When Middle Powers Choose Neutrality Over Sides

When missiles fly in the Middle East, diplomats in Seoul reach for their phones. Within hours of Saturday's US-Israeli strikes on Iran and Tehran's retaliatory response, South Korea's foreign ministry had convened an emergency meeting spanning 10 embassies across the region. The message was clear: protect our people, but don't pick sides.

The coordinated strikes near Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's offices marked a significant escalation in Middle East tensions. President Trump announced "major combat operations in Iran" via social media, citing Iran's nuclear program and missile capabilities that could reach American soil. Iranian officials confirmed retaliatory strikes followed, creating a dangerous cycle that sent diplomatic cables buzzing worldwide.

Seoul's Calculated Response

South Korea's reaction was swift but carefully measured. Second Vice Foreign Minister Kim Jina presided over an emergency coordination meeting, connecting embassies from Washington to Tehran, Jerusalem to Kuwait. The ministry's public statement called for "utmost efforts to ease tensions" – diplomatic speak that reveals more by what it doesn't say than what it does.

No condemnation of Iran's nuclear program. No endorsement of American military action. No taking of sides whatsoever.

Instead, Seoul focused on practical concerns: zero casualties reported among South Korean nationals in Iran and Israel, evacuation routes established through Cairo, and security notices distributed to citizens in both countries. It's a playbook that reflects South Korea's unique position as a middle power with interests on all sides.

The Middle Power Dilemma

South Korea's response illuminates a broader challenge facing middle powers in an increasingly polarized world. Unlike great powers that can afford to make enemies, countries like South Korea must maintain relationships with everyone – even when those relationships contradict each other.

Consider Seoul's complex web of interests in this conflict. South Korea maintains a $12 billion trade relationship with Iran, primarily in petrochemicals and machinery. It hosts 28,500 US troops and depends on American security guarantees against North Korea. Israeli technology partnerships span everything from defense systems to agricultural innovation.

Taking sides would mean sacrificing some of these relationships. So Seoul doesn't take sides – it takes precautions.

When Neutrality Becomes Strategy

This careful balancing act reflects a broader trend among middle powers navigating great power competition. From Singapore's refusal to choose between the US and China to Turkey's complex dance between NATO and Russia, smaller nations are discovering that neutrality isn't weakness – it's survival.

But neutrality comes with its own risks. By refusing to condemn Iran's nuclear ambitions, Seoul risks criticism from Washington. By evacuating citizens from both Iran and Israel equally, it signals that it views both as potentially dangerous. Such positions can satisfy no one while offending everyone.

The evacuation preparations tell their own story. South Korean embassies in both Tehran and Tel Aviv activated identical safety protocols, treating citizens in both countries as equally at risk. It's a diplomatic signal that Seoul views this conflict as having no clear heroes or villains – only dangers to be managed.