2026-04-12 With Gaza and Iran, a change is coming to conservatism in South Korea
What was once taken as given—that the United States was both morally right and strategically reliable—is no longer easily sustained.
The characteristic conservative rally in Seoul is awash with Korean, American, and, weirdly enough, Israeli flags. To be conservative is to be pro-American. For generations, South Korea’s conservatives sided with America.
With Gaza and Iran, a change is coming to conservatism in South Korea - and it will impact foreign policy directly. It is a change so profound that very few will currently accept that it is even possible—Korean conservatives will turn their back on the U.S. alliance.
Conservative alignment with the United States rests on two pillars: values and security.
The United States served as the benchmark for what was considered legitimate, virtuous, rational, and just. To stand with the United States was, in effect, to align with a particular conception of order, democracy, and moral authority. It also functioned as South Korea’s principal security guarantor against existential threats—first North Korea, and more recently, China.
Alignment with the U.S. became deeply entrenched in foreign policy. The two pillars permeated institutions, education, and elite discourse. Alignment with the U.S. embedded itself so deeply that even left-leaning progressives on entering the foreign policy field often felt compelled—almost reflexively—to reproduce alliance-affirming narratives in order to advance. It became, in effect, a habit of thought in foreign policy discourse and decision-making.
However, what was once taken as given—that the United States was both morally right and strategically reliable—is no longer so easily sustained.
The problem is not simply one of policy disagreement. It is deeper. It is the growing recognition, among conservatives themselves, that the United States may neither embody the moral clarity it once claimed nor possess the unquestioned capacity to defend South Korea in a crisis. These two pillars—moral authority and security credibility—have so long underpinned Korean conservatism that if you remove one, the structure weakens. Remove both, and it begins to collapse.
The wars in Gaza and Iran have fused what were once separate moral and security questions into a single crisis. Gaza has exposed the limits of the claim that U.S.-aligned power is inherently just. Iran has raised doubts about American judgment, priorities, and reliability. Taken together, these are not isolated events—they suggest a pattern that is increasingly difficult to ignore.
This breaks the old foundation. Korean conservatism long rested on a simple fusion: that the United States was both morally right and strategically necessary. Gaza challenges the first. Iran challenges the second.
That is why this moment is so difficult for conservatives. To reject Israeli conduct in Gaza is to question a moral framework tied to alignment with the United States. To question U.S. actions in Iran is to doubt the security guarantee at the core of their worldview. But to accept both is to unravel the foundation of Korean conservatism itself.
Taken together, these developments strike at the core of conservative identity in South Korea. If the United States is no longer clearly right, and no longer unquestionably reliable in security terms, then what, exactly, does it mean to be a pro-alliance conservative?
This is where the effects are most visible—not yet in mass politics, but within the institutions that have long reproduced and sustained this worldview. The foreign ministry, the Korea National Diplomatic Academy, and academia have historically functioned as custodians of alliance orthodoxy. They trained generations of officials and scholars to think within a framework in which the United States was both anchor and horizon.
But these are also, by their nature, conservative institutions in the small “c” sense—risk-averse, hierarchical, and oriented toward continuity. When the underlying assumptions that justify continuity begin to fail, the resulting tension is acute.
Younger officials and scholars, exposed to a more fragmented international environment, are less willing to treat the alliance as an article of faith. They ask questions that previous generations avoided: What if the United States does not come? What if its actions undermine, rather than reinforce, the values it claims to defend? What alternatives exist?
Senior figures, meanwhile, often find themselves caught between institutional loyalty and creeping doubt. The language of alliance persists, but with less conviction. The repetition of familiar lines begins to sound increasingly like ritual rather than belief.
This is how paradigms end—not with a declaration, but with erosion.
For Korean conservatism, the implications are profound. A tradition that once drew strength from clarity now confronts ambiguity. Its intellectual foundations—moral alignment with the United States and confidence in its protection—are no longer secure. And without those foundations, its influence over the institutions that shape foreign policy begins to weaken.
At the moment, conservatives satisfy themselves with rage-baiting and anger-filled invective against political progressives and their vehement rejection of Israel’s actions in Gaza and America’s wars.
Yet, as the voting public swings toward condemning Washington’s mistakes—as much of the U.S. public already has—blind support for the alliance will become a political wedge issue. Younger, sharper conservatives are already less emotionally attached to the alliance and more willing to question it on pragmatic grounds; they will see the writing on the wall.
Before long, a younger, more ambitious and fundamentally different kind of conservative will emerge. The old boomer-era debates are worn out—dated frameworks that no longer reflect reality on the ground in Korea or reality in the relationships between states in the post-American era.
Much like in other countries, conservative rallies will turn to more overtly nationalist displays: symbols that evoke a distinctly Korean sense of identity and pride—and, more than likely, ever-larger Korean flags :) With time, however, the American, and, weirdly enough, Israeli flags, will steadily fade from view.
Support an academic wannabe novelist and buy me a coffee.