South Korean Assistance to the U.S. in the War with Iran: Between Allied Duty and National Interests
By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – October 17, 2026
South Korean President Lee Jae-myung is trying to maneuver between pressure from the United States, which demands participation in the conflict with Iran, and risks to national security and reputation, opting for a strategy of stalling and minimizing a direct military presence.
The previous article explained why South Korea refused to join the United States in the “denuclearization of Iran” and how, in response, Donald Trump struck at Lee Jae-myung’s ambitions, nudging him toward the desired choice. And although President Lee’s rhetoric ultimately seems anti-war, in reality there are many loopholes remaining: for example, not a new contingent, but a decisive increase and expansion of the existing contingent’s mandate.
“No!” or “Maybe”
On September 16, Donald Trump said on social media that countries that “provided no assistance” would, after the war with Iran ended, have to “compensate” the United States for damages. Trump did not say whom he meant.
On September 17, First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea Park Yun-ju stated that the ROK’s participation in an international operation in the Strait of Hormuz region depends on a number of factors and is tied not only to relations with the United States but also to the safety of navigation, energy supplies, and the protection of the country’s citizens.
On September 18, Lee Jae-myung stated that South Korea would not deploy troops or military equipment in a way that would draw the country into the war between the United States and Iran. However, he allowed for minimal measures to protect South Korean vessels, oil delivery routes, and citizens, pointing to disruptions in crude oil supplies as one of the risks.
Apparently, eyebrows were raised in Washington, after which on September 19 the Blue House indicated that President Lee Jae-myung’s remarks did not amount to a rejection of Trump’s call for military cooperation. An administration official said that the government is considering practical ways to assist in close contact with the international community, including the United States.
The Specifics of the Future Conflict
Because the war with Iran follows a sine curve, and Donald Trump’s promises to “flatten Iran” alternate with talk of peace, it is possible that, once Trump enters a peace phase, Seoul’s need to rush to help the United States will temporarily disappear. Therefore, let us consider the scenario in which Seoul is actively pressed to help Washington—at least as proof of the Republic of Korea’s allied status.
Compared with previous deployments of South Korean troops as U.S. allies—whether in Vietnam or Iraq—they find themselves in a far more difficult situation. In both cases, this was a ground war in which South Koreans performed auxiliary tasks and mainly carried out clearing operations and fought poorly armed guerrillas, or guarded South Korean specialists while stationed in territory controlled by the Kurds.
However, although Iran does not have nuclear weapons, it has ballistic missiles and kamikaze drones in abundance. This means that wherever South Korean troops are located, they could become targets, especially since South Koreans have no experience countering such a threat, and any serious losses would both damage the country’s domestic political standing and hurt the president’s reputation. As the saying goes, victory has many fathers, but defeat always has one—and he is often the scapegoat.
If anything goes wrong, President Lee will be symbolically held responsible as the person who initiated South Korean participation in the war. At the same time, he may also be criticized for the fact that, in seeking to neutralize the threat of a military coup, he carried out a whole set of measures that could be seen as a certain decline in military readiness—which, alas, performed poorly when confronted with Iranian drones.
Lee Jae-myung’s Two Strategies
Lee Jae-myung understands this situation perfectly and will therefore adhere to two strategies.
The first is to stall for as much time as possible, especially since, under the country’s constitution, sending troops abroad must go through parliament. Because the conflict is escalating and there is domestic opposition, the timing of any troop deployment remains in question.
The situation is interesting: parliament is generally under President Lee’s control, and if he says “yes,” the National Assembly will vote according to his will. But if Lee throws up his hands and says, “I’m in favor, but the Korean people are against it, and we have a democracy, which I cannot go against,” then, on the one hand, outside observers may perceive this as a mutiny on board; on the other, the United States may find another painful way to push Seoul in the right direction. The hope here is rather that the geopolitical situation or Trump’s mood will change and assistance will not be needed.
The second strategy is to send assistance but minimize Korean participation in direct combat: patrol operations, intelligence and surveillance, demining assistance, medical or other humanitarian aid. As a government source told Yonhap, “we are discussing how to contribute safely, without direct participation in combat,” and according to the Dong-A Ilbo, South Korea is considering sending a P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft designed for long-range maritime surveillance, a supply ship, and explosive ordnance disposal specialists.
Another option is the Cheonghae Unit (the newest destroyer with a special forces team aboard), which has long been in the Middle East and is engaged in protecting shipping and responding to threats, including piracy. Increasing its size is not the same as deploying a new contingent, and when, on July 24, 2019, during one of the previous rounds of escalation, the United States demanded not only an increase in South Korea’s share of the costs of maintaining American troops but also the deployment of South Korean naval forces to the Strait of Hormuz, the Cheonghae contingent, which was supposed to fight Somali pirates, “expanded its area of operations” from the Gulf of Aden to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Gulf. In 2021, Cheonghae was also in the strait, but it was withdrawn to leave a window of opportunity for negotiations after Iran seized a South Korean tanker.
