Why is Korea so cautious about pointing finger at Iran?

The damaged hull of Korean-operated, Panama-flagged cargo vessel HMM Namu, which was hit by unidentified airborne objects while near the Strait of Hormuz, May 4 / Courtesy of Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The government is taking a conspicuously cautious stance over the external strike on the Korean-operated vessel HMM Namu near the Strait of Hormuz, refraining from identifying who is responsible for the attack — a stance seen as a balancing act between Iran and the United States.

The U.S. and many in Korea, including the main opposition party, assume Iran was behind the strike on the ship on May 4, while the government remains tight-lipped about the perpetrator after the cause of the damage was confirmed Sunday.

Analysts are divided on whether the government's silence is diplomatically prudent or strategically calculated, though most said Tuesday that staying cautious about pinpointing a perpetrator — particularly when a sovereign state may be involved — is the right approach until clear evidence emerges.

“I’d say the Lee Jae Myung administration has been taking a diplomatic stance of speaking openly and candidly, and I don’t think the government is deliberately withholding identification of the perpetrator for diplomatic, political or other reasons,” said Min Jeong-hun, a Korea National Diplomatic Academy professor.

Jeong Han-beom, a professor at the Korea National Defense University, echoed that view. “Pointing a finger at a party, especially a government or a country, in such a sensitive issue without concrete evidence could potentially escalate into a diplomatic issue,” he said.

National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac holds a press briefing regarding Korean-operated vessel HMM Namu at Cheong Wa Dae in Seoul, Monday. Yonhap

Other analysts criticized the government as being “excessively prudent,” arguing that their stance is aimed at avoiding friction with Iran over Korea-linked ships stranded in the strait as well as evading U.S. pressure to join military operations to secure the waterway.

Effectively controlled by Iran, the strait has been a focal point of the Iran conflict since its outbreak on Feb. 28. Among all ships stranded in the region, 26 are either Korean-flagged or operated by Korean companies.

“The safe passage of the 26 stranded vessels remains a top priority, and the government appears to be weighing when and how to publicly disclose the perpetrator,” a security expert at a private think tank said on condition of anonymity.

The expert referred to an Iranian state television report that a Korean vessel was targeted for violating new maritime rules, as well as a state news agency report that at least two vessels — one Korean and one French — were struck and forced to turn back after attempting to pass through the strait with U.S. support.

Iranian Ambassador to Korea Saeed Koozechi, while denying Iran’s involvement, said the incident involving the HMM Namu was “a result of U.S. President Trump’s adventurist policies” during an interview with Kyunghyang Shinmun, a local newspaper, published May 5.

It marked the first time an Iranian official has made a comment regarding responsibility for the explosion involving the Korean cargo vessel.

Also on condition of anonymity, another analyst said that despite the government’s denial, the U.S. may capitalize on the attack on the HMM Namu as leverage to push Korea again toward the Maritime Freedom Construct (MFC), an initiative involving military operations.

Immediately after the incident on May 4, Trump claimed that the damage to the HMM Namu resulted from an attack made by Iran and urged Korea to join the MFC.

In bilateral talks with Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back in Washington, D.C., Monday (local time), U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said the U.S. expects its partners to “stand shoulder to shoulder,” referring to the U.S. military operation against Iran.

Foreign Minister Cho Hyun said, Tuesday, that debris from the projectile that struck the HMM Namu would soon arrive in Seoul for forensic analysis.

“It will be examined jointly by specialized research institutes with relevant expertise,” Cho said.

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration’s Agency for Defense Development has been mentioned as a possible institute that could conduct a forensic analysis of the weapon debris.

The foreign minister said he was not aware of speculation that the object that struck and damaged the vessel was an Iranian-made Shahed-136 drone.

“It is difficult to make premature assessments,” he added.

Graphic by Bae So-young