Just like Israel, South Korea has traditionally relied on US defense technology, specifically air defense systems, as a pillar of their defense strategy. American technological expertise in advanced fighter jets, missile defense mechanisms, and intelligence exchange has given both nations a strategic edge over their opponents.

However, recent events in the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict demonstrate that over-dependence on technology can quickly become a significant weakness. The strategic panorama is changing rapidly.

Iran’s growing missile capabilities are posing a considerable challenge to Israel’s air defenses, including the Aegis and Patriot systems provided by the US, diminishing their overall efficiency.

Moreover, next-generation missile interception systems like the glide phase interceptor (GPI) are still a few years away from full deployment. Until these technologies are fully operational, Israel remains susceptible to missile attacks, underscoring the gap between theoretical technological advancements and their practical use in real-world combat situations.

This harsh truth serves as a warning for South Korea, which faces similar challenges with North Korea. The heavy reliance on Western defense technologies by both nations is becoming increasingly risky as regional adversaries rapidly lessen the technological divide.

The ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel thus offers crucial insights for South Korea, particularly in the areas of defense strategy, technological dependency, and diplomatic engagement.

As South Korea navigates its unique security challenges, particularly in its adversarial relationship with North Korea, key lessons can be learned from the Iran-Israel war. These lessons can help South Korea avoid strategic pitfalls and build a more robust and self-reliant defense posture for the future.

1. The limitations of technology in defense strategy

The Iran-Israel conflict teaches a crucial lesson that advanced defense technology has limitations in shielding a nation from evolving threats.

Nations such as Israel and South Korea have historically depended heavily on advanced defense systems supplied by allies like the United States. In Israel’s case, American air superiority once formed a pillar of its defense strategy, but the ongoing conflict with Iran has exposed significant vulnerabilities. Iran’s missile advancements have seriously challenged Israel’s defensive systems.

Recently, the US provided Israel with the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system, hoping it would strengthen Israel’s protection. However, experts have already predicted that this system may offer only limited defense against incoming Iranian hypersonic missiles. Thus, despite having some of the world’s most advanced technologies and maintaining a technological edge over its adversaries, Israel today finds itself increasingly vulnerable.

This underscores the inherent limitations of technology in protecting a nation. A nation requires more than superior defense technology to defend itself.

Israel made the error of overly depending on technology and external support, neglecting the development of human military resources and capabilities, leaving it vulnerable.

In Gaza, Israeli forces struggled with coordination during urban warfare, allowing militant groups to maintain resistance. 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 heavily relies on US-made F-35 fighter jets among other American military technology, the situation presents a stark warning. In today’s geopolitical landscape, advanced military technology is no longer the exclusive domain of a few powerful nations. Countries such as Iran and North Korea have rapidly advanced their technological capabilities, especially in missile and cyber warfare.

To ensure a sustainable and enduring defense, South Korea must focus on building long-term capabilities that can withstand fluctuations in military technology across the region. A resilient defense posture should prioritize self-reliance, integrating human resources and technological advancements to effectively navigate the uncertainties of an evolving military technology landscape.

2. Enhancing native ground combat capabilities

Another important lesson for South Korea is the critical importance of maintaining strong ground combat capabilities. The Iran-Israel conflict underscores the fact that air superiority alone is no longer decisive in modern warfare. Ground battles, involving well-trained and equipped human soldiers, remain central to any military conflict.

Israel, overly confident in its air capabilities, neglected the development of its ground forces and is now struggling to effectively engage even non-state actors on the ground. Israel’s struggles in ground combat are evident in the 2006 Lebanon War, the 2014 Gaza conflict, and the 2024 war with Hamas. Despite superior air power, Israel faced strong resistance from Hezbollah and Hamas in urban and guerrilla warfare, revealing gaps in training and readiness for close-quarters battles and tunnel warfare.

These examples demonstrate how neglecting ground forces left Israel vulnerable, even against non-state actors. The consequences would be much more severe if Israel had to fight a ground war against a state actor like Iran.

In the context of a potential conflict with North Korea, South Korea must recognize that air dominance can be fleeting, and the most decisive battles are most likely to be fought on the ground. Therefore, it is essential to develop and strengthen native ground forces that are not only prepared but also adequately equipped to defend the homeland.

3. Strengthening self-reliance and diversifying military partnerships

Israel’s experience underscores the importance of not overly depending on external powers for national defense. While the United States continues to provide Israel with critical intelligence, advanced technology, and diplomatic support, the reality is that Israel must ultimately fight its own battles.

Israel’s focus on deepening ties with the US and Europe has led to missed opportunities for regional military alliances, such as strengthening military ties with Egypt and Jordan, which could have provided additional strategic depth in its confrontations with non-state actors. This lack of regional collaboration has limited Israel’s ability to adapt quickly to shifting dynamics in the Middle East.

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 make the same mistake. American military assistance – especially in technology and intelligence-sharing – is vital. However, the actual burden of combat may primarily fall on South Korean forces in any future conflict with North Korea.

This necessitates that South Korea focus on building a more self-reliant 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 2010 North Korean sinking of the South Korean navy’s corvette Cheonan with a torpedo highlighted gaps in naval readiness. These issues emphasize the need for South Korea to strengthen its independent military capabilities to ensure readiness in future conflicts. It cannot afford to assume that US military support will be sufficient in the heat of conflict.

The domestic political and economic situation in the US has become increasingly complicated. Bipartisanship has been shrinking in foreign policy as in other areas. 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.

While the US-Korea alliance remains essential and relevant, South Korea must proactively work on strengthening military partnerships with regional countries such as India, Japan, and Australia.

Israel’s over-dependence on the US and Europe serves as a warning. Despite being a priority for American policymakers, Israel has faced limits in US support due to various factors. South Korea must learn from this example and avoid similar pitfalls.

To ensure its security, South Korea needs to strengthen its domestic military capabilities, particularly in ground, naval, space, and cyber warfare. Building a self-reliant defense force is crucial for maintaining readiness, regardless of external aid. Investing in its own defense industry should be a top priority to avoid economic strain from purchasing expensive foreign weapons.

4. Addressing demographic challenges in military recruitment

Today South Korea faces a unique challenge of 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 threatens the availability of young people for military service, risking the strength of South Korea’s military forces.

South Korea can draw lessons from Israel’s approach to sustaining a stable population. Encouraging higher birth rates, reviving family values, and fostering a strong sense of national duty are urgent steps to ensure a robust military. Addressing these demographic issues is key to maintaining a capable defense force over the long term.

5. The role of diplomacy and peaceful conflict resolution

A crucial lesson South Korea can learn from Israel is about balancing military strength with diplomacy. Israel’s over-reliance on military solutions has led to prolonged conflicts and isolation. South Korea should avoid this path. While maintaining military strength is necessary, diplomacy remains essential for managing tensions with North Korea and other regional powers.

South Korea should embrace peaceful conflict resolution, guided by its values of universal brotherhood. Unlike Israel, which has sometimes leaned on its sense of being a “chosen people,” South Korea can draw on its tradition of Hanguk ingan – emphasizing equality and shared humanity – as a moral guide to its diplomatic efforts. Keeping open communication channels with North Korea, China, and Russia can help avoid the pitfalls of relying solely on military measures and prevent a cycle of conflict.