31

Why is Japan trying to have a better relationship with Iran? Shinzo Abe has become the first Japanese leader to visit Iran in 40 Years. Is it worth it for Japan to risk alienating the U.S., which is a major ally of Japan? Why does Japan think the risk is worth it, and what might be the advantages Japan may get from a closer relationship with Iran considering the consequences it may entail? Can someone explain to me the geopolitics involved in the decision?

Machavity
  • 48,310
  • 11
  • 131
  • 209
Sayaman
  • 40,192
  • 9
  • 139
  • 290
  • 5
    Please include a link or reference to show the premise of your question - "Why is Japan trying to have a better relationship with Iran?" ** What makes you think they are? – CramerTV Jun 25 '19 at 02:28
  • 1
    Visiting doesn't mean you always want a better relationship. Abe was just doing a favor to Trump. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Jun 25 '19 at 18:33

3 Answers3

44

The U.S. is likely to become less involved in the Middle East and Asia. Japan will need to secure oil supplies.

Peter Zeihan has given many speeches over the last decade about how demographics and fracking affect geopolitics. Many of these speeches are on YouTube. In these speeches, he argues:

  • The U.S. established a world order in 1945.
  • The U.S. paid for a world-class navy that guaranteed freedom of the seas for its allies.
  • The U.S. allowed its allies to export to the United States.
  • The U.S. and its allies gave up direct control over their overseas empires.
  • The U.S. paid for a world-class military capable of resisting Soviet expansion.

Zeihan points out that this was essentially a deal to allow the U.S. to be the world's leading power to oppose the Soviet Union. But the Soviet empire collapsed during 1989-91. The U.S. is still carrying the costs of this deal. Zeihan predicts that this deal will unravel. Zeihan also points out that:

  • Fracking means that North America no longer needs Middle Eastern oil.
  • If the U.S. no longer needs Middle Eastern oil, then the U.S. no longer needs to control the Persian Gulf.
  • If the U.S. abandons the Persian Gulf and South and Southeast Asia, then the East Asian countries will need to scramble to secure energy supplies.

Zeihan omits the following points. These points reinforce his argument:

  • The U.S.' allies de facto agreed that any conventional wars versus the Soviet Union would be fought in the allies' territory, and that the allies would suffer most of the casualties.

  • Prior to the mid-1970s, the United States' foreign trade was roughly balanced. During the mid-1970s, the U.S. started to run large trade deficits, for the following reasons. It is difficult to tell which reasons are causes and which are effects:

    • Individuals' foreign earnings became taxable income, subject to a credit for foreign taxes paid. This severely discouraged Americans from going abroad to sell American products.
    • The U.S. became a net oil importer, and the price of oil went up.
    • The U.S. auto industry lost market share both at home and abroad.
    • Both the Federal government and many state governments began to run budget deficits.
  • To the extent that the U.S. budget deficit is financed by foreigners' trade surpluses with the U.S., and to the extent that the U.S. intends to either not pay off that debt, or inflate away that debt, the U.S.' trade deficits are the means by which the U.S. collects tribute from its allies.

  • Because the U.S. collects tribute via trade deficits, this tribute comes at the expense of American manufacturing industries and their job-base.

Zeihan notes that the United States has been electing presidents who are less-and-less interested in controlling the Middle East. At some point, Japan will need to secure oil from the Middle East.

The following points are not from Zeihan's speeches:

Iran needs allies and know-how from direct investment.

Iran has enormous unfulfilled economic potential, and Japan could help Iran achieve that potential. There are many similarities between Iran's situation and China's situation when it began its economic boom. China's government reduced its birth-rate in the 1970s; Iran reduced its birthrate in 1990. Changes in birth-rates shape future demographics and economies. The similarities also include having lots of smart people, a long history of civilization, and many industries that could benefit from foreign direct investment. Japan has the scientists, engineers, and capital to make direct investments.

Currently, Iran is overly dependent on its alliances with Syria and Russia, and on Iran's complicated relationship with Pakistan.

Israel cannot use emotional blackmail against Japan.

