South Korean Police Question Presidential Security Chief as Rift over Detaining President Deepens

Seok Dong-hyeon, lawyer for South Korea's impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol, attends a press conference in Seoul on January 9, 2025. (Photo by JUNG YEON-JE / AFP)
Seok Dong-hyeon, lawyer for South Korea's impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol, attends a press conference in Seoul on January 9, 2025. (Photo by JUNG YEON-JE / AFP)
TT

South Korean Police Question Presidential Security Chief as Rift over Detaining President Deepens

Seok Dong-hyeon, lawyer for South Korea's impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol, attends a press conference in Seoul on January 9, 2025. (Photo by JUNG YEON-JE / AFP)
Seok Dong-hyeon, lawyer for South Korea's impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol, attends a press conference in Seoul on January 9, 2025. (Photo by JUNG YEON-JE / AFP)

South Korean police questioned the chief of the presidential security service on Friday as the two agencies clashed over attempts to detain impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol.
The Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials and police are planning a second attempt to bring Yoon into custody as they jointly investigate whether his brief martial law declaration on Dec. 3 amounted to an attempted rebellion. The presidential security service blocked an earlier attempt to detain Yoon at his official residence, which he has not left for weeks.
Park Jong-joon, the presidential security chief, says that his duty is to protect the president and warned of “bloodshed,” as critics said that his agency is becoming Yoon’s private army.
Park ignored two summonses before appearing for questioning on Friday over allegations of obstructing justice, a week after his forces repelled dozens of anti-corruption and police investigators from Yoon’s official residence.
The anti-corruption office and police have vowed to make a second, more forceful effort to detain Yoon, warning that members of the presidential security staff could be arrested if they get in the way.
The embattled president remains holed up at his official residence in Seoul, where the presidential security service has fortified the grounds with barbed wire and rows of vehicles blocking the roads.
Yoon made a short-lived declaration of martial law and deployed troops to surround the National Assembly on Dec. 3, which lasted only hours before lawmakers managed to get through the blockade and voted to lift the measure.
His presidential powers were suspended when the opposition-dominated Assembly voted to impeach him on Dec. 14 and accused him of rebellion. His fate now rests with the Constitutional Court, which has begun deliberating on whether to formally remove Yoon from office or reject the charges and reinstate him.
There’s also speculation that police may attempt to detain Park and other leaders of the presidential security service before trying again to execute the detainment warrant against Yoon, which was renewed by a Seoul court on Tuesday.
Speaking to reporters upon arriving for police questioning, Park again criticized the efforts to detain Yoon, saying that the investigation should proceed in a manner “appropriate for the status of an incumbent president” and the “dignity of the nation.”
“Many citizens are surely deeply concerned about the possible conflict and confrontation between government agencies,” Park said. “I came here today with the belief that under no circumstances should there be any physical clashes or bloodshed, and am hoping to prevent such incidents from occurring.”
Park said he made several calls to the country’s acting leader, Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok, urging him to mediate an alternative approach with law enforcement and also made similar requests to Yoon’s lawyers, but did not receive a satisfactory response.
Yoon’s lawyers accused the police of trying to undermine the leadership of the presidential security service.
“This is an abnormal move that displays a disregard for national security,” the lawyers said in a texted statement.
While the presidential security act mandates protection for Yoon, it does not authorize the service to block court-ordered detainments and some legal experts say the presidential security service’s action last week may have been illegal.
Asked in parliament about the presidential security service’s effort to block the detention, National Court Administration head Cheon Dae-yeop said Friday that “resistance without a legitimate reason can constitute a crime, such as obstruction of official duties.”
Although the president himself has wide-ranging immunity from prosecution while in office, that does not extend to allegations of rebellion or treason.
Yoon’s lawyers have questioned the legitimacy of a new detention warrant against Yoon issued by the Seoul Western District Court, arguing that the anti-corruption agency lacks legal authority to investigate rebellion charges or order police to detain suspects.
They also argue that detention and search warrants against Yoon cannot be enforced at his residence, citing a law that protects locations potentially linked to military secrets from search without the consent of the person in charge — which would be Yoon.
Yoon’s lawyers have urged the agency to either indict the president or seek a formal arrest warrant, a process that requires a court hearing. However, they have said that Yoon would only comply with an arrest warrant issued by the Seoul Central District Court, which handles most key requests in high-profile cases.
They accuse the agency of deliberately choosing another court with an allegedly favorable judge, even though the official residence is located in the jurisdiction of the Western District Court.



Iran Rejects Curbs on Its Uranium Enrichment Program

FILE - This satellite image provided by Vantor shows the Natanz nuclear complex in Iran on March 7, 2026, with no new damage seen at the facility or the tunnels. (Satellite image ©2026 Vantor via AP, file)
FILE - This satellite image provided by Vantor shows the Natanz nuclear complex in Iran on March 7, 2026, with no new damage seen at the facility or the tunnels. (Satellite image ©2026 Vantor via AP, file)
TT

Iran Rejects Curbs on Its Uranium Enrichment Program

FILE - This satellite image provided by Vantor shows the Natanz nuclear complex in Iran on March 7, 2026, with no new damage seen at the facility or the tunnels. (Satellite image ©2026 Vantor via AP, file)
FILE - This satellite image provided by Vantor shows the Natanz nuclear complex in Iran on March 7, 2026, with no new damage seen at the facility or the tunnels. (Satellite image ©2026 Vantor via AP, file)

The head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Mohammad Eslami, on Thursday ruled out accepting any restrictions on the country’s uranium enrichment program, as demanded by the United States and Israel.

