단상斷想

On June 13th, Israel attacked Iranian nuclear facilities, etc., and a dark cloud is gathering in the Middle East. Even if Israel believes in the 'backing' of its 'big brother' the United States, it is not easy to understand why Israel, a 'small but strong country' in the Middle East, attacked Iran, a 'regional hegemonic power'.

Let's look at a few of the superficial reasons. Israel, surrounded by enemies on all sides, is a country that prioritizes its own survival in the Middle East. They are believed to have hundreds of nuclear weapons, but the nuclear armament of neighboring countries is considered the biggest risk to national security that could potentially 'extinguish' Israel.

Recently, Israel, having received intelligence that Iran has reached the final stage of nuclear development, judged that "there is no time" and made a surprise raid on Iranian nuclear facilities. It also attempted to eliminate potential terrorist threats to its country by "striking the origin" of Iran, the "host country" of Hamas and Hezbollah, which have been constantly harassing Israel. It is also known that Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has been in power for a long time, has a "political purpose" to overcome the domestic political crisis, which is a threat to the extension of his political life, by external strikes.

However, there is also criticism that in this Israeli raid on Iran, US President Trump volunteered for 'nuclear negotiations' with Iran, but rather accelerated the war. It is said that the Trump administration continued to send signals that it wanted a diplomatic solution with Iran, leading Iran to be careless, believing that nothing would happen until the 6th nuclear negotiations to be held on the 15th, and that Israel took advantage of this gap to open the way for a surprise attack.

In fact, the prospect of Israel attacking Iran has been raised for months. It is reported that even after the United States entered into nuclear negotiations with Iran last April, Israel conveyed its intention to strike nuclear facilities to the United States on several occasions. However, President Trump has been sending a message externally that he is pressuring Iran but dissuading Israel from attacking. President Trump even posted on Truth Social, "I will commit to a 'Diplomatic Resolution' on the Iran nuclear issue" until just before Israel was about to strike Iran.

In response to press questions about the possibility of an Israeli attack, he said that he was quite close to an agreement with Iran and did not want an Israeli attack. Because of this series of signals, there was an expectation that the 6th nuclear negotiation would be held as it is, even in a situation where the sense of crisis in the Middle East is escalating. The dominant observation was that if Israel took action, it would be after no meaningful agreement was reached in the 6th negotiation. Moreover, as Prime Minister Netanyahu calmly revealed his vacation plans as if nothing had happened, such observations gained more strength.

However, as if to laugh at the rumors of Israel's internal and external suspension of strikes on Iran, it preemptively carried out an airstrike two days before the 6th meeting. It was revealed that Prime Minister Netanyahu's vacation plan was also a smokescreen. Immediately after the airstrike, the United States claimed that they were not involved and that it was Israel's independent action, but under the circumstances, it is highly likely that this operation was carried out with President Trump's tacit approval.

It is necessary to closely examine President Trump's "double diplomacy strategy" at this very point. Immediately after the airstrike, President Trump told Fox News that he knew about Israel's plan in advance and blamed Iran's uncompromising attitude for the attack. It can be seen that the United States knew about Israel's attack on Iran and engaged in negotiations with Iran with 'tacit consent'.

President Trump has mentioned a 'diplomatic solution' and has been negotiating nuclear with Iran, but in reality, he set a negotiation deadline (60 days) and left the period after that open as an 'actionable section'. This could have been a pressure card for Iran to reach a negotiation settlement, and a justification for Israel to say, 'It is your own fault because you have no will to negotiate,' even if it launches an airstrike.

Here, we can confirm the reality of Trump's diplomacy. The core of the diplomacy that President Trump speaks of is a 'full-court pressing through power' strategy. He considers Obama's inclusive diplomacy a failure and believes in transactional pressure diplomacy that 'squeezes, threatens, and hits.' This Israeli airstrike may also mean that President Trump 'colluded' with Israel to send a message that if Iran is not active in negotiations, it could face military provocation as a consequence.

In this regard, President Trump may be attacked in the United States as a 'failure of Trump's mediation diplomacy,' but it may be a calculated conflict. Considering that about 40% of the US defense budget is spent on arms exports and deployments related to the Middle East, this war could revitalize the declining defense industry. It can also maintain its status as an 'energy hegemonic country' in the Middle East.