Iran’s Response: What Matters to Tehran Is the Fact Per Se, Not the Scale
It seems that the Iranian side responds in this respect much as North Korea does: what matters is the very fact of Seoul’s participation on the side of the United States, not the scale of such measures. Diplomats and officials have already issued a series of warnings, voicing fairly specific and inconvenient response options for Seoul.
On September 7, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei published a warning in Korean, stating that Tehran would regard the military presence or participation of any third country in operations in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz as direct support for the aggressor, which could entail “serious consequences.” At the same time, the diplomat stressed the importance of friendly relations with Seoul.
Earlier, Iranian expert Mohammad Marandi said that South Korea’s participation in the war could make it an enemy of Iran, and retaliatory strikes could affect not only military but also economic assets of South Korean companies in the Persian Gulf countries. South Korea gets most of its energy resources from the Near and Middle East, and a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on vessels delivering petroleum products to South Korea would force it to urgently rethink its supply chains.
At the same time, the most convenient and safe backup supply-chain option is also uncertain, because it involves obtaining petroleum products from Russia. Talks on this issue have already begun, and South Korea is trying to prepare its European partners for the possibility of obtaining Russian petroleum products. But, first, the EU still has to be persuaded; second, it is not at all clear that Moscow would welcome this with open arms, knowing that this is not a conceptual turn toward Russia but a desire to solve a problem now that is de facto completely irrelevant to Moscow.
In Lieu of a Conclusion
Lee Jae-myung remains trapped. Refusing to send troops could lead to a further deterioration in relations with Trump, who could take actions against South Korea, such as imposing new tariffs. Sending troops carries certain reputational and domestic political risks. This is harder than a “test of strategic thinking” and a choice between two great evils.
Therefore, we will follow with great interest whether a parliamentary discussion finally takes place and what its verdict will be. It is interesting to see how ready South Korean military personnel and South Korean weapons are to take part in a modern war.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
Cannon fodder no more… South Korea rejects Trump’s pressure to join his criminal war on Iran
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 24, 2026
This is a pivotal moment in history as South Korea tells Trump it is done with being a vassal for American imperialist wars.
KJ Noh notes in this interview for Strategic Culture Foundation that South Korea’s defiance of U.S. power is resonating with growing resistance among other nations towards Washington’s bullying and warmongering.
President Lee Jae-myung of South Korea gave a televised nationwide address last week declaring that his country would not be deploying military forces to the Strait of Hormuz.
That announcement followed weeks of speculation that South Korea would cave to pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has been arm-twisting Seoul and other allies to send military support for his seven-month war on Iran. A war that is plunging the global and American economy into turmoil and could derail his presidency in the U.S. mid-term elections.
Geopolitical commentator KJ Noh says the public rejection of Trump’s appeal by South Korea is a major blow to Washington’s international image.
He notes that the Republic of Korea has been a loyal vassal of the United States, always sending its troops to fight American wars. South Korean soldiers have deployed in every U.S. overseas war from Vietnam to Iraq.
“The Korean people are saying they do not want to be cannon fodder for any more U.S. wars,” comments KJ Noh.
He adds that this defiance will inspire other nations to reject American hegemony.
However, KJ Noh warns that Washington is exerting severe pressure on South Korea to bend the knee. “South Korea is a living example of the maxim that to be an enemy of America is dangerous, but to be an ally is fatal.”
Trump is in a deep mess of his own making as a result of his criminal war against Iran, which he is losing. He needs “allies” to bail him out by supplying weapons and military personnel to act as cannon fodder.
Over the past eight decades, South Korea would have bent over and loyally obliged. But not anymore, it seems. The Korean people have had enough of being Uncle Sam’s vassal.
Korean defiance is a rallying call for global repudiation of American imperialism.
South Korea says will not send troops to join terrorist US war on Iran
Press TV – September 18, 2026
South Korean President Lee Jae Myung has declared that his country will not deploy troops or military assets to join the US-led military adventurism against Iran, defying calls from Washington to support the illegal war.
“There won’t be deployment that would involve or enter war. I can tell you that very clearly,” Lee said during a news conference on Friday. “We won’t deploy military assets in any form to that end.”
He also emphasized that Seoul has maintained the principle of not becoming directly involved in combat and will continue to do so.
However, he added, South Korea is considering expanding the operational scope of its naval presence off the coast of Somalia for anti-piracy operations.
US President Donald Trump has openly lashed out at South Korea over its refusal to participate in the war against Iran and scaled back major joint military drills by the two countries’ armies this summer.
Reports said earlier this month that South Korea is flirting with the idea of deploying military assets to the Strait of Hormuz, which has remained under Iran’s control since the early days of the criminal US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei had warned that any military presence by other parties in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz will constitute direct support for the aggressor, bearing serious consequences.
“No sovereign and responsible country will submit to US pressure and blackmail to collude in committing acts of aggression and heinous crimes against the great Iranian nation,” he said on September 7.
Iran restricted transit through the Strait of Hormuz in response to the terrorist US-Israeli aggression that began on February 28.
