President Donald Trump suffered a defeat in the midterm elections. After returning to the White House last year, he engaged in a trade war globally and, earlier this year, launched attacks on Iran alongside Israel, ultimately facing the repercussions of these actions in the form of electoral loss. The two wars initiated under the banner of the world's strongest nation left American citizens grappling with rising prices and increased living costs.
Trump stated that the attack on Iran was a wise decision and that he would do it again if faced with the same situation. However, public opinion differed. Regardless of how grand the justification for war may be, if the outcome complicates citizens' lives, accountability cannot be avoided. Demonstrating national power and using that power wisely are entirely different matters.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is said to have persuaded Trump to join the attack on Iran, is also facing a political crisis. He failed to secure a majority in last week's elections, and with some of his support base eroding, his prospects for re-election appear uncertain. Since the onset of the war with Hamas in 2023, he has expanded the conflict to include Hezbollah and Iran, yet has not achieved a clear resolution. Public fatigue over the ongoing wars is growing.
Both leaders cited concerns over Iran's nuclear development as a primary justification for military action. While the fear of nuclear proliferation should not be taken lightly, it is worth questioning whether military action was the only viable option, especially considering that the U.S. and Iran were engaged in nuclear negotiations right up until the war began. The suspicion that politically embattled leaders sought to rally their support bases and shift the narrative through war must be examined more critically.
War is the most extreme measure a state can choose. Once initiated, it results in countless lives lost and disrupts the daily lives of citizens. A leader's political miscalculations cannot simply be undone. Therefore, the authority to decide on war carries a weightier responsibility than any other power.
South Korea is not unrelated to this issue. Former President Yoon Suk Yeol declared a state of emergency in December 2024, citing the need to 'eradicate anti-state forces.' However, the constitution permits emergency powers only in cases of war, insurrection, or similar national emergencies for military necessity or public order, not as a means to inform the public about opposition party behavior or to break political deadlock. In other words, it is a last resort used only in times of national crisis.
Yet, disregarding these constitutional requirements, Yoon ultimately faced impeachment and became embroiled in charges of insurrection. This illustrates the strict restraint and accountability required when exercising a nation's emergency powers.
Both war and emergency declarations share the commonality of exercising significant powers granted by the state. Such authority is not given for a leader's political survival but is entrusted to protect the lives and safety of citizens and the existence of the nation.
Leaders sometimes mistake the powers granted to them as their own abilities or possessions. However, power is something that citizens temporarily entrust to leaders, and the greater the power, the more cautious its exercise must be. A truly strong leader is not one who wields power recklessly but one who understands the consequences of that power and refrains from using it indiscriminately.
For a leader who does not grasp the weight of power, it becomes a privilege. Conversely, for a leader who understands that weight, power becomes a responsibility. The series of events from Yoon's emergency declaration to the wars involving Presidents Trump and Netanyahu exemplifies the costs a nation pays when powerful authority is used for political purposes.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.