The Korea Times

The world still fears American retreat

The Middle East conflict is not yet over. The United States and Iran may be edging toward a diplomatic framework intended to halt the fighting, but the odds of renewed escalation remain high. Washington has continued limited strikes under the banner of self-defense, while Iran has responded with missile attacks on U.S. military facilities in Kuwait. Yet the more important question is this: Why does the United States, still the world’s most powerful military power, appear so uncertain and hesitant? Why has Washington failed to decisively resolve the two central issues at the heart of this conflict — the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear ambitions? Many observers explain this simply as the results of the impulsive and unpredictable personality of U.S. President Donald Trump. Certainly, Trump matters — but Trump himself is also a product of a deeper problem: The accumulated fatigue of a hegemonic power increasingly uncertain about the burdens and costs of maintaining the international order it once built and defended. In “War and Change in World Politics,” Robert Gilpin warne

9h agoBy Park Jung-won

Park Jung-won

A war neither side can end

Why does the Middle Eastern conflict refuse to end? How is it that the U.S. — a state with overwhelming military power — has been unable to bring it to a close? The situation has grown more complicated over time. At the outset, a short and decisive campaign seemed plausible. The United States could concentrate its superior force, neutralize Iran’s core capabilities and reshape the regional order. Even now, only the United States has that capacity, and yet Washington has proved capable of starting a war but not finishing it. The Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical trade chokepoints, has effectively become a hostage. Tensions escalate and ease, but the essential structure of the conflict remains stubbornly unchanged. Why has it unfolded this way? Not simply because of tactical missteps, but because of a deeper misreading of Iran itself. While formally a republic, it is a survival-driven system centered on its Revolutionary Guard. In such a structure, retreat is not a policy option but a path to regime collapse. For those at the core of power, negotiation is not a

May 7, 2026By Park Jung-won

Park Jung-won

A war without exit, a world without anchor

The scene from U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent Cabinet meeting revealed more than was intended. His remarks drifted between escalation and negotiation, lacking coherence and direction. There was an unmistakable sense of urgency — an effort to find a way out as the economic strain began to materialize. Yet the officials seated beside him told a different story. While Trump projected confidence, the faces of those responsible for managing the situation reflected tension, not reassurance. The central question is simple: What is the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran really about? Washington continues to cite the nuclear threat and regional instability. But at this stage, those explanations are no longer sufficient. The conflict has since shifted beyond its initial rationale. What is now at stake is far more concrete and far more consequential: control of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has effectively tightened its grip over the waterway, restricting passage and, according to reports, demanding payments for safe transit. Some accounts even suggest that such transactions are being conducted in c

Apr 5, 2026By Park Jung-won

A war without exit, a world without anchor

Park Jung-won

Judicial reform or judicial insurance?

Former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s declaration of martial law was unmistakably a grave challenge to the constitutional order. The legal judgment rests with the courts, and the recent first-instance conviction deserves respect. Martial law placed the nation under acute constitutional strain and provoked widespread fear and anger. It was denounced as an abuse of authority and a breach of constitutional limits. But what does the present moment reveal? Under the banner of a “Revolution of Light,” power shifted. The ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), firmly aligned behind President Lee Jae Myung, presents itself as the force that restored constitutional normalcy. Yet democratic recovery is not secured by electoral turnover alone. It is measured by how those who command legislative power handle the institutional constraints that bind them. The language of renewal now coexists with an evident readiness to redraw those very constraints. The so-called “three judicial reform bills” have now been enacted in full. The DPK, armed with an overwhelming legislative majority and unified di

Mar 3, 2026By Park Jung-won

Park Jung-won

While the world reorders, Korea dithers

What kind of world do we now find ourselves in? The map may look the same, yet the world order that underlies it is transforming. Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro was seized in a U.S. military operation. After a failed attempt to “purchase” Greenland, America floated the possibility of annexing the vast island, owned by Denmark, by force. Attempts to negotiate a lasting end to the war in Ukraine floundered amid divisions between Western allies. And pro-democracy protests in Iran were met by state violence that could provoke an international response. As all these events unfolded, the silence of international organizations became hard to ignore. What has vanished is not order itself, but the responsibility and restraint of those who once upheld it. Many describe the present moment as an era in which international law has “disappeared.” But international law has not gone anywhere. What has disappeared is not the norms but the will that made the norms operative. International law does not run on its own. It functions only when leaders assume responsibility, when institutio