In an interview with the ISNA news agency, Eslami said: “The demands and conditions set by our enemies to restrict Iran’s enrichment program are nothing but daydreams that will be buried,” AFP reported.

The remarks come as talks between Washington and Tehran are expected to be held at the end of the week under Islamabad’s auspices, as part of a ceasefire agreement brokered by Pakistan. The discussions are expected to address Tehran’s nuclear program.

Western powers accuse Iran of seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon and have worked to prevent it from doing so, while Tehran has consistently denied the allegations.

During his first term, US President Donald Trump withdrew from the landmark 2015 agreement that had placed limits on Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities in exchange for sanctions relief, a deal opposed by Israel.


Germany's Merz: We Do Not Want NATO to Split over US-Iran War

Commemorative photo of NATO leaders in The Hague in 2025 (Turkish Presidency).
Commemorative photo of NATO leaders in The Hague in 2025 (Turkish Presidency).
TT

Germany's Merz: We Do Not Want NATO to Split over US-Iran War

Commemorative photo of NATO leaders in The Hague in 2025 (Turkish Presidency).
Commemorative photo of NATO leaders in The Hague in 2025 (Turkish Presidency).

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Thursday he did not want US-Iran war to place any further strain on relations between the United States and its European NATO partners.

"We do not want – I do not want – NATO to split. NATO is a guarantor of our security, including and above all in Europe," he said, speaking to journalists.

He added he had encouraged US President Donald Trump in a call to pursue negotiations with Iran with urgency.

Germany was resuming direct talks with Iranian leadership in Tehran, Merz said in Berlin.


Pentagon Leaders Assert Destruction of Iran’s Military Capabilities, Threaten to Resume Operations

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks to members of the media during a press briefing at the Pentagon in Washington, Wednesday, April 8, 2026. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks to members of the media during a press briefing at the Pentagon in Washington, Wednesday, April 8, 2026. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
TT

Pentagon Leaders Assert Destruction of Iran’s Military Capabilities, Threaten to Resume Operations

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks to members of the media during a press briefing at the Pentagon in Washington, Wednesday, April 8, 2026. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks to members of the media during a press briefing at the Pentagon in Washington, Wednesday, April 8, 2026. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

The US war against Iran has "completely" destroyed the country's ability to build missiles or other sophisticated weaponry, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday

"We finished completely destroying Iran's defense-industrial base, a core pillar of our mission," Hegseth told reporters.

"They can no longer build missiles."

For his part, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine said: “We attacked, along with our partners, approximately 90 percent of their weapons factories,” including facilities producing Shahed-type drones, as well as facilities manufacturing guidance systems used by these drones.

Regarding the naval fleet, Caine said that it will take years before Iran can rebuild its surface combatant capabilities.

The general added that approximately 80 percent of Iran’s nuclear industrial base was targeted, significantly undermining its nuclear weapons development efforts.

He warned that US forces remain ready to resume fighting with Iran if the ceasefire ends, stating: “Let’s be clear: the ceasefire is just a temporary pause. The armed forces remain ready, if ordered, to resume combat operations with the same speed and precision demonstrated over the past 38 days.”

Statements by Dan Caine, and his warning about a possible resumption of fighting, suggest that the announcement of a suspension of the war came under US pressure, according to Michael Rubin, a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute.

As for the restoration of freedom of navigation, military officials’ statements did not indicate that it has been fully secured, instead emphasizing the need to “ensure Iran’s compliance” and the safe passage of vessels.

At the same time, there were continued indications that ships received messages from Iranian forces stating that they require permission to transit the strait, suggesting that Tehran is seeking to establish a new equation: keeping Hormuz open on the condition of recognizing a supervisory or sovereign role for itself.

If that is the case, the region and the global economy would be entering a phase that goes beyond a mere ceasefire, as the risk shifts from missiles to the rules governing transit, insurance, pricing, and maritime fees.

Statements by Pentagon leaders, followed by remarks from Donald Trump, reveal that the real dispute is not over the ceasefire itself, but over what comes after it. Washington rejects the continuation of Iranian uranium enrichment and is demanding that the stockpile of highly enriched uranium be handed over, or “taken” by force if necessary.

By contrast, narratives circulating in Iranian media about the “ten points” of the ceasefire agreement point in a completely different direction: recognition of Iran’s right to enrich, the lifting of sanctions, and no clear position on the fate of the enriched stockpile.

This is precisely where the structural contradiction lies, one that could undermine the negotiating round from its very first day, according to Michael Rubin.

The second aspect of the dispute concerns the scope of de-escalation. The United States and Israel have made clear that a ceasefire with Iran does not mean a halt to Israeli operations in Lebanon against Hezbollah, while reports continued of missile and drone attacks on Gulf states in the hours following the truce. This suggests that the region is facing a form of “selective de-escalation,” according to observers: a direct easing between Washington and Tehran, while proxy arenas and exchanges of messages remain active.

Remarks by Hegseth that Washington had been prepared, just hours earlier, to strike power stations, bridges, and oil and energy infrastructure “that Iran cannot rebuild” indicate that the decision to halt hostilities did not stem from a fully realized settlement, but rather from the suspension of a massive escalatory strike against Tehran.

Accordingly, the ceasefire appears more like a testing window: if Tehran complies with conditions related to navigation and the transfer of uranium, the truce could hold and pave the way toward a definitive end to the war. If not, the United States may return to the option of large-scale destruction of infrastructure.