South Korea, significantly like Israel, has long depended on American security systems, especially the technology used in air defense systems, as the basis of its security plan. US technical skills, particularly in the form of advanced fighter jets, weapon security systems and intelligence-sharing, has provided both countries with a tactical advantage over their opponents.
However, as new advances in the continuing conflict between Israel and Iran have demonstrated, increased reliance on technology you immediately change into a major risk. The proper landscape has shifted considerably.
Iran, with its expanding weapon features, has significantly challenged Israel’s weather threats, including the US-made Aegis and Patriot techniques, reducing their overall success.
However, the development of next-generation weapon intrusion systems, such as the fly phase interceptor ( GPI), is also several years from full deployment. Israel is still vulnerable to missile attacks until these systems are operationally ready, which highlights the crucial gap between the theoretical advances in technology and the practical application of them in real-world conflict situations.
This ominous real serves as a cautionary tale for South Korea, which encounters problems comparable to those of North Korea. In a time when local opponents are rapidly closing the modern gap, both , countries are increasingly reliant on American defense technologies.
So, South Korea can draw important lessons from the ongoing fight between Iran and Israel, particularly in terms of political engagement, technical dependency, and defense strategy.
There are important lessons to be drawn from the Iran-Israel war as South Korea navigates its own special safety issues, especially in the framework of its antagonistic relationship with North Korea. These training can help South Korea develop a more stable and self-sufficient security system for the future while avoiding tactical pitfalls.
1. Tech limits in security planning
There are limits to how much superior security technology can protect a country from evolving threats, which is a key takeaway from the Iran-Israel discord.
Israel and South Korea have historically relied heavily on the most sophisticated security networks provided by supporters like the United States. In Israel’s situation, National air superiority was again a core of its protection strategy, but the continuing conflict with Iran has exposed important vulnerabilities. Iran’s missile improvements have posed a significant challenge to Israel’s defense systems.
The US has recently provided Israel with the THAAD ( Terminal High Altitude Area Defense ) system, hoping it will bolster Israel’s protection. But, experts have previously predicted that this system’s protection against Iranian fast weapons may be limited. So, despite having some of the nation’s most advanced technologies and maintaining a modern advantage over its opponents, Israel now finds itself extremely vulnerable.
This demonstrates the fundamental limitations of technology in protecting a country. To protect itself, a country requires far more than just outstanding protection technology.
Israel made the mistake of over-relying on technologies and additional help, while neglecting the development of human martial resources and capabilities, leaving itself resilient.
In Gaza, Jewish forces struggled with cooperation during industrial warfare, allowing militant organizations to maintain weight. In southern Lebanon, despite advanced weaponry, the Israeli Defense Forces ( IDF) are now facing significant challenges against Hezbollah’s guerrilla tactics, highlighting a lack of preparedness for asymmetric warfare.
For South Korea, which itself relies heavily on US-made F-35 fighter jet among other British martial systems, the situation presents a clear warning stories. In today’s political environment, advanced military systems is no longer the exclusive realm of a few effective countries. Iran and North Korea, two nations with advanced technical prowess, especially in missile and cyberwarfare, are just two examples.
South Korea may concentrate on developing long-term capabilities that can withstand regional shifts in military technology to guarantee a durable and enduring protection. To successfully manage the ambiguities of an expanding military systems landscape, one should emphasize self-reliance, integrating people resources and technological advancements, and avoiding risk.
2. Strengthening indigenous floor fight capabilities
Another important lesson for South Korea is the crucial necessity of upholding solid ground combat abilities. The Iran-Israel issue highlights the possibility that air force might no longer be enough to win battles in contemporary war. Ground wars, involving well-trained and equipped individual men, remain key to any military issue.
Israel has neglected to develop its ground forces because it is too comfortable in its air force and is now finding it difficult to properly engage non-state actors on the ground. Israel’s challenges in earth conflict are evident in the 2006 Lebanon War, the 2014 Gaza issue, and the 2024 battle with Hamas. Israel faced strong resistance from Hezbollah and Hamas in urban and guerrilla warfare, which revealed gaps in training and readiness for close-quarters battles and tunnel warfare.
