To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
By Ioanna Theou
Recently President Trump during a meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister at the White House, invoked the Pearl Harbor attack to justify US actions toward Iran. While political leaders often rely on historical events to frame their decisions, it’s very important to be extremely careful doing such comparisons. His point highlights a deeply problematic use of historical events. Rather than offering a cohesive argument -with some reasonable explanation- President Trump preferred to use this comparison.
But in this case, this comparison appears deeply flawed. The attacks in Pearl Harbor during the Second World War represent a surprise military attack that has long been considered in American memory as a symbol of unprovoked aggression. By comparing those events and US strategic choices, Trump not only risks misrepresenting the historical events, but also it seems that he confuses the moral distinction between offensive and defensive actions.
Moreover, such rhetoric has broader diplomatic implications. The reference to Pearl Harbor events, particularly in front of the Japanese Prime Minister was unacceptable and could create unnecessary tension between Japan and the United States -even if it is difficult, because Japan is a close United States ally. But again, the use of this kind of historical events, without regard for their accuracy, undermines coherent strategic communication…
The reference to the Pearl Harbor attack does not justify, in any meaningful way, an aggressive US behavior -neither toward Japan in the past nor toward Iran today. Such comparisons not only distorts history, but also undermines the coherence of the argument itself. The comparison becomes even more problematic when one considers the consequences of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The massive losses of civilian life and the long term suffering caused by radiation, left deep scars on Japanese society. Ignoring this reality while invoking Pearl Harbor reflects a selective and inconsistent use of history. It also highlights the absence of accountability for the actions of the United States that had devastating humanitarian consequences. Unless Trump used this comparison because he believes something like this will happen again in Iran without the US being held accountable.
Resources
Javier C. Hernandez, ‘’Trump jokes about Pearl Harbor in Meeting with Japan’s leader’’, New York Times, 19/03/2026.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/19/us/politics/trump-japan-pearl-harbor-oval-office-takaichi.html
‘’Trump makes Pearl Harbor joke in front of Japanese PM’’, CNBC, 22/03/2026.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6LZ48f_d50