The government cited missile debris, explosive residue and structural analysis of the blast site as part of the basis for its assessment.
He added that immediately escalating the issue into a prolonged international legal dispute may not necessarily serve Korea’s broader interests.
Doo said Seoul’s public conclusion that the vessel was likely struck by an Iran-linked missile may strengthen Washington’s argument for greater Korean involvement.
“From the U.S. perspective, the justification for Korea’s participation has effectively become stronger now that Korea itself was attacked,” he said.
Yu urged the government to move beyond what he called routine diplomatic protests and pursue more concrete measures to protect Korean vessels and crews operating near the Strait of Hormuz.
Korea faces a narrow set of realistic options in responding to the likely strike on a Korean-operated vessel by an Iran-linked anti-ship missile near the Strait of Hormuz earlier this month, with experts saying military measures are effectively off the table and diplomatic pressure the only viable path — even as Washington's calls for greater Korean involvement in regional maritime operations grow louder.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced Wednesday that a joint government investigation team found strong evidence suggesting the projectile that struck the vessel belonged to Iran’s Noor series of anti-ship missiles. The government cited missile debris, explosive residue and structural analysis of the blast site as part of the basis for its assessment.
Seoul, however, stopped short of directly accusing the Iranian government of carrying out the attack, saying only that the missile was “Iran-linked” and declining to specify whether the launch may have involved Iran’s military, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or an Iran-backed militia group.
Doo Jin-ho, director of the Eurasia Research Center at the Korea Institute for National Strategy, said Korea’s realistic response options would likely remain centered on diplomacy rather than military measures.
“Military options are difficult in reality,” Doo said. “If Seoul moves in that direction, it could effectively end up being drawn deeper into the Hormuz situation and broader U.S.-led maritime operations.”
Doo said the summoning of the Iranian ambassador to Korea was likely only the beginning of Seoul’s diplomatic response, adding that additional pressure could come through coordination with the international community.
He also raised the possibility of indirect economic pressure involving Iranian frozen assets, saying Seoul and its partners could consider delaying future discussions over sanctions relief or asset releases until the incident is more fully clarified.
Still, the more immediate concern for Seoul appears to be the safety of the roughly two dozen Korean-linked vessels that remain in nearby waters.
During a briefing Thursday, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Park Il said Seoul had raised the issue of the safety and navigation of Korean vessels and sailors still operating in the Strait of Hormuz during talks with the Iranian ambassador and requested Tehran’s cooperation.
Park also said the government currently faces limitations in identifying the exact launch origin, the actor behind the strike and whether the attack was intentional.
“It is difficult at this stage to identify and prove the actor behind the launch, the origin of the attack and the intention behind the attack,” Park said.
Paik Seung-hoon, a researcher at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies’ Middle East Institute, said the government could use the incident itself as leverage in behind-the-scenes negotiations with Tehran.
“Diplomacy is not just about pursuing legal responsibility for a single incident,” Paik said. “The government also has to consider the broader regional situation, the Korea-U.S. alliance and the safety of Korean ships still operating there.”
Paik said Seoul could potentially use the evidence it has gathered to pressure Iran indirectly while also seeking assurances for the safe passage of Korean vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.
He added that immediately escalating the issue into a prolonged international legal dispute may not necessarily serve Korea’s broader interests.
“If this turns into an international legal battle, Iran will continue denying responsibility,” Paik said. “That could become a prolonged negotiation with uncertain practical benefits.”
The incident has also raised questions about whether Seoul could face growing pressure to participate more actively in U.S.-led maritime security initiatives in the region.
Washington has long sought broader allied participation in multinational maritime operations aimed at protecting freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy shipping route.
Doo said Seoul’s public conclusion that the vessel was likely struck by an Iran-linked missile may strengthen Washington’s argument for greater Korean involvement.
“From the U.S. perspective, the justification for Korea’s participation has effectively become stronger now that Korea itself was attacked,” he said.
Paik offered a similar assessment, saying Washington could increasingly argue that Seoul should play a larger role in maritime security efforts after the attack on a Korean-linked vessel.
Meanwhile, calls for a tougher response emerged from the conservative opposition.
Rep. Yu Yong-weon of the main opposition People Power Party, who serves on the National Assembly’s Defense Committee, criticized the government for failing to explicitly identify Iran despite what he described as “clear physical evidence” linking the attack to Iranian-made missiles.
Yu urged the government to move beyond what he called routine diplomatic protests and pursue more concrete measures to protect Korean vessels and crews operating near the Strait of Hormuz.
Park said Seoul was taking a “comprehensive” approach to the situation, citing the safety of Korean vessels and citizens in the region, energy supply concerns, bilateral ties with Iran and broader regional conditions in the Middle East.
