South Korea Says to 'Move Forward' on Nuclear Subs With US

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung delivers a speech during a press conference to mark his first 30 days in office at Yeongbingwan of Blue House on July 3, 2025 in Seoul, South Korea. Kim Min-Hee/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights
South Korean President Lee Jae Myung delivers a speech during a press conference to mark his first 30 days in office at Yeongbingwan of Blue House on July 3, 2025 in Seoul, South Korea. Kim Min-Hee/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights
TT

South Korea Says to 'Move Forward' on Nuclear Subs With US

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung delivers a speech during a press conference to mark his first 30 days in office at Yeongbingwan of Blue House on July 3, 2025 in Seoul, South Korea. Kim Min-Hee/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights
South Korean President Lee Jae Myung delivers a speech during a press conference to mark his first 30 days in office at Yeongbingwan of Blue House on July 3, 2025 in Seoul, South Korea. Kim Min-Hee/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights

South Korea will "move forward" with the United States in building nuclear-powered submarines, President Lee Jae Myung said Friday, after a long-awaited security and trade agreement was finalized.

Analysts say developing the atomic-powered vessels would mark a significant leap in Seoul's naval and defense industrial base, allowing it to join a select group of countries with such vessels.

"One of the greatest variables for our economy and security -- the bilateral negotiations on trade, tariffs and security -- has been finalized," Lee told a news conference, adding the two countries had agreed to "move forward with building nuclear-powered submarines".

Seoul had secured "support for expanding our authority over uranium enrichment and spent-fuel reprocessing", he said.

A joint fact sheet outlining the deal said both sides would "collaborate further through a shipbuilding working group" to "increase the number of US commercial ships and combat-ready US military vessels".

Beijing, on Thursday, voiced caution over a Washington-Seoul deal on nuclear submarine technology.

The partnership "goes beyond a purely commercial partnership, directly touching on the global non-proliferation regime and the stability of the Korean Peninsula and the wider region," Dai Bing, China's ambassador to Seoul told reporters.

Details remain murky on where the nuclear submarines will be built.

US President Donald Trump said on social media last month that "South Korea will be building its Nuclear Powered Submarine in the Philadelphia Shipyards, right here in the good ol' U.S.A".

US nuclear technology is among its most sensitive and tightly guarded military secrets.

However, Seoul's national security advisor Wi Sung-lac said on Friday that "from start to finish, the leaders' discussion proceeded on the premise that construction would take place in South Korea".

"So the question of where construction will take place can now be considered settled," he added.

As part of the deal, South Korea has pledged to buy $25 billion-worth of US military equipment and plans to "provide comprehensive support for US Forces Korea amounting to $33 billion".

Details of a tariffs agreement were also announced.

Trump unexpectedly declared at last month's APEC summit that the two sides had reached a deal on an investment package and auto tariffs, before clarifying it was "pretty much" finalized.

Seoul later said the $350-billion agreement included $200 billion in cash investment and $150 billion in shipbuilding cooperation, adding that both sides agreed to keep reciprocal tariffs and lower auto tariffs at 15 percent.

Semiconductor tariffs, however, were not included in the deal at the time.

The fact sheet stated that South Korea's semiconductor tariffs will be "no less favorable than terms that may be offered in a future agreement covering a volume of semiconductor trade at least as large as Korea's", but did not give further details.

South Korea is home to Samsung Electronics and SK hynix and produces a significant chunk of high-end chips that have become the lifeblood of the global economy, powering everything from smartphones to missiles.

The country's semiconductor exports reached a record high of $142 billion in 2024, accounting for more than a fifth of the country's total exports.



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.