President Lee Calls for A “Self Reliant” Defense for South Korea in Response to Iran War
President Lee is pushing for a self reliant defense of Korea, whatever that means:
President Lee Jae Myung on Monday underscored the importance of self-reliant defense capabilities, citing a “very complex and fluid” international situation, as the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran has disrupted global energy markets.
“I believe self-reliant defense capability is essential to our integrated security posture,” Lee said during a regular security meeting with senior officials, according to Cheong Wa Dae. “We must be able to defend ourselves without relying on outside assistance, and we do have such capabilities.”
You can read more at the link, but if South Korea has so called self reliant defense capabilities than why is President Lee using them to help open the Strait of Hormuz where much of Korea’s energy passes through? Iran is essentially committing an act of war against South Korea by blockading ships designated to go to South Korea from departing the Persian Gulf.
I hate to say it but President Lee is doing an excellent job of looking out for Korea.
Everything he is doing makes perfect sense as he plays all ends to maneuver a weak and dependent, resource-scarce country through the entangled agendas of greater powers.
Some things he can take credit for and some things are the result of a history of natural korean intelligence, policy continuity, and centralized strategic focus (without the conflicting agendas due to “diversity”).
Let’s look:
– “self-reliant” defense is exactly what Korea needs. This reduces obligations when asked for involvement in things Korean doesn’t want to get involved in. It is also an excellent marketing strategy as Korea shifts from exporting cars and OLED panels to military equipment.
– instead of going to war with Iran, Korea quickly diversified suppliers and locked in long-term contracts. Further, with the world’s 4th largest strategic petroleum reserve, Korea is well positioned to manage temporary price and supply shocks.
– not sabotaging nuclear power like Moon which will give Korea a lot of future freedom from the globalist culture of dependence and extraction. (Future Korea will honor Yoon for restarting the nuclear program after Globalist Moon’s anti-Korean sabotage).
– most importantly, it establishes what will become Korea’s biggest advantage in global positioning… “sell to everyone, fight no one”. Korea’s best path to success is to remain apolitical and sell to anyone with money and no conflict with South Korea. Nations will go out of their way to not cross South Korea.
This is economic hedging instead of military escalation, which is a sensible route for Korea at this time.
Moon tried to sabotage this. Yoon reversed a lot of it. Lee has supported it in action despite leftist talk.
He seems like a Korean nationalist in leftist clothing… a rare unicorn.
Excellent job, my ass.
“Excellent job, my ass.”
I gave reason why I believe he is looking out for Korea, especially in comparison to Moon.
He is in the unenviable position of being unable to stand directly against America and China but still having to resist their intrusive demands.
He has to look out for Korea’s long-term future in everything from energy imports to product exports while competing against those with the same goals.
I feel his is not only navigating this well, but he is navigating it in the best way possible.
Like any complex system, we can find small criticisms, such as seeming favoritism to Chinese demonstrators and the suppression of attention to Chinese criminals.
But these are not existential issues like shutting down nuclear power or cutting research funds.
Based on Lee’s speaking about making it harder to open a business, I have been highly distrustful in the past.
His current record on this is not what he promised. In fact, it is the opposite…
…but in a bad way.
If you are a struggling small SME, the type he wanted to not allow to open through increased regulations and costs, his administration is helping through more protections, support, and subsidies.
If you are a lean, efficient, and independent SME, you get more rules, higher costs, less flexibility.
Such is the way with redistributionists who love to take from the smart and hardworking and give to the dumb and lazy.
Unequal outcomes are an injustice to the disadvantaged, they believe.
They don’t notice that equal outcomes are an injustice to the productive class.
We can discuss domestic policy more.
As for international policy, I believe he is doing about as good as possible.
But we must be vigilant.
@ChickenHead:
There are obvious differences between him and Moon.. but there are far more similarities, especially coming from the same party.. I can’t believe you even have the guts to mention Yoon.. the ONLY reason Lee can remotely do what he wants is because he isn’t facing the same parliamentary dictatorship that Yoon faced during his presidency.. you honestly think Lee can do what he is doing now with the same roadblocks Yoon endured? Lee is NOT looking out for Korea. This is just his veil to get public points, since he eventually did become “president.” He’s copying someone else’s playbook, and just getting credit for him. This is his life – criminal, fraud, and a liar.
I am not going to say you are wrong yet, as Lee has not completed his presidency.
I am just documenting what I am observing.
My judgment in all matters is based upon current action rather than party, history, past speaking, present speaking, personal life, associates, what other people say, etc.
Actions now affect me. Everything else is baggage of the past… though it also affects trust for the future.
Currently, I believe Lee is managing Korea’s international issues and relations quite well under difficult conditions.
