Yoshihisa Komori during an interview with JAPAN Forward in Tokyo. (©Kenji Yoshida)
The armed conflict between Israel and Iran, sparked by Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets on June 13, has come to a halt. Fears over Tehran's suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons were at the heart of the confrontation.
For now, a ceasefire brokered by the United States on June 23 appears to be holding, despite initial signs of friction.
While much of the world has been focused on the Middle East, Japan's murky messages on the unfolding crisis have also drawn significant attention.
Tokyo was the only G7 country to condemn Israel's actions. At the same time, the government withheld endorsement of America's June 21 strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, despite Washington being its closest ally.
Yoshihisa Komori, a seasoned journalist and Washington-based Associate Correspondent for The Sankei Shimbun, says Japan cannot expect others to end Tehran's nuclear ambitions while turning a blind eye when action is taken to counter them.
In an interview with JAPAN Forward, Komori discussed the thinking behind Tokyo's cautious stance and wider implications of the recent military flare-up.
Were the US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites justified?
The strikes were narrowly focused on eliminating Iran's nuclear facilities, targeting a regime that openly calls for the destruction of a neighboring state. If Iran's nuclear weapons program has been effectively neutralized, I believe the US operation deserves praise.
Beyond the immediate impact, the operation sends a consequential message to other lawless regimes, particularly North Korea. Pyongyang continues to wield its nuclear arsenal to intimidate neighboring countries. The growing nexus between Tehran and Pyongyang, including weapons transfers, presents the broader strategic implications of the strike for security in Northeast Asia.
Japan's statement on the US operation has been vague. Why?
Most G7 countries have expressed support for the US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s remarks, however, have been notably restrained. And the Japanese government has yet to issue a clear message endorsing America's recent military action.
One reason is Japan's dependence on oil from the Middle East. Before the imposition of American sanctions in 2018, for instance, Iran was one of Japan's largest energy suppliers. It's a factor that continues to influence Tokyo’s approach to regional tensions.
While the energy reliance is true, the Japanese government must understand that Iran's power projection in the region is weakening. Their leaders have threatened to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, but their ability to do so effectively this time is questionable.
Another factor is that some in Tokyo view the Iranian regime as particularly cordial toward Japan. But I remain skeptical of this notion.
For example, when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited Tehran in June 2019, a Japanese-owned tanker was attacked in the Gulf of Oman, with strong evidence suggesting Iranian involvement. Additionally, Japan is a liberal democracy, while Iran is a theocratic dictatorship. Our political systems and core values are fundamentally incompatible.
You mentioned the Japanese anti-nuclear group's double standard. Can you elaborate?
Japan is home to several prominent anti-nuclear organizations, some of which have received international recognition, like the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet their activism is selective. These groups are quick to condemn countries like Israel, even when Israel takes action to halt rogue nuclear weapons development.
Their stated objective is the complete eradication of all nuclear weapons worldwide. The recent US airstrikes in Iran represented a step toward that goal. Yet, rather than welcoming such efforts, these groups bashed Washington while largely ignoring Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Similarly, although they frequently condemn the US for maintaining its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent, they remain conspicuously silent on the nuclear weapons developments of China and North Korea.
Is Iran an existential threat to Israel?
This is precisely where Iran's nuclear weapons development could tip the balance of power. Iran may not have the conventional military capabilities to pose an existential threat to Israel. But the situation changes dramatically if a neighboring country, one that openly calls for the annihilation of Israel, is on the verge of acquiring, or already possesses, nuclear weapons. Such a situation is deeply alarming.
Iran is also widely recognized as a state sponsor of terrorism. While there are debates over how the United Nations categorizes such states, many countries consider Iran responsible for supporting various terrorist groups in the region.
Will there be an attempt at regime change?
President Donald Trump says he is not seeking regime change, but he doesn't deny the possibility that it could happen.
I was actually in Washington during the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and traveled to Iran near the end of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's reign [Pahlavi was the last Shah of Iran who ruled from 1941 to 1979]. When I was back in the US, I also had the chance to interview his eldest son, Reza Pahlavi.
Before 1979, Iran was a pro-American state and, at one point, it maintained relatively close ties with Israel. Before becoming an Islamic theocracy, the country had experienced elements of actual democracy. In that sense, Iran differs from China and is more comparable to certain Eastern European countries. The seed of democracy is stronger.
RELATED:
- To Enjoy Peace, Iran Must Abandon Its Nuclear Program
- Irresponsible for Diet to End Session Without Tackling Iran Crisis
- Iran Hit by US Strikes, Japan Pulls Out Nationals
Author: Kenji Yoshida
