Japanese angered by Trump's Iran strike comparison to atomic bombings
Japanese leaders and survivors of the
atomic bombings have denounced President
Donald Trump 's comparison of
the US strike on
Iran 's nuclear facilities to the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, describing his remarks as deeply inappropriate and historically insensitive.
Advertisement
Speaking at a press conference on Thursday, Nagasaki Mayor Shiro Suzuki condemned Trump's comments, saying the use of nuclear weapons was 'unacceptable' no matter the circumstances – a lesson that should be self-evident from the devastating toll of the US bombing of his city on August 9, 1945.
The initial explosion from the 'Fat Man' plutonium bomb killed as many as 80,000 people in Nagasaki, while many tens of thousands more died before the end of 1945 from radiation poisoning.
Suzuki said he did not understand what Trump meant in his comments. If they were designed to justify the nuclear attacks on
Japan , Nagasaki and its people would express 'profound regret', he added.
Trump's comments, delivered during a joint press conference with Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte in The Hague on Wednesday, have drawn confusion and criticism for their ambiguity.
Advertisement
'The damage to Iran's nuclear facilities is extremely serious. That attack ended the war. I don't want to use Hiroshima as an example. I don't want to use Nagasaki as an example. But essentially it's the same. It ended the war,' Trump said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
an hour ago
- AllAfrica
What the Iran bombing shows about American power and its limits
Last week was a good week for American power and for Donald Trump. The attack he ordered on Iran, against most expectations, was a successful demonstration of that power especially as it intimidated Iran sufficiently to discourage immediate retaliation. The agreement by NATO to set a 5% target for defense spending in proportion to GDP counts as another political success for Trump, especially as NATO's Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, gave that success a ridiculous embellishment by describing him as 'Daddy. Celebratory hamburgers and Cokes would have been called for over the weekend at Mar-a-Lago. The success of Trump's bombing of Iran is not measured in terms of whether US 'bunker-busting' bombs have destroyed Iran's nuclear-weapons program. Trump says that they have, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khameini says they haven't – and we can be sure that both are lying. Almost certainly, based on satellite photos and reports from US and Israeli intelligence, the three big nuclear facilities the bombs struck have been crippled in the sense that it will take time and a great deal of money to rebuild and reopen them. Yet Israeli intelligence also believes that Iran still possesses an unknown quantity of enriched uranium and an unknown number of secret facilities. Whatever Trump and the US Department of Defense may say, the Israelis know that if Iran wished to resume its nuclear program, it could do so, albeit at great expense. The real question is not whether the nuclear program has been destroyed. The real questions concern whether Iran's political will to develop nuclear weapons has been destroyed by America's willingness to fight alongside Israel; and whether Israel's own political leadership is now prepared to wait and try to gauge Iranian intentions or whether instead it might seek to renew its own attacks in response to any indication, however minor, that the nuclear or missile programmes are being resumed. Certainly, Trump now has leverage over Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, since the American bombing did Netanyahu a big favor. However, the leverage works both ways: By persuading Trump that the bombing was worth the risk Netanyahu gave Trump a big political win, and in the aftermath of the (so far) 12-day war it is Israeli intelligence which will play a crucial role in reporting on Iran's behavior and intentions. So, for the time being, Trump and Netanyahu are in a relationship of mutual dependency. Trump might hope to be able to press Netanyahu to bring an end to his attacks on Gaza and to find a way to bring Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf Arab countries together again to find a long-term solution to that conflict. But if Netanyahu decides that a ceasefire in Gaza is not in his interests, he has tools in his hands with which he can resist American pressure. It is an old story: US military power is extraordinary, but America's ability to shape sustainable diplomatic and political outcomes in the aftermath even of successful military action has been shown many times to be limited. If this brief but effective bombing of Iran were to bring a sustainable and positive political outcome, it would be an extraordinary exception to the long-term rule. Much depends on what now happens inside Iran. The killings by Israel of a large swath of Iran's military and scientific leadership means that a new generation has suddenly been promoted. Wartime conditions have led to a tightening of control over the country by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the most ideological part of the armed forces. Executions of suspected Israeli spies are under way. The 86-year-old Ayatollah Khamenei remains in theoretical charge, but in reality a new generation of militants is now in day-to-day control. They will certainly have been intimidated by the American attack and will not feel strong enough to wish to provoke further attacks. Some form of negotiation will likely get going with the Americans about the nuclear program, though it is also possible that the new militant leaders may simply try to keep their heads low for a while, to give them time to consolidate their power. One big thing that has happened as a result of Trump's bombing decision is that the idea that the US president is averse to risk and simply likes doing deals has been shown to be incomplete. He does like deals and doesn't like risk, but plainly is willing to use military action when he sees an opportunity or a necessity. It is unlikely that China ever felt confident that Trump would not intervene if they were to attempt to invade or blockade Taiwan, but certainly they now know to take the threat of US military intervention during the Trump presidency seriously. An optimistic view would be that Trump's success in Iran might now encourage him to make a bold intervention on the side of Ukraine and against Vladimir Putin's Russia. This is evidently what European members of NATO are hoping for, and it is what Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was pushing for when he spoke with Trump at the NATO summit on June 25, and again asked to be allowed to buy more US missile defense systems and other weapons. Yet just as American power to shape political outcomes has been shown in the long term to be limited, during the seven months so far of Trump's presidency we have seen that his attention span and commitment to specific causes are also limited. However often Europeans debase themselves by calling him 'Daddy,' it will not change the reality that European countries cannot rely on America and that they need to protect themselves. The importance of NATO's new 5% spending target is not the target itself, which is largely meaningless: Even America currently spends only 3.5% of GDP and is unlikely to achieve 5% given the size of its fiscal deficit and public debt. The importance lies in the fact that a wide range of European governments, led by Germany, France and the UK, have committed themselves to build their defenses up to a level at which they no longer need to depend on America. Under Trump, America will often be hostile, especially over trade, and so will need to be resisted by a confident and resolute Europe. However much success American power might have found last week, the US cannot be relied upon – and its long-term influence is, anyway, limited. Europe is not on its own, but it needs to be self-reliant. Formerly editor-in-chief of The Economist, Bill Emmott is currently chairman of the Japan Society of the UK, the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the International Trade Institute. A version of this article has been published in Italian by La Stampa and can be found in English on the substack Bill Emmott's Global View. It is republished here with kind permission.