On June 17, Tehran and Washington signed the Pakistan-brokered Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), whose Article 5 places responsibility for reopening and managing the Strait squarely in Iran’s hands.
However, Washington attempted to undermine Iran’s sovereignty over the vital global energy chokepoint, resumed its airstrikes on Iran, and imposed a naval blockade in violation of the war-ending deal.
The unlawful US measures prompted Iran to re-impose restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz.
North Korea Slams US Plan for ‘AUKUS 2.0’ with South Korea and Japan
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | September 16, 2026
North Korean state media published an article slamming the US for encouraging South Korea and Japan to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. The author argued the move justified North Korea building up its nuclear deterrent.
In a commentary published by KCNA, international affairs analyst Choe Ju Hyon accused the US of instigating South Korea and Japan to acquire nuclear submarines. “The reality goes to prove that Washington’s plan for ‘AUKUS 2.0,’ which allows the transfer of nuclear technology for munitions to non-nuclear allies, has entered the phase of full-scale expansion,” he wrote.
AUKUS is a trilateral pact between the US, the UK, and Australia. Under the deal, the US and UK agreed to help Australia build a fleet of nuclear submarines. China has also criticized the transfer of nuclear-propulsion technology under AUKUS. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said AUKUS “undermine[s] strategic stability and provoke[s] an arms race in the region.”
In his article, Choe argued that North Korea must increase its nuclear deterrent in response to South Korea and Japan acquiring nuclear submarines. North Korea must “bolster up its nuclear war deterrent means both in quality and quantity without the slightest stagnation and stalemate.”
Tensions between the US and North Korea are rising just weeks after President Donald Trump said he wanted to meet with Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un by the end of the year. Since Trump’s statement in August, the US has engaged in two rounds of war games in the region.
Last month, the US and South Korea held bilateral Ulchi Freedom Shield (UFS) war games. Trump scaled back the drills, arguing they were unnecessarily hostile against North Korea. Earlier this month, the US, South Korea and Japan held the trilateral Freedom Edge war games.
While Trump cut the UFS drills in half, the Freedom Edge war games have gone forward as planned. North Korea has conducted multiple missile tests amid the exercises, including several short-range ballistic missile launches immediately after Freedom Edge concluded.
Qatar Warns of ‘Industrial Catastrophe’ If Strait of Hormuz Remains Closed
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | September 8, 2026
Qatar is warning that there will be significant global consequences if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened soon. Iran closed the Strait in response to the war started by the US and Israel. President Donald Trump also imposed a blockade of Iranian ports.
On Monday, Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Mohammed Al-Ansari, said reopening the Strait of Hormuz remains a priority, warning that the prolonged disruption could lead to an “industrial catastrophe.”
The Strait of Hormuz has become a major issue for Trump. Before the war, the Strait was treated as an international waterway. However, after the US and Israel attacked Iran, Tehran seized control of the Strait.
Since then, Tehran has limited traffic to nations that are not participating in the war against Iran. Additionally, Iran is requiring vessels to use preapproved shipping lanes and pay a “service fee.”
Tehran says any agreement to end the conflict must recognize Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait. Iran is in negotiations with Oman to establish new protocols for ships transiting the waterway. Washington is demanding that Tehran return the Strait to its pre-war status.
The US has attempted to force open the Strait of Hormuz. The US is currently escorting tankers through the waterway in hopes of defending the vessels from Iranian missiles and drones. Over the past week, US warships and tankers were targeted by Iranian missiles and drones.
While US officials have claimed that the amount of oil exiting the Strait is close to prewar levels, monitoring agencies say only a small fraction is getting out of the Persian Gulf.
Trump has attempted to pressure US allies into joining a coalition to reopen the Strait without success. The President has recently turned his focus toward South Korea. He recently scaled back war games with Seoul, in part, because South Korea refused to aid the war against Iran.
On Tuesday, Seoul said it still had not determined if it would provide assistance to the war. “We are closely consulting with the international community, including the US, on ways to make a substantive contribution toward the swift restoration of freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and peace and stability in the Middle East,” Defense Ministry spokesperson Chung Bin-na said. “No specific measures have been decided at this point.”
Iran warned South Korea that any involvement in the US war would have “consequences.”
US, South Korea and Japan Begin Joint War Games
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | September 7, 2026
The US, South Korea, and Japan kicked off five-day Freedom Edge war games in and around the Korean Peninsula.
“The exercise will also incorporate multi-national maritime and aviation capabilities, and introduce enhanced air defense scenarios, medical evacuation training, and maritime interdiction operations,” a statement from Pacific Command (PACCOM) said. “Building on the foundation of Freedom Edge 25, as well as regular trilateral ballistic missile defense and defensive counter-air exercises throughout the year, Freedom Edge 26 stands as our most advanced trilateral cooperation to date.”
The US, South Korea and Japan began holding Freedom Edge in 2024. For the second year in a row, the drills will occur without an American aircraft carrier. The US carrier fleet has been strained by the wars in the Middle East, and the Japan-based USS George Washington was recently deployed to the region.
