As the Middle East situation continued to escalate on March 12, the US-Iran confrontation entered a new phase. The United States is now facing unprecedented pressure on its military readiness resources in this military conflict. According to U.S. media reports, the U.S. military consumed approximately $5.6 billion in ammunition within the first two days of carrying out military actions against Iran, leading to pressure on key readiness supplies such as intercept missiles.
To alleviate the urgent situation on the Middle East front, the United States has urgently relocated the entire set of six "THAAD" missile defense system launch vehicles and some "Patriot" intercept missiles from the U.S. base in Seongju, Gyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea to the Middle East.
From a geopolitical perspective, the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula have traditionally been viewed as two relatively independent strategic regions. However, the U.S.'s current "taking from the east wall to patch the west wall" style reallocation of global military assets is breaking this isolation. This not only exposes the U.S.'s difficulties in global strategic deployment but also indicates that the fires of the Middle East are no longer confined to a local area; their impact is spreading globally through the tense state of the military supply chain.
Faced with the sudden vulnerability of its security front, public opinion in South Korea was in an uproar. President Lee Jae-myung expressed opposition, but he frankly admitted that South Korean opinions were difficult to implement. What do Koreans really think about this situation? How will the situation on the Korean Peninsula evolve in the future? In response to these questions, Guancha.cn connected with Zheng Zaixing, Director of the China Research Center at the Sejong Institute in South Korea, for an in-depth analysis of the impact of this round of U.S. military deployment adjustments on South Korea and future developments.
[Interview / Guancha.cn, Zheng Lehuan]
Guancha.cn: Currently, the U.S.-Iran war has entered a critical two-week period. The subsequent development of this war has exceeded many people's expectations. Can you briefly share your views and feelings on this war based on your observations in South Korea?
Zheng Zaixing: From the Iranian internal unrest in January to the U.S.-Israel military strikes against Iran at the end of February and early March, this "combination punch" is a common tactic used by the United States: first, through various means, inciting "color revolutions" within the target country. If political subversion fails, military intervention becomes the last resort. Looking back at cases such as Yugoslavia, Libya, and Syria, it has always been like this.
However, in the case of Iran, I believe the U.S. has made an overly simplistic assessment of the situation. Trump clearly underestimated Iran's resistance capabilities and misjudged the internal situation in Iran. The course of this war may well turn into a "prolonged war."
Now, U.S. forces stationed in South Korea have begun to move toward the Middle East, with large amounts of military equipment, including the "THAAD" and "Patriot" systems, being transported to the Middle East. At the same time, Japan is also showing signs of activity.
Monitoring recorded six "THAAD" launch vehicles leaving SBS
These movements indicate that this U.S.-Iran war is no longer just a local conflict, but may become a key turning point in the evolution of the global landscape. If Iran can gain the upper hand in this game, combined with the situation on the Ukraine battlefield, it could help break the Western strategic squeeze on the Eurasian continent.
Guancha.cn: From a geopolitical perspective, the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula are two relatively independent regions. However, as the U.S. moves its military assets on the Korean Peninsula and in the Asia-Pacific region to the Middle East, the impact of the war seems to be expanding and spilling over. What do you think the U.S. reassignment of some "THAAD" and "Patriot" systems originally deployed on the Korean Peninsula to the Middle East signifies for South Korea and the Korean Peninsula?
Zheng Zaixing: Regarding this issue, I think there are several aspects worth paying attention to.
First, from the perspective of the Republic of Korea-U.S. alliance, South Korea cooperating with the U.S. in global military deployments is not without precedent. When the Bush administration launched the Iraq War, South Korea sent troops, although they were mainly logistical forces rather than combat units. As an ally of the United States, South Korea finds it hard to refuse the U.S. request for mobilization. In the future, if the U.S. asks South Korea to provide stronger support in naval or logistical aspects, South Korea would probably find it difficult to refuse.
Second, from the perspective of the arms industry, South Korea has now developed into one of the main suppliers of conventional weapons to Western countries. After the outbreak of the Ukraine war, European countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic have significantly increased their military cooperation with South Korea, with the scale of weapons procurement from South Korea clearly expanding, even said to be second only to the United States. In the Middle East, countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have also imported large quantities of weapons from South Korea in recent years.
