One of the lessons the United States drew from the Vietnam War in the 1970s was the "Weinberger-Powell Doctrine." It holds that when the United States intervenes abroad, its vital interests must be at stake, along with clear support from Congress and allied nations. In actual intervention, it must define a clear "entry and exit" while employing overwhelming military force.
Song Min-soon, who served as foreign affairs and trade minister under the Roh Moo-hyun administration, offered his assessment on the 15th at the Korean Peninsula Future Forum held at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in Jongno-gu, Seoul. "The Iran war does not correspond to a single element of the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine," he said, adding that "the United States has fallen into a quagmire it should not have fallen into." He was pointing to the current situation, in which high-intensity intervention such as deploying ground troops is difficult, yet an exit strategy is also hard to pursue. Despite signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Iran on ending the war last month, the United States is still exchanging airstrikes.
"In the end, the Middle East will remain a region where the United States, China, and Russia exercise moderate, indirect influence," Song said. "Globally, East Asia will be the remaining region where the United States and China clash directly."
Under such circumstances, he projected, the confrontational landscape on the Korean Peninsula will become more entrenched. "Through the Iran war, North Korea will have hardened its belief that 'if you have nuclear weapons, you won't get beaten,'" Song said. "And since China, in its confrontation with the United States, views North Korea's nuclear weapons as a kind of 'asset,' it will be difficult for China to exert influence on Korean Peninsula issues."
He also forecast that the prospects of restoring tight, close relations among allies after the Iran war are low. "The United States led the world order from after the Vietnam War through the 1990s, but whether such history can be replayed needs to be considered," Song noted. First, unlike Russia, the Cold War adversary surrounding the Vietnam War, China, America's current adversary, is a far greater power. Considering the U.S. posture, whether the United States can rebuild an "alliance network" after the Iran war was also cited as a key question. "Even beyond President Donald Trump, and no matter which president is elected two years from now, it is doubtful whether the United States can build an alliance network like the one during the Cold War era or the 1990s when it led the world," Song analyzed.
Based on this outlook, Song stressed that "regarding Korean Peninsula issues, stabilizing the status quo is more important now than holding idealistic thinking." He added, "'Peaceful coexistence' may be possible for enhancing military stability, easing tensions, and managing crises, but it is not realistic under the direct threat of North Korea's nuclear weapons." He continued, "We must have a robust response capability to deter threats and provocations, but instead maintain a 'negative peace' or 'cold peace' that does not interfere with or threaten North Korea." In effect, he criticized the Lee Jae-myung administration's Korean Peninsula policy, which is summarized by "peaceful coexistence." "If internal change, unavoidable change, occurs in North Korea in the future, then we could move toward a 'warm peace' through exchange and cooperation," Song said. "But that is not the situation now," he emphasized again.
In the context of avoiding idealistic thinking or change, he also assessed Korea-U.S. cooperation on nuclear energy and nuclear-powered submarines as "somewhat unrealistic." "Even under the current Korea-U.S. nuclear agreement, uranium can already be enriched up to 20% through consultation between the two countries," Song said. "Revising the agreement is a political display and realistically unlikely, and the right approach is to negotiate enrichment on a project-by-project basis, such as for small modular reactors (SMRs)." Regarding nuclear-powered submarines, he said, "We will need to continue reviewing feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and whether they are effective in terms of peaceful nuclear use."