The military drill often provokes a hostile response from North Korea. During last year’s iteration of Freedom Edge, Pak Jong Chon, vice-chairman of the Central Military Commission of the Workers’ Party of Korea, said the drills “pose a grave challenge to the security interests of our state and a major danger of undermining regional stability and escalating military tension.”
On Monday, North Korean Minister Kim Song-gi said Freedom Edge was pushing the situation to the brink. “US-led military demonstrations are being held one after another, without any break in time or space, as military cooperation between the United States, Japan and the Republic of Korea evolves into a dangerous offensive alliance with nuclear elements.” He continued, “This reality poses a serious security threat, pushing instability on the Korean Peninsula and beyond to the brink.”
Last month, President Donald Trump said that the US and South Korean bilateral Ulchi Freedom Shield (UFS) war games were unnecessarily hostile toward North Korea. “These exercises are not only costly, with much of these costs paid for by the United States of America (as usual!), but send a signal that is totally inappropriate and hostile, to a Country that, as long as Donald J. Trump has been President, has been unthreatening and respectful,” he posted on Truth Social.
While Trump cut the UFS drills in half, the Freedom Edge war games have gone forward as planned. South Korean Rear Adm. Kim Ji-hoon called the Freedom Edge drills the “most effective” exercises. “The trilateral Freedom Edge exercise is being executed to counter North Korean nuclear and missile threats and that’s the main purpose of the exercise,” he added.
Trump’s decision to scale back the UFS drills appeared to be part of a push to secure a meeting with North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un. Kim’s sister, Kim Yo Jong, rebuked the overture, saying that merely scaling back the war games did not change the hostile US policy towards North Korea.
Supreme Leader Kim said Pyongyang remains focused on establishing a nuclear deterrent to prevent Washington and South Korea from starting a war. On Monday, North Korea put its second 5,000 ton destroyer into service.
“The enemies’ concerns will surely be deepened,” Kim said at the commissioning ceremony. “We must establish more clearly a powerful and reliable nuclear war deterrent, to put into practice the diverse and effective operation of our nuclear combat systems and further strengthen our military activities for maritime defense and war deterrence.”
South Korean Leader Pledges to Replace Unstable Armistice With North Korea With Peace
Sputnik – 15.08.2026
SEOUL – South Korean President Lee Jae-myung on Saturday said the country aims to end the war on the Korean Peninsula and replace the current unstable armistice regime with a peace regime.
“We will begin the path to ending the war and transforming the unstable armistice regime on the Korean Peninsula into a peace regime,” Lee said in a speech marking the 81st anniversary of Korea’s liberation from Japanese colonial rule.
The president called on both sides to abandon mutual threats and begin inter-Korean talks to end the decades-long “state of war.”
“Let us abandon the intention of threatening each other and begin inter-Korean talks to end this extremely protracted war. Within this process, effective ways to stop the North’s nuclear build-up can also be discussed,” Lee added.
Peace on the Korean Peninsula would contribute to stability and cooperation in Northeast Asia and serve as a milestone toward a “nuclear-free” peace, he said.
Lee also added that South Korea intends to turn the energy of hostility and confrontation into a driving force for peaceful coexistence and shared prosperity, and to fulfill its role as a direct party to the peace process on the Korean Peninsula.
North Korea has repeatedly stated it has no intention of abandoning its nuclear weapons. In September 2025, leader Kim Jong Un declared the denuclearization issue “closed,” adding that Pyongyang would never give up its nuclear arsenal. In March 2026, he said that North Korea would strengthen its nuclear state status as “absolutely irreversible.” The country’s nuclear status has also been enshrined in law.
In September 2023, North Korea added a provision on the accelerated development of nuclear forces to its constitution, following a September 2022 law on nuclear policy.
Historic blow to South Korea’s military intelligence agency
“Military Intervention in Politics Will No Longer Be Possible”
By Erkin Oncan | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 15, 2026
The aftermath of the December 2024 coup attempt in South Korea, led by former President Yoon Suk-yeol, continues to reverberate.
It was revealed that Yoon had ordered drone deployments to North Korea in an effort to escalate tensions and create conditions conducive to a coup. The ongoing trials related to these events have now concluded with prison sentences handed down to Yoon and other senior officials of the era.
The Seoul Central District Court found Yoon guilty of “acts benefiting the enemy” and sentenced him to 30 years in prison. Among those convicted was then–Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, who also received a 30-year sentence.
Yeo In-hyung, head of the Armed Forces Counterintelligence Command – one of the most powerful units within the South Korean military – was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
The lightest sentence was given to Kim Yong-dae, then commander of Drone Operations, who was closest to the “obedience within the chain of command” principle. He received a three-year prison sentence, suspended for five years.
These prison sentences represent far more than the punishment of a criminal act. Since the suppression of the coup attempt, Seoul has been undergoing a profound transformation in both military and civilian bureaucracy.
One of the most significant steps in this transformation was taken two days ago.
The South Korean government announced the dissolution of a military intelligence unit under the Ministry of National Defense.