It can be predicted that as the situation in the Middle East continues to intensify, South Korea is likely to further align its military cooperation and weapons exports with the U.S. strategic needs. It is worth noting that in the export structure of South Korea last year, apart from chips, arms were one of the most profitable areas. The size of South Korea's defense industry has become quite considerable and has become one of the important pillars of its exports. After the escalation of the Iranian situation, the stock market in South Korea generally fell, but military stocks rose against the trend, which is undoubtedly an important market opportunity for South Korea's defense interest groups.
From the overall economic perspective, the Middle East conflict indeed brings considerable negative impacts to South Korea—fluctuations in the exchange rate of the South Korean won, rising energy and oil prices, all put pressure on the national economy. But in terms of military interests, especially for South Korea's defense interest groups, this is an important market opportunity, and they will not refuse it.
From this trend, the possibility of South Korea continuing to play the role of a "factory" in future conflicts is very high, which may bring some complex subsequent effects.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute released a global ranking of weapons exports by countries and regions, with South Korea ranked ninth. Screenshot of the report "Trends in International Arms Transfers 2025"
First, what is South Korea's attitude toward this war? Currently, the South Korean government is taking a cautious stance, publicly stating that it provides weapon support to countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and has arranged for South Korean citizens in the Middle East to evacuate. But the key point is the U.S. attitude. If the U.S. formally requests South Korea for support, can South Korea refuse? I think it would be very difficult. Of course, the possibility of dispatching combat troops is extremely low, which both sides are clear about. However, the possibility of South Korea further intervening in logistics support, maritime escort, and weapons supply cannot be ignored.
Second, President Lee Jae-myung has clearly expressed his opposition to the relocation of weapons from the U.S. forces stationed in South Korea, but this statement is more symbolic. After all, these weapon systems are operated by the U.S., which are U.S. assets, and South Korea can only express its position, while the actual decision-making power lies in Washington. This also shows that the future development of the situation largely depends not on South Korea, but on the U.S. strategic judgment.
Third, the increasingly bloated South Korean defense interest group. From the current situation, the U.S. itself is limited in strength, even needing to move the equipment of the U.S. forces stationed in South Korea to the Middle East. This leads to a deeper question—whether it is the Ukraine conflict or the Middle East situation, essentially it is a "war of attrition," competing in industrial capacity and weapons supply capability. When the U.S. itself faces supply shortages, it will inevitably ask allies like South Korea and Japan to cooperate. But participating in the war in this way, is it really beneficial for South Korea? Perhaps only the defense interest groups can benefit.
Of course, regardless of whether South Korea is willing or not, due to the existence of the ROK-U.S. alliance, South Korea has no space or possibility to refuse. This is a structural dilemma.
Then comes the question: Can the U.S. afford to fail in the Iran issue? From Trump's own situation, the answer is obviously no—being a strong leader, he cannot accept the defeat of a war. Moreover, Trump proposed that Iran must "unconditionally surrender," but how can Iran accept that? Let's remember, this war started when the U.S. and Israel first conducted military strikes against Iran during the negotiations. So even if Iran agrees to a ceasefire, who can guarantee that the U.S. won't launch another military action with Israel after a respite? The U.S. has already exhausted its credibility, and Iran sees this clearly.
Guancha.cn: Recently, South Korean media has frequently stirred up anxiety about issues such as the "nuclear issue" and "drone threat." They believe that Iran's experience may weaken North Korea's willingness to participate in nuclear talks; meanwhile, the low-cost and high-efficiency military capabilities of drones in the Iran (including Ukraine) situation have also intensified South Korea's anxiety, prompting them to believe that South Korea should accelerate the development of drone technology. Overall, how do you view the impact of this "security anxiety" triggered by the Iranian conflict on South Korean society?
Zheng Zaixing: For many South Koreans, they may not realize that the "distant" Middle East war has a much greater impact on us than they imagine. In addition to the structural passive situation caused by the alliance relationship that may lead us into war, the pro-Western tendency in South Korean media has also caused many South Koreans to feel a unique sense of anxiety, unease, and a significant psychological gap.
First, the fundamental reason why many South Koreans feel uneasy or even find it difficult to accept is that they had long believed that the U.S. is the strongest military power in the world, and this war would end quickly, like the situation in Venezuela. They did not expect that the U.S. strength would also appear strained, nor did they anticipate that the war would last so long.