American and European policies toward the Middle East are strongly influenced by Israel. Since the Iranian Revolution, Iran has been hostile toward Israel, and Israel has returned the favor. Most of the reasons that Israel has been able to influence Americans and Europeans do not apply to East Asian countries.

Jasper
  • 6,808
  • 1
  • 29
  • 38
  • 3
    Iran as in the Islamic Republic was hostile to America without any need for Israel to pressure America to be hostile to it. –  Jun 25 '19 at 07:40
  • @Orangesandlemons -- Correct. But the question is about why Japan might be more willing than other major powers to improve relations with Iran. – Jasper Jun 25 '19 at 07:51
  • 11
    Can you elaborate on what you mean by "emotional blackmail"? – Obie 2.0 Jun 25 '19 at 08:48
  • 5
    Who is Peter Zeihan? Can you add a little background on him, as he is the only source listed in this answer. – BruceWayne Jun 25 '19 at 14:40
  • @BruceWayne -- I added a few links to Zeihan's self-published bio blurb and maps that he references. Uncited sources include the 14th edition Encyclopedia Britannica, Jerry Pournelle's writings, 60 Minutes, and Paul Krugman's MIT lectures on International Economics. Most of Zeihan's historical, demographic, and geographic information is consistent with what I remember from the Britannica, 60 Minutes, and Krugman's lectures; the rest is not inconsistent. Zeihan's contributions are his selection of material and his synthesis of it into a geopolitical risk-and-opportunity analysis. – Jasper Jun 25 '19 at 18:16
  • 4
    What's this about reducing birthrates have to do with anything else in the post? The Israeli "emotional blackmail" is also very off the mark. – SnakeDoc Jun 25 '19 at 18:24
  • 7
    @MartinBonner Why would the nations that ended the Holocaust be blackmailed by it? That seems absurd. – SnakeDoc Jun 25 '19 at 18:25
  • @SnakeDoc -- Zeihan's analyses start with demographics, food and resource surpluses, and transportation chokepoints. Changes in birth rates shape the demographics, with major effects on economic consumption, production, capital formation, and capital destruction over time. These in turn drive what countries need/want from the rest of the world. – Jasper Jun 25 '19 at 18:34
  • 5
    The U.S. has never needed middle eastern oil. Research where the US gets its oil from. Almost all of it comes from the western hemisphere, primarily Canada. This throws the rest of his case into doubt. A stronger argument would be that the U.S. still cares about global supply, which does impact the price of oil. If Middle Eastern oil collapsed, Canadian oil would be more expensive (which, granted, would be great for Canada. And Norway. And a number of other nations...) – JamieB Jun 25 '19 at 20:02
  • 11
    @SnakeDoc The Allies didn't enter into WWII to end the Holocaust. People knew that Nazi Germany was antisemitic, and either didn't care, or actively agreed (not all people of course, but that was pretty much the political consensus). – Martin Bonner supports Monica Jun 25 '19 at 20:13
  • @JamieB - What do you mean by research? – Obie 2.0 Jun 25 '19 at 20:24
  • 1
    @JamieB -- I am generally aware of the history of where the U.S. has gotten its oil from. This includes the history of Occidental Petroleum in Libya, and Saudi Aramco. The "am" in Aramco is short for "American". It also includes the inconvenience caused to the United States by the Arabs' refusal to sell oil to the United States in 1973. This led the U.S. to purchase more oil from Venezuela, Nigeria, and Angola. I am also aware that the U.S. has historically used its naval power to influence which great powers had access to oil, even when the U.S. had surpluses of oil. – Jasper Jun 25 '19 at 20:25
  • 4
    @MartinBonner Not getting into WWII with that specific intention, and the outcome are different things. The US (alone, effectively) gave the land that became Israel, and swore to protect it. That's hardly "emotional blackmail" material. – SnakeDoc Jun 25 '19 at 21:11
  • 8
    @SnakeDoc - How did the US, according to you, unilaterally give British-mandate Palestine? – Obie 2.0 Jun 26 '19 at 04:30
  • 1
    @MartinBonner Re "Allies... knew ... Nazi Germany was antisemitic": this conflates mere antisemitism with genocide. Most allied citizens knew of the former, but relatively few knew of, or imagined, the actual scope of latter. – agc Jun 26 '19 at 14:19
  • @Obie2.0 The British were in no condition to argue? And owed the US quite a lot of favors... – SnakeDoc Jun 26 '19 at 16:38
  • @SnakeDoc, really? With arms embargo and all? If not Truman personally, the US would have almost certainly voted against forming Israel at all. The USSR played a bigger role in this 'giving the land' affair. – Zeus Jun 27 '19 at 01:12
  • @MartinBonner as alluded to in the answer, Iran was never Israel's enemy. Israel had no animosity toward Iran, In fact, Israeli companies built a lot in Iran, including Tehran's airport. So clearly Israel is simply concerned by the fact that since Iran's revolution they have been promising to wipe Israel off the map. I'm not sure what Israel is supposed to do other than work toward not letting that happen – CodyBugstein Jun 28 '19 at 00:07
  • You know, this post would be improved by replacing emotional blackmail with something more neutral like emotional appeal. The Japanese have no great history of antisemitism, unlike many European nations and the US, so they have little atone for wrt WW2 towards Israel (China is rather a different story) and can judge Israeli demands solely on the merits of their benefits towards Japan. I think that's what the post means to say, but a bit of diplomacy doesn't hurt. Japan also isn't very Christian so that can help Iranian relations. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica May 13 '20 at 04:53
14

