Sending A Peace Message-- A Growing Uncertainty

[허만]

Sending a Peace Message to the Middle East--a Growing Uncertainty

Professor Emeritus Mane Heo

As the Iran war enters its fifth week, former U.S. President Donald Trump appears to be searching for a way out of an increasingly intense and complex conflict. Iran, an 80-year-old theocratic regime supported by its Revolutionary Guard forces, remains determined to resist the United States despite suffering significant damage to its primary military capabilities, as well as to civilian infrastructure.

The United States Marine Corps is reportedly preparing for potential landings on strategically important Iranian territory, with objectives that may include disabling nuclear facilities. In addition, elite units such as Navy SEALs and Green Berets are said to be on standby, ready for rapid deployment. On April 2, CNN reported that U.S. B-1 bombers had “obliterated Iran’s nuclear sites,” while Iran’s navy had been neutralized and its air force severely weakened. Despite these developments, Iran has warned the United States of lasting consequences, even while hinting at the possibility of eventual surrender.

Such escalations only serve to delay the end of the conflict and further complicate efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, there are tentative signs of diplomacy: the United States and Iran appear to have initiated unofficial talks through intermediaries such as Pakistan, alongside indirect communications via Gulf states’ foreign ministers. These developments may offer a glimmer of hope for de-escalation.

Nevertheless, Trump is widely criticized as an irresponsible leader who initiated this conflict. It can be argued that he has uncritically applied the classical doctrine of Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian military theorist, whose ideas may no longer be suitable in the era of AI-driven warfare. In today’s context, war is far more likely to produce widespread destruction and loss of life than to achieve sustainable peace. Indeed, modern warfare stands in stark contrast to Clausewitz’s original conception.

Trump’s call for U.S. allies to ensure the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz can also be viewed as a self-serving and irresponsible attempt to shift the burden of the conflict. While the strait is an open waterway through which all nations have the right of passage, and Iran has no legal basis to impose transit fees, it is problematic for the United States to transfer responsibility for maintaining access onto its allies.

In the case of South Korea, there is a need to carefully consider its moral and strategic responsibilities. As a long-standing ally of the United States, Korea needs to feel compelled to contribute to ensuring freedom of navigation in international waters. However, beyond military or logistical involvement, Korea should prioritize sending a clear and balanced message of peace to both the United States and Iran.

The United Nations has become increasingly ineffective in its ability to maintain international peace and security. In particular, it failed to adopt a Security Council resolution addressing the conflict in Iran, largely due to Russia and China exercising their veto power. These permanent members appear to have neglected their political responsibility to help end the war, instead prioritizing their own strategic interests over regional stability and global peace. If world leaders continue to fail in their efforts to bring this conflict to an end, the international community may find itself on the brink of a third world war. The situation in Iran is not merely a bilateral issue between the United States and Iran; rather, it has far-reaching implications for global peace and security.

If global peace and security are not restored soon, ongoing conflicts could create opportunities for countries such as Russia, China, and North Korea to adopt more expansionist or imperialist policies. There remains a possibility that these nations could align strategically and exploit vulnerable regions within the international community, echoing patterns seen in the years leading up to 1914 and the 1930s.

Such developments would likely increase global instability and uncertainty, potentially leading to one of the darkest periods in modern civilization. Some observers draw parallels between current geopolitical actions and those of the past—for example, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine under  Putin, as well as controversial foreign policy decisions associated with  Trump, including aggressive stances toward countries like Venezuela and Iran.

Such a message, delivered in coordination with allies but grounded in principles of stability and diplomacy, could play a meaningful role in reducing tensions. Iran, despite its theocratic governance, may still respond to sincere diplomatic efforts aimed at restoring regional peace and stability. Ultimately, proactive peace messaging could help prevent further escalation and contribute to bringing the conflict to an earlier and more sustainable end.