These examples show how neglecting ground forces left Israel vulnerable, even against non-state actors. If Israel had to wage a ground war against a state actor like Iran, the consequences would be much worse.
South Korea must be aware that air dominance can be temporary, and that the most important battles are most likely to be fought on the ground, in the context of a potential conflict with North Korea. Therefore, it is crucial to create and strengthen indigenous ground forces that are both prepared and fully equipped to defend the homeland.
3. Strengthening self-reliance and diversifying military partnerships
Israel’s experience emphasizes the value of not overrelying on outside forces for national defense. Israel must ultimately fight its own battles, despite the United States ‘ continued support for it with important intelligence, cutting-edge technology, and diplomatic assistance.
Israel’s efforts to strengthen military ties with countries like Egypt and Jordan, which would have added more strategic depth to its conflicts with non-state actors, have been missed due to its focus on bolstering ties with the US and Europe. Israel’s ability to adapt quickly to changing dynamics in the Middle East has been limited by this lack of regional collaboration.
Despite Israel’s status as a top priority for US policymakers, a combination of political, economic, military and geopolitical factors has limited America’s ability to provide significant on-the-ground assistance.
South Korea cannot afford to commit the same error. American military assistance – especially in terms of technology and intelligence-sharing – is vital. However, in any upcoming conflicts with North Korea, South Korean forces may bear the bulk of the cost of combat.
This requires that South Korea concentrate on creating a more independent defense force. Delays in deploying the Korean Air and Missile Defense (KAMD) system and slow progress in advanced surveillance capabilities, like drones, expose vulnerabilities.
The South Korean navy’s corvette Cheonan was torpedoed in 2010 by North Korea, highlighting deficiencies in naval readiness. In order to be ready for future conflicts, South Korea must strengthen its military might and strengthen its independence. In the midst of a conflict, it cannot afford to assume that US military support will be sufficient.
The US’s domestic political and economic situation has grown more complex. In both foreign policy and other areas, bipartisanship has decreased. South Korea cannot base its defense strategy on the shifting priorities of the American political elite.
Moreover, the US is becoming entangled in numerous global conflicts, diminishing its ability to focus on the Korean Peninsula.
South Korea must actively work to strengthen military ties with neighboring nations like India, Japan, and Australia, despite the importance and importance of the US-Korea alliance.
Israel’s over-reliance on the US and Europe serves as a warning. Israel has faced limitations in US support despite being a top priority for American policymakers due to a number of factors. South Korea needs to take lessons from this instance and avoid similar setbacks.
To ensure its security, South Korea needs to strengthen its domestic military capabilities, particularly in ground, naval, space and cyber warfare. Regardless of external assistance, building a self-sufficient defense force is essential for maintaining readiness. To avoid economic strain from purchasing pricey foreign weapons, investing in its own defense industry should be top of the list.
4. addressing demographic issues in military recruitment
South Korea is currently confronted with a unique problem by a declining population. Israel, with a population growth rate of about 1.8 % ( 2023 ), maintains a steady pool of military recruits, thanks to natural increase and immigration. In contrast, South Korea’s population is shrinking, with a growth rate around -0.2 % ( 2023 ). This demographic decline puts the strength of South Korea’s military forces at risk, as well as the availability of young people for military service.
South Korea can draw lessons from Israel’s approach to sustaining a stable population. To ensure a robust military, it is urgent to encourage higher birth rates, revive family values, and foster a strong sense of national duty. Addressing these demographic concerns is essential to ensuring the long-term development of a strong defense force.
5. The role of diplomacy in resolving peaceful conflicts
A significant lesson that Israel can impart to South Korea is about balancing military might with diplomacy. Israel’s over-reliance on military solutions has led to prolonged conflicts and isolation. South Korea ought to steer clear of this path. While maintaining military might is required, managing tensions with North Korea and other regional powers requires diplomacy.
South Korea should embrace peaceful conflict resolution, guided by its values of universal brotherhood. In contrast to Israel, which has occasionally relied on its sense of being a” chosen people,” South Korea can rely on its tradition of Hanguk ingan, which emphasizes equality and shared humanity, as a moral guide for its diplomatic efforts. Establishing open communication channels with North Korea, China, and Russia can help stop conflicts by avoiding the pitfalls of using only military measures.