This "uncomfortable" feeling is not unique to South Korea, but is a common phenomenon among pro-Western countries. However, the question is, is this psychological gap a recent occurrence? Has the U.S. not experienced battlefield failures before? Obviously not.
This is exactly what worries me the most: this "psychological gap" has not truly prompted the South Korean government and society to reflect on existing policies, but instead has given rise to another voice—the U.S. is unreliable, so we need to rely on ourselves more. Some advocate greatly enhancing military power, and the call to "develop drones" is one example; even some have called for South Korea to possess nuclear weapons, develop nuclear submarines or tactical nuclear weapons. This short-sighted way of thinking will only exacerbate the confrontation. Imagine, if South Korea takes the path of possessing nuclear weapons, would North Korea sit idly by? North Korea has defined South Korea as an "enemy country," and once South Korea starts the process of acquiring nuclear weapons, North Korea is very likely to take preemptive action—this logic is equivalent to playing with fire.
Sometimes I feel very surprised: the international order has entered a multipolar era, and the integration of Europe and Asia is also a major trend. However, the mainstream society in South Korea, especially the elite class, still clings to Cold War thinking, revering the "U.S.-led international order" and the "rules-based international order" as a faith. Under this framework, the only response is to strengthen the U.S.-Japan-South Korea alliance, or even seek to possess nuclear weapons—and this is precisely the most dangerous path.
More importantly, a considerable part of the elite class in South Korea is unable to accept the reality that "the U.S. is no longer the strongest in the world." This is a deep cognitive dilemma, and also one of the deeper reasons why the confrontation on the Korean Peninsula continues and the inter-Korean relations remain stuck.
Screen capture
Guancha.cn: What do you think the future of this war will look like? As a non-regional country, how should we play our corresponding role?
Zheng Zaixing: At present, it is very difficult. Why has the Ukraine war lasted so long? The fundamental reason is that NATO expansion has touched Russia's strategic bottom line. The root cause of the Ukraine issue can be traced back to World War II or even earlier, and the Middle East issue has been rooted since the establishment of Israel, with decades or even centuries of accumulated contradictions. If the problem were simple, it would have been resolved long ago.
From a geopolitical perspective, the subsequent development of the conflict directly relates to the core interests of the relevant countries. For China and Russia, if the Iranian regime is overthrown, the consequences will directly affect the overall security pattern of the Eurasian continent. For the U.S., it is the same.
Therefore, we certainly call for peace talks, but we must also be clear that this is not something that can be achieved in the short term. I think, from the perspective of a non-regional country, stopping the war and promoting dialogue is our responsibility. At least one thing we should do is to prevent the situation from escalating or spilling over, especially in Northeast Asia.
Honestly speaking, if the U.S. can accept the reality of multi-polarity and focus on its own "North American garden," no longer interfering in Eurasian affairs, that would be the true path to world peace. But this is too difficult for the U.S.—since the era of the British Empire, the Anglo-Saxon people have been involved in the Eurasian continent for hundreds of years, and they have long been accustomed to extending their influence to this continent. Haven't they been greedy for hundreds of years? Isn't that enough?
But the times have changed. If you still stick to the thinking of hundreds of years ago and try to continue controlling Eurasia, the only result is constant wars, nothing else is possible.
The U.S. military presence around the world is like a "tumor," creating long-term instability in the region—whether it is the Taiwan Strait, the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East, or Europe, behind all of them is the U.S. military presence. The U.S. must understand one thing: the U.S. should return to the Americas and respect the national sovereignty of Eurasian countries. We can carry out economic exchanges, but military presence must be withdrawn.
I think that China and Russia must maintain unity on the issue of Iran. If the situation in Iran is dominated by the U.S., or even if a regime change occurs and a pro-Western government is established, then the entire Middle East's energy lifeline will fall into the hands of the U.S. This is not just a simple conflict, but a struggle for the global balance of power.
The current task is how to achieve multi-polarity, promote the integration of Europe and Asia, and build a new, more equitable international order. This is not a light struggle, but a difficult strategic game. If we fail, we may go back to the status of a hundred years ago—back to the era of being controlled and dominated.
This article is an exclusive contribution from Guancha.cn. The content of the article is purely the personal opinion of the author and does not represent the platform's views. Without authorization, it is not allowed to be reprinted, otherwise legal liability will be pursued. Follow Guancha.cn on WeChat (guanchacn) to read interesting articles every day.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7616533615219835446/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.