The disbanded institution was the Defense Counterintelligence Command, known by the abbreviation DCC.
The primary justification for the decision was the command’s “role during the martial law process.” However, details of the restructuring also provide important clues about the broader transformation underway within the military.
What was the DCC?
The DCC has a history spanning more than 70 years. Since its establishment in 1950, it has also been known as the “Special Service Unit,” “Security Command,” and “Military Security Command.”
It acquired its current structure in October 1977, when the Army Security Command, Naval Security Unit, and Air Force Special Investigation Office were merged.
Not only the DCC but all of Korea’s intelligence services have played central roles in nearly every dark chapter of the country’s modern history.
One of the most notable examples is the assassination of former President Park Chung-hee in 1979, known as the “October 26 Incident.”
Park, one of Korea’s longest-ruling dictators, was assassinated by Kim Jae-gyu, the then-head of the Korea Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA).
This assassination – rooted largely in inter-agency rivalry – demonstrates how state institutions, particularly intelligence bodies, have historically been capable of reshaping political power dynamics in pursuit of institutional dominance.
At the time, the DCC (then known as the Military Security Command) was a powerful centralized military intelligence organization.
The figure who significantly strengthened the DCC and made it capable of intervening in politics was Chun Doo-hwan, who was appointed head of the organization six months before the assassination.
Chun used investigations under his control to purge rivals and seized power through a military coup in 1979. The subsequent wave of martial law culminated in the bloody suppression of the Gwangju Uprising in 1980.
The Gwangju uprising
The Gwangju Uprising (May 18–20, 1980) began with student protests and rapidly expanded into a broader civilian resistance against military dictatorship.
It was brutally suppressed by military forces, resulting in the deaths of thousands of civilians at the hands of their own army.
Today, it is commemorated every May 18 as one of the most tragic events in Korean history.
During this period, the DCC played a central, if not decisive, role. It is known that its members infiltrated civilian crowds in plain clothes, spread misinformation and rumors, and engaged in various provocations to escalate violence.
Scandals and reorganizations
By the 1990s, the DCC once again came under scrutiny, this time due to illegal surveillance scandals.
Investigations revealed that the organization had built a nationwide illegal monitoring network targeting civilians and politicians alike. These revelations led to another name change in 1991.
In more recent history, the agency was implicated in political interference in 2018. According to reports by Yonhap News Agency at the time, the DCC played a role in disseminating online content supporting the ruling party and targeting opposition figures.
During the latest coup attempt, it was also revealed that the DCC had planned operations to surround key institutions such as parliament, formed arrest teams targeting political opponents, and prepared detention lists.
In short, for a significant portion of the public in South Korea, this quasi–counterintelligence structure – often described as a politicized “dirty security apparatus” – had long been seen as an institution that should have been dismantled years ago.
The dissolution process
This historic development in South Korean politics was announced by Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back during a press briefing at the ministry.
According to the minister, the new restructuring ensures that “military intervention in politics will no longer be possible.”
Emphasizing that the decision is “not merely an administrative reorganization,” he stated:
“This step is a fundamental restructuring of the structure and mission of military intelligence agencies to ensure they can never again interfere in politics. It marks a historic turning point toward building a military that belongs to the people.”
What is changing?
Under the new arrangement, the DCC will be dismantled and divided.
Its functions – including counterintelligence, defense industry intelligence, security investigations, and security inspections – will be transferred to different institutions.
A newly established Defense Counterintelligence Center will take over counterintelligence operations, defense industry intelligence, defense industrial security, and cybersecurity.
Authorities related to security investigations and joint investigations conducted during martial law periods will be transferred to the Ministry of National Defense’s existing Investigation Headquarters.
Security inspections at corps-level and above units, along with investigations into security violations, will be assigned to a newly created Defense Security Support Group.
At the same time, several key powers that previously enabled the command’s influence within the military are being completely abolished.
From now on, South Korea’s military intelligence agency will no longer be able to monitor military personnel’s activities, collect intelligence on service members, prepare reputation assessments of officers and soldiers, or gather information on corruption and other misconduct outside the scope of counterintelligence.
Strengthening civilian oversight
As the DCC is dismantled, civilian oversight over the newly established Counterintelligence Center is being guaranteed.
The inspector general of the new structure will be a senior civilian auditor. A newly created intelligence and counterintelligence oversight committee within the Ministry of National Defense will operate directly under the defense minister and be composed entirely of civilians.
The government is also working on new legislation that clearly defines the operational limits of military counterintelligence personnel and establishes penalties for illegal activities.
A turning point
The dissolution of the DCC represents more than a simple institutional reorganization. It can also be interpreted as South Korea’s long-delayed confrontation with its history of military coups and military political influence.
Ultimately, however, the extent to which these plans and decisions are successfully implemented will depend once again on the balance of power within both the military and the political establishment.
Ex-South Korean President sentenced for trying to provoke conflict with Pyongyang
RT | June 12, 2026
A South Korean court has sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to 30 years in prison, Yonhap news agency has reported. Judges reportedly found that he ordered drones to be sent into North Korea in order to inflame tensions and create a pretext for his declaration of martial law.
