The South Korean government has concluded that the Namu incident in the Strait of Hormuz was caused by an "external strike," but the fallout continues to spread. Unlike Washington, which treated "an Iranian attack" as a given immediately after the incident, Seoul had maintained an extremely cautious stance on the possibility of a strike. With the external strike now belatedly confirmed, criticism is mounting over the government's intelligence capabilities and initial response.
According to diplomatic sources on the 11th, the government announced the previous day that the Namu incident involved "strikes from two unidentified aerial vehicles," but questions have hardly been resolved. Doubts have instead grown over why the government was so cautious about the possibility of an attack in the early stages of the incident. US President Donald Trump pointed to "an Iranian attack" as the cause immediately after the incident, but National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac said at a briefing on the 6th of this month that "the strike does not appear to be that certain."
① Why Did the Government Withhold Its Judgment on the Attack?
Suspicions Raised Over "Intelligence Sharing Issues with US"
Some Interpret It as "Tightrope Walking" Between US and Iran
Critics point out that the South Korean government ultimately identified the attack several days later than the United States. They argue that although the possibility of an external strike could have been confirmed early through CCTV footage and signs of hull punctures, the judgment was delayed. This has raised questions about whether there were gaps in the government's intelligence capabilities and initial response.
A senior Presidential Office official, however, explained that "at the time of the briefing on the 6th, the puncture had not been confirmed, so judgment was withheld."
There are also observations that there may have been issues in the intelligence-sharing process with the United States. Given recent sensitive undercurrents detected over some intelligence sharing between Seoul and Washington, some interpret that this atmosphere may have affected the response to the Namu incident. However, it has not been confirmed whether related intelligence was actually not sufficiently shared. A senior Presidential Office official said on this matter, "There was various intelligence, and there were several situations suggesting 'this may not necessarily have been a strike, it may not be.'" He added, "President Trump said a Korean vessel had been attacked, but even when we inquired through various routine channels of communication with the US, no one explained on what basis he said so." He continued, "It is presumed that President Trump concluded it was an Iranian attack based on media reports in the early stages of the incident."
Some interpret this as the result of the government, which has been engaged in "tightrope" diplomacy between the US and Iran, maintaining the most cautious stance possible on whether there had been a strike. It was a political judgment reflecting concerns that acknowledging the attack early on could intensify President Trump's pressure for military contributions and worsen relations with Iran.
Even after the strike was identified as the cause of the incident, the government has not specifically named Iran as the attacker. Instead of lodging a protest with the Iranian ambassador to Seoul, it responded by explaining the investigation results, which lends weight to this interpretation. Kim Jae-cheon, a professor at Sogang University's Graduate School of International Studies, analyzed, "Considering the overall circumstances, the government did not need to conclude from the outset that it was an attack," adding, "It strategically withheld judgment until the investigation results came out."
② What Struck the Vessel and How?
Iran's Revolutionary Guard Seen as Prime Suspect
Method, Circumstances, and Intent Remain a 'Mystery'
Questions surrounding the method of attack, the attacker, and the specific circumstances remain unresolved. According to the detailed investigation, the Namu appears to have been hit twice in succession by unidentified low-altitude aerial vehicles at the time of the strike on the 4th of this month. However, further investigation is needed to determine whether the aerial vehicles were drones or small low-altitude missiles.
Considering that the aerial vehicles precisely targeted the engine room, where electrical equipment is concentrated, and that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) declared the area around the Strait of Hormuz a navigation-controlled zone around the time of the incident, the IRGC is being strongly mentioned as the attacker. However, whether this was a precision attack targeting a Korean vessel or an indiscriminate attack carried out amid combat situations remains a mystery in terms of intent. The government reportedly plans to bring some of the debris into the country for further analysis.
Kim Yeol-soo, head of the Security Strategy Office at the Korea Institute for Military Affairs, explained, "The IRGC does not appear to have specifically targeted Korea," adding, "Since the Iranian military's chain of command is not clearly established, it is highly likely that an indiscriminate attack was carried out in a combat situation with the United States." Kim cited as evidence that at the time, not only the Korean vessel but also a French vessel and even a Chinese oil tanker — an ally of Iran — were targeted.
③ How Will Seoul Respond If Iran's Responsibility Is Revealed?
"When Responsibility Is Confirmed, Compensation Should Be Demanded
Military Response Should Be Cautious" Argued
Even if the attacker is clearly identified as Iran, there are voices saying the government needs to maintain a cautious stance. If responsibility is confirmed, Seoul could demand an explanation from Iran and raise the issue of monetary compensation, but observers caution against immediately moving to military response or troop dispatch discussions.
Professor Kim said, "Once the investigation is completed, it will be necessary to hear Iran's explanation and demand the necessary monetary compensation," but emphasized, "Since this does not appear to be an attack hostile to Korea, it is not yet at the stage of dispatching warships as the United States is demanding."
