint energy management systems must be integrated. Peace does not come from declarations; it arises from creating structures for survival together.
If the Abraham Accords were a diplomatic agreement, the Noah Accord must become an agreement for survival. In a reality where no one can achieve complete victory and no one can completely disappear, coexistence and mutual prosperity are the only exit.
The Art of War states, 'The best victory is to win without fighting' (上兵伐謀), and the Tao Te Ching says, 'The strong are broken, and the soft survive' (柔弱勝剛强). The Bible also states, 'Blessed are the peacemakers' (Matthew 5:9). Civilization is ultimately built on order, not the edge of a sword.
What Iran and Israel need now is not more missiles but more imagination. Not more military supplies, but more trust. The reconciliation in the Middle East that began in the name of Abraham must now expand in the name of Noah.
Military supplies have been depleted, and the justification for war is running out. Now, only the choice remains: Will we continue to fight and collapse together, or will we remember our shared roots and live together?
Peace in the Middle East is no longer just a regional issue. It is a matter of global economic stability, South Korea's national interests, and the next chapter of human civilization. It is time for agreements, not gunfire, to change history.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.