Trump's Iran Gamble Clouds Korean Peninsula's Future

Tucker Carlson, a conservative commentator and once fervent supporter of President Donald Trump, called the U.S. attack on Iran "disgusting and evil" immediately after the strike. He warned the situation would fundamentally change the landscape—not of Iran's nuclear development or Middle East conflict, but of American political dynamics. Former U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, once dubbed "the female Trump," also lashed out at the military operation. "The Trump administration has always been a lie, and America came last," she wrote on social media, adding, "This time it feels like the worst betrayal."

American public opinion on the Iran attack is predominantly negative. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted immediately after the airstrikes found 43% opposed the attack, while only 27% supported it. Notably, criticism is growing among Trump's core supporters like Carlson. The MAGA base has long opposed foreign military intervention, and frustration is mounting as Trump's second-term actions contradict his previous promises.

Why did Trump proceed with the attack despite anticipating backlash from his own base? The leading theory is that Trump, struggling with declining approval ratings ahead of November's midterm elections, played the Iran card to shift the political narrative. Richard Haass, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations and author of "War of Necessity, War of Choice," criticized the strike: "America's attack on Iran was not about 'necessity' but 'opportunity.'" The New York Times similarly characterized it as ultimately a "war of choice."

History shows that embattled national leaders have often ordered attacks on adversaries to redirect domestic political narratives. As Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz wrote in "On War": "War is the continuation of politics by other means." Yet Trump's Iran strike appears more like a gamble, diverging sharply from both U.S. national interests and conservative political priorities.

Trump's bet on the midterms can only pay off if the war ends quickly in American victory. But Washington is already discussing the possibility of a prolonged conflict.

This war has cast dark clouds over a global landscape already marked by hegemonic competition. While allies like Britain and France have distanced themselves from Washington, urging dialogue with Iran instead of war, rivals China and Russia have amplified their criticism. Northeast Asia, including the Korean Peninsula, faces heightened tensions. Trump acknowledged the potential for escalation and a protracted conflict, saying, "We expected 4-5 weeks, but we have the capability to sustain it longer."

The concern is that if Iran retaliates against Israel and the U.S. launches additional large-scale attacks, demands could intensify for advanced equipment and major units from U.S. Forces Korea. The "strategic flexibility" outlined in America's new National Security Strategy—allowing rapid redeployment of USFK weapons and troops—could become reality. While South Korean forces must shoulder greater responsibility for deterrence against North Korea as U.S. defense strategy evolves, our military's readiness appears to be heading in a different direction. The Freedom Shield exercise starting March 9 has been significantly scaled back from last year.

Trump's war with Iran could bring significant uncertainty to the Korean Peninsula's future. With North Korea's nuclear threat ever-present, a solid U.S.-South Korea alliance remains the safeguard against crisis. The worry is that amid a prolonged U.S.-Iran conflict, flames of war could seep through the cracks of the weakest links.