RTHK
2 hours ago
- RTHK
Israeli court postpones Netanyahu graft hearings
Israeli court postpones Netanyahu graft hearings US President Donald Trump (left) earlier said the corruption trial of Benjamin Netanyahu should be scrapped entirely. File photo: Reuters The Jerusalem District Court has cancelled this week's hearings in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's long-running corruption trial, accepting a request the Israeli leader made citing classified diplomatic and security grounds. It was unclear whether a social media post by US President Donald Trump influenced the court's decision. Trump suggested the trial could interfere with Netanyahu's ability to join negotiations with the Palestinian militant group Hamas and Iran. The ruling, seen by Reuters, said that new reasons provided by Netanyahu, the head of Israel's spy agency Mossad and the military intelligence chief justified cancelling the hearings. Netanyahu was indicted in 2019 on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust – all of which he denies. He has cast the trial against him as an orchestrated left-wing witch-hunt meant to topple a democratically elected right-wing leader. On Friday, the court rejected a request by Netanyahu to delay his testimony for the next two weeks because of diplomatic and security matters following the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran, which ended last Tuesday. He was due to take the stand on Monday for cross-examination. "It is INSANITY doing what the out-of-control prosecutors are doing to Bibi Netanyahu," Trump said in a Truth Social post. He said Washington, having given billions of dollars worth of aid to Israel, was not going to "stand for this". A spokesperson for the Israeli prosecution declined to comment on Trump's post. Netanyahu on X retweeted Trump's post and added: "Thank you again, @realDonaldTrump. Together, we will make the Middle East Great Again!" Trump said Netanyahu was "right now" negotiating a deal with Hamas, though neither leader provided details, and officials from both sides have voiced scepticism over prospects for a ceasefire soon. On Friday, the Republican president told reporters he believed a ceasefire was close. (Reuters)
AllAfrica
3 hours ago
- AllAfrica
US loath to drop 'economic bunker buster' on China, India, Russia
US Senator Lindsey Graham recently said that his bill to impose 500% tariffs on every country that imports Russian resources is 'an economic bunker buster against China, India, and Russia' – yet, for all his tough talk, the US is still reluctant to drop it. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump Administration is 'quietly pressuring' the Senate to water down the legislation by turning 'the word 'shall' into 'may' wherever it appears in the bill's text, removing the mandatory nature of the prescribed reprimands.' The Journal's report was lent credence when Graham himself proposed an exemption for countries that aid Ukraine, thus averting an unprecedented US-EU trade war in the event that his bill passes into law. Trump's remark to Politico in mid-June about how 'sanctions cost us a lot of money' suggest that he's not interested in going this route, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio later adding that sanctions could derail the Ukrainian peace process, although he also didn't rule them out in the future. These are sensible explanations for the United States' reluctance to drop its 'economic bunker buster' on Russia but they don't account for its reluctance to drop it on China and India, which have served as invaluable valves for Russia from the West's sanctions pressure due to their large-scale import of its oil. Graham expects that they'll cut off their purchases if the US threatens them with 500% tariffs but they're unlikely to comply since they know that the US would also harm its own economy through such means. Not only that, but the trade deal that US and China recently agreed to would be jeopardized, as would the ongoing talks with India over a similar such agreement. Trump is pleased with both and doesn't want to rock the boat right now. While he might revert back to his previous tariff pressure if things don't go his way, he could just unilaterally impose more tariffs against either in that scenario, and they probably wouldn't be anywhere near the counterproductive level that Graham's legislation demands. Seeing as how the US is once again trying to 'subordinate India,' which is part of his administration's efforts to reshape South Asian geopolitics, he's more prone to imposing higher tariffs against it instead of China but it's premature to predict that he ultimately will. In any case, the pretext probably wouldn't be energy-related given that he has surprisingly posted that 'China can continue to purchase Oil from Iran' in spite of early February's Executive Order that explicitly aims to 'drive Iran's export of oil to zero.' It would therefore be utterly bizarre for Trump to impose tariffs of any level on India or whoever else for purchasing Russian resources when he now no longer cares about the United States' systemic rival China purchasing oil from none other than Iran, which he just bombed, in defiance of his own decree. The aforementioned calculations make it very unlikely that Trump will drop Graham's 'bunker buster' on either of those two. If his bill should become law, it's likely that a loophole would be found to avoid complying with it. This prediction brings the analysis back around to the future of Graham's 'economic bunker buster.' Quite clearly, the Trump Administration doesn't want him to move it through Congress. He may respect the administration's wishes, thus leading to his bill becoming nothing but bluster. This is especially likely if his team signals that it's already found a loophole to get around it unless he changes the language as reportedly requested. China, India, and Russia, therefore, almost certainly have nothing to worry about.
