US Military Suffers $10 Billion Damage from Iranian Drones

In February of this year, drones were extensively used in the initial phase of the war, which began with the US striking Iran. The drone technology used to control the Strait of Hormuz and traverse the battlefield was mostly that which had been used in the Russia-Ukraine war. Russia purchased large quantities of Iranian-made 'Shahed' drones and modified them, which significantly boosted the Russian military's power in the early stages of the war. In contrast, Ukraine initially relied on Turkish-made 'Bayraktar' drones, and the difference in drone production capabilities and acquisition routes between the two sides acted as a subtle variable in the war.

The US military suffered massive damage from Iranian drone attacks. US military bases located in Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, and Qatar in the Gulf region were hit by Iranian drones, resulting in damages exceeding approximately $10 billion, and it is estimated that it will take more than five years to restore them. This clearly revealed the absence of an anti-drone defense system within the US military and the lack of capability to block the Strait of Hormuz. Analysis suggests that the US military's power vacuum is more severe than expected.

In June of last year, Ukraine offered to provide the US with anti-drone defense system expertise accumulated during engagements with Russia. However, the US rejected this, stating that it was not in a position to introduce weapons or technology from Ukraine due to pride. Nevertheless, situations later arose in NATO exercises where Ukraine provided guidance, and the excellence of Ukraine's low-cost interceptor drone technology was confirmed.

Ukraine showed signs of expanding the front by attacking Iranian vessels in the Caspian Sea. Iranian fleets, blocked by the US in the Strait of Hormuz, began seeking logistics cooperation with Russia via the Caspian Sea. President Zelenskyy detected this and attacked Iranian vessels using unmanned surface vessels and cruise missiles. Currently, Iran is refraining from retaliation to avoid an all-out war with the West, but it is suggested that Ukraine may have a strategic intention to strengthen its justification for war and maximize Western support by attacking Iran.

A major reason why Turkey is actively moving to check Russia lies in the Syrian issue. Turkey believes that preventing the emergence of a pro-Russian regime supported by Russia in Syria is essential to suppress Kurdish activities, and this is crucial for Turkey's security. To block Russia's influence, it is important for Ukraine to tie down Russia, and thus Turkey is employing a strategy of supporting Ukraine from behind. This is closely related to Turkey's pursuit of national interests to prevent refugee influx due to instability in Syria and to curb Kurdish activities.

Former President Donald Trump previously ordered a reduction in US-ROK military exercises via his personal social media. This appears to have come at a time when he was cornered by the Iran issue, and Professor Kim Jong-dae assessed this as Trump's 'subjectivity and capriciousness.' Meanwhile, this directive is also interpreted as an unconventional attempt to bring North Korea to the negotiating table.

Analysis suggests that North Korea's calculations have significantly changed compared to the 2019 Hanoi summit. North Korea now appears to be observing the situation, watching what proposals former President Trump will put forward, and aiming to enlarge the stakes. This indicates that North Korea is attempting a different strategic approach amid rapidly changing international circumstances.

Regarding former President Trump's order to suspend US-ROK joint military exercises, then-President Lee Jae-myung made an unusual statement, saying he 'pays respect' and 'thanks President Trump for his decision for peace on the Korean Peninsula.' Although Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-baek stated that it was unrelated to the reduction of exercises, the South Korean government did not adopt a submissive stance, contrary to US expectations. This could lead to a new interpretation of the US-ROK alliance relationship.

Contrary to former President Trump's intentions, neither South Korea nor North Korea are acting according to his calculations. In particular, the South Korean government is showing resistance to US demands, such as pressure to invest in semiconductors. This suggests that Trump will find it difficult to handle the Korean Peninsula issue in the same way as in the past, and analysis indicates that the calculations in US-DPRK and US-ROK relations are misaligned.

Under Xi Jinping's leadership, China is maintaining an increasingly firm stance against the US on the Taiwan issue. For example, it has taken measures such as prohibiting the entry of parliament members who visit Taiwan, strongly asserting its sovereignty over the Taiwan issue. This is one of the main factors contributing to the heightened tension in US-China relations.

North Korea is estimated to have earned a massive amount of foreign currency, approximately $2 billion, since the Russia-Ukraine war. This contributed to 3% growth in North Korea's GDP, and its economic situation has significantly improved, including an improvement in food supply for the first time in 30 years. North Korea is gaining economic benefits through its relationship with Russia and appears to be in a position where it needs economic benefits more through dollars than through Russia.

North Korea faces limitations in achieving self-reliant economic independence and ultimately must sustain its economy through the dollar. In this situation, North Korea is exploring the possibility of utilizing former President Trump as an economic opportunity. Professor Kim Jong-dae stated, "Ultimately, what North Korea lives on is dollars," and presented scenarios such as constructing a Trump Tower on the Taedong River and inviting Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner to attract real estate investment. This is interpreted as part of North Korea's strategy to overcome economic difficulties through foreign investment.

The European Union recently passed a 70 billion euro aid package for Ukraine. However, analysis suggests that if North Korean troops are additionally deployed to the Ukraine war, Western war costs could skyrocket. Professor Kim Jong-dae pointed out, "Isn't preventing additional deployment of North Korean troops more urgent than providing weapons to Ukraine?" He argued that economically appeasing North Korea to prevent its closer ties with Russia is an effective solution to lower war costs. In other words, North Korea's participation could be a factor that not only strengthens military power but also increases the economic burden on the entire West.

A rumor arose that the role of tactical nuclear weapons was being considered for expansion in the US Department of Defense's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), but this was found to be untrue. A denial statement was issued immediately after Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby's remark about considering deployment, emphasizing that the US NPR remains unchanged. Professor Kim Jong-dae explained, "This is misinformation," and "the US NPR has not changed." However, this issue is still being reported confusingly in the Korean media, and there are no confirmed changes in US policy or notifications regarding tactical nuclear weapons redeployment.

South Korea has been demanding the development of nuclear-powered submarines and permission for nuclear reprocessing for a year, with no progress in revising its atomic energy agreement with the US. Nevertheless, the US signed a 123 atomic energy agreement with Saudi Arabia, promising nuclear technology support, effectively granting special privileges. This is interpreted as a strategic move by the US to check Iran and support Saudi Arabia's nuclear power plant bids. However, concerns about nuclear proliferation were raised in US public opinion regarding these Saudi privileges, leading former President Donald Trump to backtrack, stating he would review the agreement's implementation. This demonstrates that US foreign policy can fluctuate under domestic and international pressure.

The US Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) highlighted the strategic value of the Republic of Korea Navy's Dosan Ahn Changho-class submarines, identifying them as allied assets to be deployed in the path of Chinese aircraft carriers. CSIS analyzed that Dosan Ahn Changho-class submarines could impose a significant burden on the Chinese Navy, attributing this to the combination of the Korean submarines' excellent stealth, long-range strike capability, and advanced future technologies. This assessment suggests that the Dosan Ahn Changho-class submarines can function as a key deterrent in the Northeast Asian security environment.