[Editorial] Deterrence vs. dialogue

Korea Herald

11 hours ago

Middle East ceasefire calls into question whether peace is possible without power
In the uncertain wake of the ceasefire between Israel and Iran — a truce brokered in part by US President Donald Trump's abrupt decision to enter the conflict — the physical ruins offer more than a lesson in escalation. They reflect a deeper, more enduring question for another tense region: the Korean Peninsula, where policymakers in Seoul are left to assess not triumph but strategic exposure.
The 12-day confrontation between Israel and Iran came to a halt not through negotiation but through a decisive show of force. Israel's initial strikes eliminated senior military leaders and targeted nuclear infrastructure. The US followed with precision attacks on three of Iran's key enrichment sites. Although Tehran maintained a defiant tone, its acceptance of the ceasefire has largely been viewed as an admission of its limits.
This was not a victory for diplomacy but a stark illustration of what peace might demand when secured by overwhelming power. For South Korea, a country that has lived in the shadow of conflict for more than seven decades, the implications are difficult to ignore.
Some in Seoul argue that recent events validate a 'strength before peace' approach. If military superiority can neutralize threats and bring adversaries to the negotiating table, then perhaps the path to lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula requires a similar stance. The conservative opposition People Power Party has embraced this view, emphasizing that peace must be undergirded by the capacity to deter aggression. South Korea, they argue, should invest in the kind of advanced military and intelligence infrastructure that shaped the outcome in the Middle East.
Iran's case underscores the value of intelligence dominance and precision capability — tools that may prove indispensable when dealing with North Korea's opacity and intransigence. A credible deterrent can protect borders and sharpen diplomatic leverage.
President Lee Jae Myung, however, has chosen a different path. Marking the 75th anniversary of the Korean War's outbreak on Wednesday, he framed security as the creation of conditions that make conflict unnecessary. His administration's approach — including the nomination of Chung Dong-young as unification minister, a longtime advocate of inter-Korean dialogue — suggests a pivot back to engagement. The objective is to reduce tensions, reopen communication channels and gradually de-escalate the decadeslong standoff through reciprocal measures.
Yet North Korea shows little sign of reciprocating. On the same anniversary, Pyongyang organized mass rallies denouncing the US and invoking grievances rooted in the Korean War. Meanwhile, Washington reiterated its goal of denuclearizing North Korea — an aim increasingly complicated by the precedent set in Iran. Tehran's lack of nuclear weapons arguably made it more vulnerable. For Pyongyang, the takeaway may be that it has no reason to consider disarmament, since nuclear capability appears to offer effective protection.
The geopolitical context is also shifting. North Korea continues to deepen its strategic ties with Russia, both militarily and economically, insulating itself from Western influence. The instruments once considered essential to denuclearization — dialogue, summitry, economic incentives — now appear blunted. South Korea faces a hardening reality: how to reconcile a policy of peace with an adversary that grows more entrenched and emboldened.
To be sure, President Lee's preference for diplomacy is not without merit. Past moments of engagement have, at times, defused tensions and opened limited windows for progress. But recent developments underscore the limitations of outreach when met with unyielding opposition. North Korea's current posture, shaped by years of isolation and increasingly acknowledged nuclear status, leaves little room for optimism.
The ceasefire in the Middle East offers no tidy template for the Korean Peninsula. But it serves as a sobering reminder: security cannot be conjured through hope alone. It must be built deliberately, with vigilance and resolve. Peace remains essential — but without the means to defend it, it risks becoming a wish, not a policy.