Abe visiting Iran is not necessarily a sign that Japan is working against the United States. For all we know, the Donald Trump administration asked Abe to negotiate with Iran on their behalf.

Think Progress:

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Iran on Wednesday marks the first time a leader from Japan has gone to Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution; and, possibly, the start of indirect diplomacy between Iran and the United States under the Trump administration.

Japan has traditionally bought Iranian oil. So if Trump imposes secondary sanctions on countries dealing with Iran, Japan would likely be one of those countries. Japan would thus like for Iran to make some kind of deal. And they are in a position to offer a sweetener. For example, they might guarantee to purchase a certain amount of oil from Iran.

Brythan
  • 89,627
  • 8
  • 218
  • 324
-3

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. ;) US is not likely to become less involved in the Middle East because it is the key to Asia, and the real competitors in economic and later military power are in Asia. If US removes its military presence in the region, it will be game over for Saudi Arabia, Israel and eventually the US itself.

Japan is trying to project a strong peace keeping image that will help it in the following years. Marketing, baby.

rehiq
  • 1
  • 1
  • 4
    Do you have a source with this? Because it reads like pure speculation. – Mast Jun 26 '19 at 12:57
  • Pure speculation. Just My opinion. No need for sources. – rehiq Jun 26 '19 at 13:41
  • 3
    Welcome to Politics.SE! I'm afraid that's not how this site works: answers need to be objective and (generally) sourced, not just speculative opinions. Please take the [tour] and visit the [help] to learn more. – F1Krazy Jun 26 '19 at 13:42
  • I think I am objective in my assessment. Please take my answer down then. :) Sorry for sharing personal opinion. I cannot bother to repeat like a parrot. All the best. – rehiq Jun 26 '19 at 13:45
  • @Mast, While not great, this answer looks more deductive than speculative. Its premises seem sourceable enough. That Saudi Arabia and Israel rely on US military protection is not opinion. Most nations do want to market themselves as peace keepers. – agc Jun 26 '19 at 14:04
  • Please clarify who "my enemy" is in this context. Also, there should be a bit more on why the Middle East is the key to Asia -- the key for whom, and by which metaphorical door... – agc Jun 26 '19 at 14:05
  • keys-chain:
    • Shia–Sunni peace means rich, strong region, a big nono for US.
    • Muslim minorities(majorities) in former USSR republics & China provinces - one bird with 2 stones
    • One road one belt no be rendered obsolete and effectively corner China - it is cornered now in the Indian and Pacific.

    Enemies:

    • Japan => US => all fallen countries in the WW2. Some of them economical giants, but political midgets. Cannot keep the balance anymore. Withdrawing from this region will sparkle a domino effect on the whole world.
    – rehiq Jun 26 '19 at 14:24