South Korea has maintained a cautious stance regarding last week’s vessel strike near the Strait of Hormuz. Foreign Minister Cho Hyun said on Monday that further analysis is needed before determining responsibility. The Panama-flagged cargo vessel HMM Namu suffered an explosion and fire on May 4. Consequently, this cautious stance reflects Seoul’s reluctance to assign blame without clear evidence. The joint government investigation found that two unidentified airborne objects caused the incident. No casualties occurred among the 24 crew members, including six South Koreans. However, the government continues examining engine fragments collected from the scene.
This cautious stance persists despite mounting political pressure from opposition parties. US President Donald Trump earlier claimed that Iran had taken shots at the HMM vessel. Tehran has denied any involvement in the attack. Foreign Minister Cho emphasized that any judgment requires careful review of all available evidence. He noted that investigators have not yet determined the origin of the airborne objects. The government has called in the Iranian ambassador to convey the investigation findings. Simultaneously, Seoul has informed the United States about the probe’s current status. Therefore, this cautious stance aims to avoid premature accusations that could escalate regional tensions.
The incident has sparked fierce political debate within South Korea’s National Assembly. Opposition lawmakers from the People Power Party accuse the government of downplaying the attack. Rep. Kim Gunn criticized inconsistencies in early official messaging about the incident. He argued that the government missed the golden time for a stronger diplomatic response. However, ruling Democratic Party lawmakers rejected these criticisms outright. They accused the opposition of politicizing a sensitive security issue before establishing full facts. The government’s cautious stance prioritizes the safety of 26 South Korean-linked vessels still in the Persian Gulf. Prematurely identifying an attacker without scientific evidence would be reckless, the ruling party argued.
Security experts increasingly view the incident as a deliberate external strike. Yu Ji-hoon, a researcher at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, analyzed the damage pattern. He noted that two unidentified objects struck the port-side ballast tank at roughly one-minute intervals. The strike left a 7-meter-wide rupture in the hull near the stern. Yu suggested that small explosive-laden drones or cruise-type projectiles likely caused the damage. The short interval between impacts suggests the attacker intended to disable rather than sink the vessel.
Consequently, this cautious stance may need to shift as more forensic evidence emerges. The government continues coordinating with HMM, which plans to seek war-risk insurance compensation. Repairs to HMM Namu will take one to two months, according to industry sources. The vessel’s war-risk coverage amounts to approximately $65.3 million from five South Korean insurers. For now, Seoul’s cautious stance remains unchanged pending further investigation results.
