Home > Opinion > Columns

Starting wars is easy. Ending them is not.

Published: 09 Apr. 2026, 00:02

Chung Hyo-shik

The author is the social news editor at the JoongAng Ilbo.

“There is no such thing as a good war,” a remark attributed to Benjamin Franklin, has been repeatedly borne out in modern history. In an interconnected world shaped by trade, aviation, shipping and now digital networks, the consequences of war spread far beyond the immediate combatants. The risks of unintended outcomes have also grown. From the perspective of the victors, only a few conflicts — such as the Falklands War and the Gulf War — can be said to have achieved their objectives. Both were short, limited wars aimed at restoring the status quo, backed by overwhelming military superiority.

Tankers are seen off the coast of the Fujairah amid the U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran, in Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, on March 3. [REUTERS/YONHAP]

In the 21st century, the United States has already experienced the difficulty of ending wars in the Middle East. The first case is the war in Afghanistan, which Barack Obama once described as harder to end than to begin. The war began after George W. Bush ordered an invasion in response to the Sept. 11 attacks, quickly toppling the Taliban. Yet it took a decade to kill Osama bin Laden, and another decade before U.S. forces fully withdrew under the Biden administration. Just three months later, the Taliban regained control of Kabul. After 20 years, more than 2,400 American troops were killed and roughly $3 trillion was spent, only for the outcome to be widely seen as a defeat.

U.S. President Donald Trump, flanked by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, speaks during a press conference at the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 6. [REUTERS/YONHAP]

The second case is the Iraq War, launched on claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the United States. Although Hussein was removed from power, no such weapons were found, raising questions about the war’s justification. The conflict cost the lives of more than 4,600 U.S. troops and about $2 trillion. Even after a formal end and troop withdrawal, U.S. forces returned in 2014 to combat the Islamic State group, leaving thousands of personnel still deployed. These forces and bases are now involved in operations related to the current Iran conflict.

Historians often distinguish between “wars of necessity” and “wars of choice.” The current conflict involving Iran is likely to be categorized as the latter, much like the Iraq War. Wars of necessity arise when a nation faces unavoidable threats, such as invasion. By contrast, this war reflects a decision by U.S. President Donald Trump. The stated objectives remain unclear, whether regime change to secure Israel’s safety or access to Iran's vast oil reserves. Even the president’s own explanations have been inconsistent.

While the decision to go to war may rest with Washington, the burden is being shared by its allies, including Europe, Korea and Japan. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz pushed spot oil prices to around $140 per barrel, driving inflation higher and constraining supply. Petrochemical complexes and manufacturers dependent on plastics are even considering halting operations due to shortages of feedstocks such as naphtha.

The agreement between the United States and Iran on a two-week cease-fire and the reopening of the strait is therefore welcome. Yet new costs have emerged. Iran is reportedly charging transit fees of up to $2 million per vessel, a burden that ultimately falls on importing countries. Even if a final peace is reached, reconstruction costs in Iran could be passed on to oil-importing nations. The prolonged era of low oil prices may give way to a period of sustained prices above $100 per barrel, accompanied by the growing weaponization of resources.

Wreckage of a U.S. aircraft that crashed near Isfahan, Iran, on April 6 [UPI/YONHAP]

Perhaps the greatest concern for Korea is the uncertainty surrounding the future of the global order. The system led by the United States and its allies after World War II now appears to be in flux. If President Trump follows through on his stated intention to weaken alliances, beginning with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the international order may undergo significant change. The effects will inevitably reach Northeast Asia.

The cost of miscalculation by leaders, as history shows, is immense.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.