I have read the statement issued by the Embassy of Iran with care.
Let me begin by making one point clear. I do not deny the long history of exchange between Japan and Iran. Respect for Persian culture is well deserved, and the Nissho Maru incident is indeed an important episode in Japan’s postwar energy history.
That is precisely why I must say this:
Using that history to justify the current situation in the Strait of Hormuz is misleading.
In 1953, when the Nissho Maru incident took place, Iran was a fundamentally different country. It was not an Islamic Republic, nor a religiously governed state. Its political system and foreign policy were entirely different from what they are today.
In other words, the Nissho Maru story does not represent
“friendship with the current Iranian regime,”
but a relationship that existed under a completely different historical context.
Blurring that distinction, and linking phrases such as “a thousand years of friendship” or “the legacy of the Nissho Maru” to present-day policy, is not an honest reading of history.
It is a rhetorical shortcut.
Furthermore, the essence of the Nissho Maru incident is straightforward. It was a commercial decision made by Idemitsu Kosan, a private company, in defiance of pressure from international oil majors. It symbolized Japan’s independence in securing its own energy needs.
What we are dealing with today is something entirely different.
Iran is imposing political and security-related conditions on passage through the Strait of Hormuz, affecting global energy flows.
That is the opposite of what the Nissho Maru stood for.
Japan at that time expanded the freedom of trade.
The current situation restricts it.
Invoking the Nissho Maru while ignoring this contrast is not a historical argument.
It is a narrative used to deflect criticism of present actions.
As for the claim that “aggressors turned the Strait into a war zone,” I believe it is more useful to focus on observable facts.
Commercial vessels today cannot pass freely.
Additional coordination is required.
Shipping activity is constrained.
From the standpoint of freedom of navigation in international straits, that alone is a serious issue.
So the real question is not an abstract one about blame.
It is a concrete one: who is currently constraining navigation?
That is how the situation should be assessed.
Finally, let me address the tone of the statement.
Phrases such as
“a thousand years of friendship,”
“the legacy of the Nissho Maru,”
and “respect for the Japanese people”
are appreciated.
However, if the expectation is that such language will shape public opinion in Japan, that expectation is misplaced.
The Japanese public is capable of separating history from present policy.
We also distinguish between sentiment and national interest.
And most importantly,
friendship does not override security.
The lesson of the Nissho Maru is not emotional loyalty.
It is independence of judgment.
Japan did not submit to pressure then.
It should not be expected to do so now.
The friendship between Japan and Iran matters.
That is exactly why it should not be used as a justification for current actions.
The Nissho Maru is not a tool for today’s political messaging.
It is a reminder that Japan makes its own decisions.
If that history is being invoked to influence Japanese judgment, then I will state this clearly and respectfully:
Please do not underestimate the Japanese people.