Yoon declared martial law in December of 2024, citing legislative gridlock and what he described as a plot by pro-Pyongyang forces within the South Korean political establishment. The nation’s parliament formally overturned the decree within hours despite attempts by police and soldiers to stop lawmakers from accessing the National Assembly building.
Yoon was impeached just over a week later, suspended from office, and formally removed from power by the Constitutional Court months later.
On Friday, a Seoul court ruled that Yoon had abused his power and “benefited the enemy” with his drone plot, among other charges, and sentenced him to 30 years in prison. According to the Associated Press, the court also accused him of harming South Korea’s military interests by exposing its capabilities and prompting Pyongyang to take a stronger defensive posture.
Yoon’s former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun was also sentenced to 30 years in prison for his role in the plot, while former Defense Counterintelligence Command chief Yeo In-hyung received a 15-year sentence.
Friday’s sentence adds to Yoon’s growing list of convictions.
In February, he was sentenced to life after being convicted of attempting to orchestrate an insurrection and seize power. In April, an appeals court increased his sentence for abuse of authority and obstruction of duty.
Yoon’s downfall follows a long pattern of legal persecution of former South Korean leaders.
Four of his predecessors had received prison sentences after leaving office. Among them were Chun Doo-hwan, Roh Tae-woo, Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye, although several were later pardoned.
Role reversal – “divide & conquer” used against the west
Ashes of Pompeii | March 21, 2026
For centuries, the strategy of “divide and conquer” has been a cornerstone of Western geopolitical power. The British Empire mastered the art of ruling vast territories with minimal forces by exploiting internal divisions, setting local leaders against one another, leveraging ethnic tensions, and securing cooperation through selective incentives (aka bribes). The United States later employed similar tactics, from Cold War interventions to coalition-building in Iraq and Southeast Asia. The principle remains consistent: fracture opposition to maintain advantage.
Today, we are witnessing a role reversal in real time. Iran, long subjected to Western pressure and sanctions, is employing a parallel strategy regarding the Strait of Hormuz. Much of the west is not entirely enamoured of Trump’s Iran strategy but is afraid to openly challenge America. The closing of the Strait is economically catastrophic for most US allies and they are caught between a rock and a hard place – a vindictive Trump demanding support to open the Strait, and economic hardship.
In steps Iran with its own “divide and conquer” strategy, now reportedly negotiating with individual Asian and European countries a sort of Hormuz toll to allow tankers from these allied countries to pass through. And of course, they would each be required to not support the the US Navy if it attempts to open Hormuz. These discussions would be regarding tolls, security guarantees, and bilateral arrangements that would circumvent a collective response.
This approach carries significant strategic implications. If key U.S. allies secure individual agreements ensuring their energy shipments, the incentive to support a unified, potentially confrontational effort to keep Hormuz open is dead in the water.. Why risk escalation when a separate deal preserves economic interests? This dynamic could gradually erode the cohesion of Western alliances. Imagine Japan, Korea or Germany putting their national interests ahead of America’s! Unthinkable just a few weeks ago.
Iran’s maneuvering reflects a calculated understanding of coalition politics. By offering tailored terms, Tehran exploits the very real economic dependencies that different nations have on Persian Gulf oil flows. A country like Japan, facing immediate energy shortfalls, may prioritize short-term access over long-term strategic solidarity.
The irony is substantive, not merely rhetorical: a regional power taking advantage of a strategy historically used to extend Western influence, now being adapted to counter that same influence. Traditional western asymmetric power dynamics being used against the west.
If Iran successfully institutionalizes a system of bilateral tolls or passage agreements, it could reshape regional power structures and perhaps challenge the precedent of freedom of navigation under international law. However, this development also exposes the conditional nature of the “rules-based order” itself. When international norms align with western strategic interests, they are vigorously defended; when they become inconvenient, exceptions are quietly made. The interesting aspect here, is that for once, the exception is used against the USA.
In the end, this is power politics, plain and simple. Iran is using the tools available to it, geography, energy dependence, and diplomatic patience, to turn a strategic vulnerability into leverage. The West built much of its influence by splitting opponents; now it faces the same tactic applied in reverse. One would expect that states would always seek national advantage where they find it, but that has often not been the case for “junior” members of the western alliance in the last 30 or 40 years.
This is just another step towards a multipolar world where the west is seeing its own playbook used against it, where alliances and coalitions may be less static, and where national interest may be considered more important than following the diktats of a hegemon or a bloc leader.
Turn around is fair play and America and the west will need to get used to the idea that other countries, here Iran, can both play hardball and use divide and conquer strategies.
I am not sure Donald Trump will quite understand the significance of this moment.