Feb 10, 2026By Park Jung-won

Park Jung-won

Restoring Korea’s democratic integrity

Korean democracy is not collapsing. It is entering a more subtle, precarious phase in which the erosion of principle is no longer clearly recognized as a problem. As 2026 begins, Korea still presents itself, at least formally, as a functioning democratic state. More than six months have passed since the current administration took office, and governance has moved well beyond its initial stage. The National Assembly legislates, courts issue rulings and the executive operates without visible disruption. There is no formal institutional vacuum and no obvious breakdown of constitutional machinery. However, a persistent sense of unease and fatigue continues to grow across Korean society. This unease cannot be explained away simply by early policy failures or by the confusion that often follows a change of government. Nor can it be dismissed as a mere aftershock of electoral polarization. It has emerged more gradually through the manner in which the current government exercises state power in a way that increasingly suggests a diminished commitment to being constrained, justified and discip

Dec 31, 2025By Park Jung-won

Park Jung-won

Korea on the brink

There is a certain heaviness that descends on anyone who watches the proceedings of Korea’s National Assembly Judiciary Committee today. What should be the institutional heart of democratic deliberation increasingly resembles something far more unsettling — a chamber where constitutional norms bend to partisan strategy, and where procedural fairness has been replaced by tactical obstruction. Under a committee chairperson from the ruling Democratic Party of Korea who repeatedly curtails opposition voices and interprets parliamentary rules in ways that consistently favor her own side, the committee has drifted far from its intended function. It no longer operates as a guardian of legislative integrity but rather as a zone of partisan combat, where political instincts for survival overshadow any sense of constitutional responsibility. This erosion of institutional seriousness came into stark relief with the prosecutors’ decision to drop their appeal in the Daejang-dong corruption case — arguably the largest real estate corruption scheme ever uncovered in Korea. Bringing such a cas

Dec 4, 2025By Park Jung-won

Park Jung-won

Vanishing national interest

The curtain has fallen on the APEC summit, but the performance of diplomacy goes on. President Lee Jae Myung held a series of meetings with U.S. President Donald Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, which his administration has trumpeted as historic breakthroughs. Television networks replayed the scenes of handshakes and smiles, creating the impression that Korea now stood at the center of global diplomacy. But after the lights fade and the applause quiets, one question remains: In concrete terms, what did Korea actually gain from all this spectacle? The Lee administration’s proudest claim — the revised tariff deal with the United States — was portrayed as a major economic breakthrough, a bargain struck in return for lowering U.S. tariffs from 25 to 15 percent. However, the details tell a very different story. Korea agreed to invest about $350 billion in the United States, including $200 billion in cash over the next ten years. Given Korea’s foreign reserves of roughly $420 billion — of which more than 90 percent are tied up in asset

Nov 6, 2025By Park Jung-won

Park Jung-won

Korea-US alliance at a critical juncture

Something has gone seriously wrong in the Korea-U.S. relationship. Back in late July, the Korean government proudly declared that the long and difficult tariff negotiations with Washington had finally concluded successfully. The next month, following the Korea-U.S. summit, a presidential spokesperson told reporters there was no need for any written agreement because the meeting had gone “so well.” Everything, we were assured, was firmly under control. The public was told to relax. Yet only weeks later, President Lee Jae Myung himself said in an interview with Time magazine that U.S. demands were excessive and unfair. He even warned that accepting them could trigger a financial crisis — and even lead to his impeachment. So what happened between then and now? Was the summit such a triumph that it required no written statement, as the spokesperson claimed? Or was the administration eager to trumpet a success story back then, only to rewrite the script when it became politically convenient? Do they really believe the Korean people can be deceived this easily? This episode revealed mor

Oct 1, 2025By Park Jung-won

Korea-US alliance at a critical juncture

Park Jung-won

Is this Korea’s grand strategy?

What was displayed was bizarre. What was hidden was unsettling. That is the simplest way to sum up the recent Korea-U.S. summit. It was billed as the South Korean president’s first big stage in Washington, but when it was over, no joint statement or communique was issued, nor was there a joint press conference. What the public actually saw was a brief exchange in the Oval Office. And in that short time, the name repeated most often was neither Korea nor America — but Kim Jong-un. President Donald Trump, in his usual fashion, dominated the conversation with long answers to reporter questions, with topics ranging from Ukraine to China to domestic politics. South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, by contrast, spoke little. The one moment that stood out was his request to President Trump: “Please meet Kim Jong-un.” Before a global audience, why did the South Korean president repeat the North Korean leader’s name so often? Is Kim Jong-un really the most pressing issue right now? This was not a mere diplomatic slip. It created the impression that the South Korean president was speaki

Sep 3, 2025By Park Jung-won

Park Jung-won

The world still fears American retreat

A war neither side can end

A war without exit, a world without anchor

Judicial reform or judicial insurance?

While the world reorders, Korea dithers

Restoring Korea’s democratic integrity

Korea on the brink

Vanishing national interest

Korea-US alliance at a critical juncture

Is this Korea’s grand strategy?

Top 5 stories