Iran Ceasefire Agreement: The Danger of Peace by Force

A ceasefire between Israel and Iran has gone into effect. After U.S. President Donald Trump announced the agreement between the two countries, sporadic attacks between them continued. We would like to seek a solid implementation of the agreement as well, in order to avoid an all-out military clash.

This latest trouble, which started with Israel's preemptive strikes under the reasoning that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, decayed into a critical situation in the Middle East, due to the U.S. military aerial bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. The expansion of war must be prevented, as there are concerns that conflict could also have a grave impact on the world economy in ways such as high crude oil prices.

Israel and the U.S. did not indicate a clear basis for justification regarding Iran's nuclear weapon development program. The strikes significantly deviated from the scope of exercising the right to self-defense, violating Iran's sovereignty and dominion, and doubts about whether they contradicted the U.N. Charter and international law cannot be erased.

Trump's touted principle of “peace through strength” is a dangerous idea that approves a unilateral change of the status quo through force. Allowing these actions to force foreign nations into submission via military strength will cause a breakdown in the world order.

Now is the time that the international community must return to the rule of law. The U.S., which has been complicit with one side and abandoned its duty as an intermediary, must be persuaded of this and a route to conflict resolution through dialogue found.

An additional ulterior motive in the background context of the ceasefire agreement also likely includes Israel's reluctance to extend its battle with Iran, whose capabilities for defending its homeland from aerial attack have been weakened. Although the agreement was implemented through persuasion from the U.S., which does not wish to fully intervene, we must not forget that it is merely a temporary truce.

Alongside suspicions about Iran's development of nuclear weapons, the Palestinian Gaza problem is the basis for antagonism. Israel has not let up on attacking districts in Gaza, and the human rights crisis is dire.

Negotiations between Iran, which claims that it uses nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes, and the U.S. have also been challenging and fundamental issues have not been resolved. Instead, there are also concerns about the “North Korea-ization” of an increasingly distrustful Iran.

Europe and Japan's stance regarding U.S. military intervention cannot be overlooked. Leaders from the U.K., France and Germany, along with Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, have justified obstructing Iran from possessing nuclear weapons and are, in fact, tacitly consenting to the U.S. military's actions.

It is utterly impossible to comprehend the international community's double standard of criticizing Russia, which invaded Ukraine under the pretext of self-defense, on the one hand, while at the same time approving of the attacks on Iran.

Above all, Japan, which relies on crude oil from the Middle East, has built good relationships with Iran and Palestine, while at the same time having close relations with Israel.

Although tariff negotiations continue, Japan's complete commitment to following along with the U.S. also causes many pro-Japanese Middle Eastern nations to lose trust. Doesn't Japan, a nation that touts a pacifist constitution, have a duty to boost opportunities for diplomacy and encourage dialogue?