US failures in Iran reveal Russia is key to South Korea’s strategic security
By Drago Bosnic | March 11, 2026
You’re probably wondering what Russia, South Korea, Iran and the United States could possibly have in common. Moscow has very close ties with Pyongyang, not Seoul, while Tehran is simply too far to be of any consequence to South Korean strategic security. Or is it? The failures of American ABM (anti-ballistic missile) systems in the Middle East demonstrate that the US is simply unable to wage simultaneous wars against remotely capable opponents. Namely, the Pentagon is frantically trying to replenish its stockpile of ABM munitions after billions of dollars’ worth of interceptors were wasted trying to shoot down Iranian ballistic missiles, most of which are still 60-year-old Soviet-era technology.
However, the US needs to at least try to protect whatever’s left of its military infrastructure in the Middle East. The only way to achieve this is to transfer critically important ABM systems from other hotspots and redeploy them to the Persian Gulf region. This has already sounded the alarm in Kiev, where the Neo-Nazi junta is whining that they’re being left out. However, South Korea is also raising similar concerns after Washington DC decided to transfer “Patriot” ABM/SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems from the divided peninsula to the Middle East. On March 10, President Lee Jae Myung openly criticized this plan, but admitted it would be unrealistic to expect the US to take Seoul’s concerns seriously.
“The USFK [United States Forces Korea] may dispatch some air defense systems abroad in accordance with its own military needs. While we have expressed opposition, the reality is that we cannot fully push through our position,” he stated.
Local sources report that several “Patriot” batteries have already been withdrawn from Osan Air Base, located in the city of Pyeongtaek, approximately 65 km south of Seoul (although homonymous with the city of Osan City, the airbase is actually about 7-8 km further south). There are reports that the SAM/ABM systems are heading to American bases in Saudi Arabia and/or the UAE. Although we’re yet to see an official confirmation from South Korea, President Lee’s vocal objections serve as de facto evidence to that effect. Many (if not most) local media outlets are far less ambivalent and see the US as the main culprit, blaming its abortive aggression on Iran for the current situation.
Faced with chronic shortages of its grossly overhyped and exorbitantly overpriced air and missile defense systems (and munitions), Washington DC is now forced to redirect them from other hotspots, including NATO-occupied Ukraine, where the Kiev regime is desperately trying to boost the “PR victories” of Western weapon systems. However, while the Neo-Nazi junta is worrying only about the “Patriot”, the Pentagon actually uses more advanced systems, such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), which is deployed in both Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. Still, currently deployed THAAD systems are nowhere near enough to cover the critical areas where US occupation forces are stationed.
On March 9, citing two US War Department officials, The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon used around $5.6 billion worth of munitions in just two days of America’s aggression on Iran. With various types of advanced weapon systems and stockpiles depleted, Washington DC was forced to redeploy numerous assets from elsewhere to continue the war. Interestingly, the US still insists that it has “enough munitions” and that the transfer is “only a precaution” and a series of “preventive steps in anticipation of the Iran crisis potentially prolonging”. This is yet another confirmation that things aren’t exactly going as planned by the unadulterated warmongers and war criminals at the Pentagon.
However, various other sources confirm that this is also done to replace assets destroyed during Iran’s retaliation. Namely, according toForeign Policy, it will take 5-8 years to rebuild the radar systems used by the “Patriot” and THAAD in Qatar, while another one destroyed in Bahrain will take up to 2 years to be replaced. The mainstream propaganda machine regularly resorts to damage control in order to hide American losses in manpower and military infrastructure, but the actual figures now hover at around $5-6 billion in destroyed equipment (although it could easily be far worse) and potentially hundreds of KIA/WIA (killed/wounded in action). However, once again, how does this relate to Russia and South Korea?
Well, Seoul foolishly sided with Washington DC, cutting its relatively cordial ties with Moscow. Worse yet, a massive stockpile of South Korean weapons was indirectly supplied to the Kiev regime through the US, helping prolong the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. Thus, Russia and North Korea ended their efforts to stabilize the situation on the peninsula through close contacts with South Korea and concluded their own military pact that includes a mutual defense clause. Thus, by being a good vassal to Washington DC, Seoul gained nothing, but lost a unique opportunity to reconcile with Pyongyang through Moscow’s mediation. This has effectively closed the Kremlin’s door to South Korea for years (if not decades) to come.
However, it didn’t have to be like this. Until just 10-15 years ago, their relations were far better, including close defense ties. Namely, Seoul was always dissatisfied with the grossly overhyped and exorbitantly overpriced US-made “Patriot” system, so it looked for alternatives. Back in the early 2000s, it turned to Russia for technology transfers in advanced air defenses. South Korea invited Russian defense industry enterprises, specifically Almaz-Antey and Fakel, to directly participate in the development of a new indigenous air defense system that would replace the troubled “Patriot”. Moscow used its extensive experience in advanced SAM systems to not only speed up R&D, but also deliver a far superior product.
Russian companies combined the components of the export versions of the S-350 “Vityaz” and the S-400 “Triumf”, specifically the 9M96 missile and the 92N6E multipurpose radar, greatly augmenting and vastly enhancing the original South Korean design. This includes a vertical, cold-launch system, far superior to the “Patriot’s” angled approach, in which the missile ignites while in the canister. The Russian method provides 360° coverage, while the “Patriot” is limited to 120° sectors, requiring multiple launch platforms to cover the same area. Thus, thanks to the Kremlin, the (K)M-SAM was born, offering far superior performance for a fraction of the cost, while also being much better optimized and automated.