You are welcome to choose any of the supporting reasons I mentioned and discuss them further.
My mind can be changed.
Don’t think supporting a lefty brings me no pain.
@ChickenHead:
I guess my point is that you’re borderline on being morally careless.
Saying you judge only “current actions” while dismissing party, history, past statements, and associations ignores how political responsibility actually works. A politician is not a series of isolated moments.. they are a continuous actor shaped by consistent incentives, beliefs, and patterns. Those other variables you’re discarding are not irrelevant baggage; they are the very evidence that tells you whether current actions are genuine, strategic, or opportunistic.
If you evaluate Lee only on what he’s doing right now, you strip away the ability to judge consistency, credibility, and intent. That doesn’t make your judgment neutral.. it actually makes it shallow. Worse, it allows any politician to reinvent themselves moment-to-moment without being held accountable for contradictions or past behavior.
And that’s where the moral issue comes in: ignoring history and patterns removes accountability. It rewards short-term optics over long-term integrity. A leader who says or does whatever is convenient today can always pass your test, because you’ve chosen not to measure them against what they said or did yesterday. That’s not fairness or even democracy.. that’s lowering the standard in a way that benefits political actors at the expense of the public.
You even admit that past behavior affects “trust for the future,” but then you exclude it from your judgment. That’s a contradiction. Trust is part of evaluating current leadership… especially in foreign policy, where credibility with countries like United States or China depends heavily on consistency over time.
I stand by my belief.. I despise Lee and this fake Minjoo party..
Your points are valid.
But my evaluation was specifically not of any of that so we are comparing apples to oranges here.
I was speaking of what he is doing right now in foreign affairs.
I specifically said past action affects future trust. I also expressed amazement that he is unexpectedly looking out for Korea rather than Moon-grade globalist sabotage. I also said we should remain vigilant.
But right now, I feel he is taking the best possible path for Korea and I don’t see how it can be groundwork for eventual leftist sabotage. So I am pleased with what I see.
I care about actions more than ideology. Generally the right is more practical and evidence-based. The left is more wishful and emotional.
Thinkers lean right. Something slightly less than human leans left.
But that doesn’t mean the left is always wrong or only engages in foolishness. It is proper to evaluate and recognize when the left does something correctly.
Ignoring this in support of rigid ideology is like a European woman who votes for more Muslim immigrants and then blames the far right when she gets gang ràped.
I will not criticize someone for doing what I feel is in my best interests.
@Chicken Head:
You say we’re comparing apples to oranges, but we’re not. You’re artificially separating “current actions” from the very context that gives those actions meaning. Foreign policy doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s not a snapshot.. it’s a signal. Other countries interpret what a leader does today through the lens of what they’ve done before and what they’re likely to do next. So when you evaluate “just current actions,” you’re not simplifying the analysis.. you’re removing the ability to interpret it correctly.
You also say past behavior affects trust for the future, but then you bracket it out of your actual evaluation. That’s the core inconsistency for me.. Trust isn’t some optional add-on.. it’s embedded in how current actions are judged. A move in foreign affairs can look strong in isolation but mean something completely different if it contradicts years of prior positioning. Without that context, you can’t tell whether something is strategic, temporary, or opportunistic, as I said before.
There’s also a deeper issue with your standard: it unintentionally rewards short-term alignment with your interests over long-term coherence. Any politician (left or right) can appear “correct” in the moment if the bar is simply “does this benefit me right now?” That’s not a reliable framework for judging leadership; it’s a framework for being managed. And on the ideology point.. saying “the right is rational and the left is emotional” isn’t analysis to me, it’s just a partisan assumption. If you really care about actions over ideology, then that kind of blanket framing contradicts your own standard. You’re still using ideology, and you’re just applying it selectively to be honest.
Your example at the end undermines your argument more than it supports it. It replaces reasoning with provocation, and it suggests you’re willing to generalize and assign blame in ways that aren’t consistent with the careful, evidence-based approach you say you value. So the issue isn’t that you’re willing to acknowledge a politician doing something right.. that part is reasonable and I understand. The issue is that your method of evaluation strips away the very tools needed to judge whether what you’re seeing is actually meaningful, consistent, or sustainable.
To add to discussion about Lee, I think something else to consider when evaluating him is how his party has used the so called “coup” attempt by Yoon to arrest and jail political opponents. They have also used it as a pretext to remove a number of top officers in the ROK military and replace them with likely with personnel ideologically aligned with the left.
The real evaluation of Lee will happen when his poll numbers inevitably drop like all Korean presidents do. Will he then turn to anti-Japan nationalism and other left wing tactics to rally his base?