The reality of Trump's diplomatic strategy is to force complete pressure based on the superiority of power and the resulting surrender of the opponent. On the surface, it seems like diplomacy, but behind the scenes, it is making full preparations for the exercise of force. The reality of such a Trump diplomatic strategy has been clearly demonstrated once again through Israel's airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

The problem is that Trump's "double diplomacy strategy" is highly likely to be applied to the Korean Peninsula as well. If President Jae-myung Lee approaches with complacent leadership, unaware of the "duality" and irreversibility of Trump's diplomacy, we may also be stabbed in the back. The United States reassured Iran on the surface while negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran, but ultimately did not dissuade Israel from striking Iran and condoned it. This sinister double strategy of the United States can be reproduced at any time on the Korean Peninsula.

There is a high possibility that the U.S. may try to 'calm down' South Korea on the pretext of resuming North Korean nuclear negotiations, and in the meantime, North Korea may try to increase its 'negotiating leverage' by making local provocations on the Korean Peninsula. In this process, even if North Korea makes a surprise provocation against South Korea, the U.S. may stick to a typical responsibility-avoidance diplomacy, saying, 'We didn't know.' Considering Trump's past 'backstabbing' diplomatic moves, it is understandable.

In fact, President Lee Jae-myung's "China Xièxiè" remark is understandable from a pragmatic diplomacy perspective, at least 'among ourselves'. However, international diplomacy is often amplified by a single symbolic remark or event, and can upset major powers. If the United States labels President Lee Jae-myung as a "pro-China person" and tries to correct his habits, it may drop "double or triple pressure missiles" into the Korean Peninsula diplomatic war, even more than its tacit approval of Israel's attack on Iran.

That's not to say that President Lee Jae-myung should become a pro-American to the core. However, if the Israel-Iran war escalates, President Lee Jae-myung, who has to make a 'deal' for peace and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula as well as tariffs and defense costs with Trump, will inevitably be pushed back in the order of negotiations with the United States.

President Lee took conciliatory gestures to Chairman Kim Jong-un, such as banning broadcasts to North Korea, and started a 'peace economy,' but such a diplomatic strategy is useless unless the United States moves. The conclusion of practical economic negotiations such as tariffs may also be disadvantageous or pushed to the back burner, which could extinguish President Lee's ambitious practical diplomacy momentum, which is a fatal weakness and limitation for us.

We also know that independent diplomacy based on the supremacy of power is the only way to survive, as former President Roh Moo-hyun already preached in 2006 with the return of wartime operational control. If we had prepared for 'independent diplomacy and defense' step by step since then, we might not have to worry about Trump's fist fight or his words now.

The Lee Jae-myung government, in fact, 'boldly' advocated independent diplomacy centered on national interest, but if there is a lack of a 'counter-deal strategy' to counter unilateralist moves like Trump, it will lose its leadership. We don't have many cards, and even though Trump knows the 'bluff', we can't just shout practical diplomacy among ourselves. The peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and the North Korean nuclear diplomacy space are bound to shrink. This is the dilemma of Lee Jae-myung's diplomacy, which is just starting.

It is worrying that the date for President Lee Jae-myung's diplomatic leadership test has been set earlier than expected. The Israel-Iran war took place in a faraway place 8,000 km away, but we have to be mindful of Trump's mood as if it were 1m away from the security issues on the Korean Peninsula. The whole world, including the United States and Europe, is trembling at Trump's impromptu and emotional 'tantrum-like' diplomatic strategy.

It is obvious that the conservatives will pressure President Lee Jae-myung, saying, "Prepare practical countermeasures such as actively sending a 'balanced diplomacy' message that indirectly supports the restoration of the ROK-U.S. relationship and the Middle East bloc diplomacy led by Trump." However, the progressives will counter, "We must adhere to the consistency of independent diplomacy and the principle of an anti-war peace line." President Lee Jae-myung must find a diplomatic strategy that prioritizes national interests amid pressure from conservatives and progressives.

The people are ready to accept President Lee's attempts and challenges not as 'ability' but as 'wisdom'. I just hope that we don't make the mistake of 'losing both the crab and the basket' by rushing too much or using a submissive diplomatic strategy.

In fact, Israel must have had something to rely on when it struck Iran. But we are not Israel. We must not forget that the adage 'Do not trust the United States' has been a proven core strategy for Korean security on the Korean Peninsula since the 19th century.