For instance, the system’s 9M96-derived interceptor costs $1.1 million, nearly seven times less than the “Patriot’s” XM400 (better known as the PAC-3 MSE). Thus, the only air and missile defense systems that South Korea can now rely on are those developed by Russia, because the (neo)colonial master in Washington DC has other priorities. Worse yet, back in late 2024, with the tacit backing of the US, the now-disgraced South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol and his Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun nearly caused a war with nuclear-armed North Korea by launching attack drones on Pyongyang. In other words, if Seoul wants to ensure its strategic security, it urgently needs to restart dialogue with Russia and North Korea instead of remaining a US vassal.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
North Korea Open to Rapprochement If US Respects Its Nuclear Status – Kim Jong-un
Sputnik – 26.02.2026
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un said that Pyongyang has no reason not to pursue rapprochement with the United States if Washington abandons hostility and respects North Korea’s nuclear status.
“If the US respects the present position of our [nuclear] state specified in the Constitution of the DPRK and withdraws its hostile policy toward the DPRK, there is no reason why we cannot get on well with the US,” Kim was quoted by KCNA as saying at a military parade commemorating the Ninth Congress of the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK).
He added that over the past five years, the WPK has permanently enshrined the country’s status as a nuclear state, signaling to adversaries that until the world completely changes, Pyongyang will under no circumstances abandon nuclear weapons.
Kim said that further expanding and strengthening the state’s nuclear armed forces, the core of the armed forces in implementing war deterrence and war-fighting strategy, and consistently exercising the right of a nuclear state, represents the party’s unwavering will.
“We have a long-term plan to strengthen the national nuclear force on an annual basis in the future and will concentrate on increasing the number of nuclear weapons and expanding the means and space for nuclear operation,” the leader said.
Kim added that Pyongyang intends to modernize strike capabilities and nuclear weapons control systems, enhance nuclear force combat readiness through exercises, and improve nuclear crisis response systems. He also prioritized equipping the country’s naval forces with nuclear weapons as part of efforts to strengthen the military.
“The DPRK’s position as the nuclear weapons state plays an important role in deterring the potential threat of its enemies and maintaining regional stability, and the state nuclear force is a basic guarantee and powerful security device reliably ensuring the country’s security, interests and rights to development,” the leader said.
Kim added that the expansion and strengthening of aggressive US-led blocs in the Asia-Pacific region and their military actions, which exceed limits, are creating an unusual situation that seriously threatens security on the Korean Peninsula and in the region.
Featured Video
Iran’s Next Strike May Not Explode. It Could Shut You Down
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archive
Zionism’s Violent Legacy
By Donald Neff | Washington Report On Middle East Affairs | January 1996
On January 4, 1948, Jewish terrorists drove a truck loaded with explosives into the center of the all Arab city of Jaffa and detonated it, killing 26 and wounding around 100 Palestinian men, women and children.[1] The attack was the work of the Irgun Zvai Leumi – the “National Military Organization,” also known by the Hebrew letters Etzel – the largest Jewish terrorist group in Palestine. The Irgun was headed by Revisionist Zionist Menachem Begin and had been killing and maiming Arabs, Britons and even Jews for the previous ten years in its efforts to establish a Jewish state.
This terror campaign meant that at the core of Revisionist Zionism there existed a philosophical embrace of violence. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Trump’s Iran war is on an Israeli leash
- Saudi oil boss issues global supply warning
- Riyadh Says Its Oil System Is Intact. The Numbers Say Otherwise.
- Trump and Netanyahu Want to “Finish the Job” on Iran
- US ‘one-sided dictation’ not Iran’s beliefs makes rational talks impossible: Baghaei
- Iran’s Next Strike May Not Explode. It Could Shut You Down /Col Doug Macgregor
- Iran: US political targets legitimate if assassinations return
- Iraq shuts key border crossing with Iran under US pressure: Report
- Undersea Internet cables could be targeted in retaliation for attacks on Iran: IRGC deputy chief
- EU sending ‘biased’ observers to interfere in Serbian election – president
- If Americans Knew
- The Israel Lobby’s Changing Fortunes
- AIPAC has become such a political liability that it’s shifting to a more “nimble” approach to buying politicians
- At least 160 Israeli settler attacks in 2 weeks
- Will Gaza’s Ancient Christian Community Disappear Forever?
- Israel’s vision of regional security rests on keeping Arab states weak
- Heidi Levine recounts how Palestinian youths helped save her in settler attack
- DAILY UPDATE: Latest essential news on Palestine, Israel, & region
- Trump’s Intensifying Sabotage of the ICC, for Israel’s Sake
- Israeli military detain US and UK volunteers in West Bank including Democratic NY politician Brad Lander
- Americans at National Conservatism Conference held in Israel this year criticize Israel
- No Tricks Zone
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
