
How Barack Obama Planned to Destroy North Korea's Weapons of Mass Destruction
What analysts haven't pointed out is that serious planning for a first strike against North Korea's arsenal was initiated by then-President Barack Obama almost five years before Trump's 'fire and fury' threats, and those plans came up short.
Obama and Trump met for the first – and only – time days after the Republican candidate had won the presidential election. Obama had decided to personally take on the task of making sure an uninformed Trump, who didn't even know there were two Koreas, understood that Pyongyang's nuclear weapons would soon be able to devastate American cities.
Obama warned Trump that Kim Jong Un was about to cross a technological Rubicon. Obama often told his advisors that a future president might have to attack North Korea before it launched its weapons. While Obama informed Trump that he had ordered the Pentagon to figure out how to do that, their plan still fell short of achieving the objective.
Obama's warning may have been too successful. It certainly left an impression on the president-to-be. An astounded Trump repeatedly asked his advisers how past presidents could have left him with this mess. He would also ask everyone, including the musician Kid Rock, what to do.
Trump would later claim in public that Obama was about to start a war with North Korea, but all Obama was trying to do was to arm future presidents with a plan to prevent the destruction of American cities.
Trump also claimed that Obama has been 'begging for a meeting' with Kim Jong Un. Susan Rice, Obama's national security adviser, called Trump's accusation 'horseshit,' but like many of Donald Trump's pronouncements, there was a grain of truth in what he said.
The North Korean arsenal grew to alarming proportions during Obama's two terms in office. In 2009, intelligence estimates predicted the threat of a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) was still a decade off. But in January 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made headlines when he announced that North Korea could attack U.S. cities in five to ten years.
It turned out Pyongyang's long-range missile program had been hiding in plain sight. Suspicious purchases of 'large off-road vehicles,' perfect for transporting a new mobile ICBM, were announced on a Chinese company's website starting in October 2010. Deliveries started 8 months later.
In April 2012, those transporters appeared carrying a new missile dubbed the KN-08 in a massive Pyongyang parade celebrating Kim Il Sung's birth. The missile was a potential game-changer for the Pentagon, since a stationary missile could be destroyed before launch. Mobile missiles were likely to survive an attack. Some experts argued the paraded missiles were only mockups and a hoax. The Pentagon, however, believed they were intended to help build a new weapon.
The KN-08 confirmed the worst fears of a handful of Defense Department officials. James 'Jim' Miller, the third ranking civilian official at the Pentagon, had initially supported the majority view that the real North Korea threat was short-range missiles aimed at U.S. troops and allies – South Korea and Japan – in Northeast Asia. However, the more Miller and an aide, Tom Ehrhard, a former Air Force officer who didn't engage in wishful thinking, talked to intelligence analysts, the more they realized the ICBM danger was real.
The two were joined by four-star Admiral James 'Sandy' Winnefeld, Jr., then the newly appointed vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Tasked to protect the continental United States from attack in his last job, Winnefeld's wife had complained that Pyongyang ruined their holidays by launching rockets. He assured her he would take care of the problem. The admiral feared that North Korea would eventually be able to obliterate cities on the United States' West Coast.
The April 2012 parade also set off alarm bells in the White House. Obama had been concerned about the North Korean threat. His daily brief, featuring the KN-08's appearance, concluded that the missile wouldn't be operational until it was successfully tested. But Obama sent an unequivocal message to the Pentagon. 'I have to defend this country. I want you to take this seriously,' a senior military officer recalled the president as saying.
A successful North Korean satellite launch in December using a large rocket was a 'big wake up call,' according to a Pentagon official. Then, Pyongyang's nuclear detonation in February 2013, which it claimed helped develop nuclear warheads small enough to place on top of a rocket, proved to be the last straw.
Miller and Winnefeld won their fight. In March, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced a $1 billion initiative to buy 14 more Ground Based Interceptors, or GBIs, to add to the existing stockpile. They would protect the United States from Pyongyang's 'irresponsible and reckless provocations.'
However, complacency soon set in again. The Pentagon's attitude was, 'We've got it,' according to one Defense Department official, even though it became clear that a modest upgrade in U.S. missile defenses wouldn't be able to cope with more than a handful of KN-08s. Officials reasoned, 'If they launch a nuclear weapon at San Francisco, we will nuke them.'
That view wasn't shared by everyone. A policy review ordered by Obama confirmed that Hagel's GBI upgrade could easily be overwhelmed by a growing missile arsenal. The president ordered the Pentagon to consider the new North Korean ICBM operational even if it hadn't been tested and to develop a plan to take 'those missiles out' before they could be launched, according to a senior U.S. military officer. Obama didn't want the military to 'bring him another rock.'
The fight to find a solution to the growing North Korean threat was joined by a new important ally. Robert 'Bob' Work, a Marine veteran who was appointed deputy secretary of defense, quickly focused on the danger, with the aid of Ehrhard, who had remained behind when Miller left the Pentagon.
History had proved that destroying mobile missiles is hard. The Allies only managed to stop one German V-1 rocket during World War II. None was destroyed during the 1991 'Great SCUD hunt' for Saddam Hussein's mobile rockets.
However, technology had advanced. Missiles could be tracked more precisely, data could be transmitted more quickly, and more accurate weapons could destroy the missiles before they moved. Moreover, exotic 'left of launch' technologies, such as cyberstrikes against computers that controlled the weapons, might destroy or disable missiles before they left the ground.
Both Work and Winnefeld had their own expert groups examining this new toolkit. While much of the Pentagon was fixated on the exotic to the exclusion of the pragmatic, those technologies were only '1 percent of the answer,' according to a senior Pentagon official. There was no substitute for old-fashioned detective work, tracking and blowing up North Korea's missiles.
Ehrhard had experienced that drudgery as a young Air Force captain assigned the job of figuring out how to destroy mobile Russian missiles. The U.S. intelligence community had been monitoring Pyongyang's weapons. but there was still much more work that remained to be done, tracking their daily movements and operations.
The Pentagon missed White House deadlines twice to come up with an ICBM-busting plan. When it did deliver, the proposals were bounced back. 'It's not good enough, I want another version,' Rice commented after seeing the first report. 'Is that enough? What else can you do?' White House officials asked during briefings.
In May 2015, the Joint Chiefs of Staff organized a half-day long secret war game to review how much progress had been made. The answers fell far short of what Obama wanted. According to one White House aide, the Pentagon's bottom line – 'We are just not sure we can catch everything' – was disappointing.
Moreover, North Korea's response to a strike could devastate South Korea and Japan. Past presidents going back to Richard Nixon, who considered attacking the North after it shot down an American spy plane in 1969, had faced the same dilemma. Seoul, a city with millions of inhabitants, is only 22 kilometers from the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).
Still, Obama reminded his advisers that the United States had found Osama Bin Laden. Why couldn't it find North Korea's mobile missiles? 'You've got to be working harder,' an aide heard him argue.
After Pyongyang's hydrogen bomb test in September 2016, Obama asked again if it was possible to launch a preemptive strike supported by cyber operations.
It's unlikely that the Obama administration ever succeeded in formulating a plan for an attack on North Korea. One administration official recalled that on a scale of one to ten, it rated a five on the priority list. By the end of Obama's administration, North Korea was well on the way to building a nuclear arsenal that could withstand a U.S. first strike.
Eight years later, Trump's options for such a strike would be even more constrained.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Asahi Shimbun
10 minutes ago
- Asahi Shimbun
INTERVIEW/ Eiji Hashimoto: Nippon Steel chooses U.S., not China, to return to top of industry
Nippon Steel Corp.'s acquisition of U. S. Steel required nerves of steel, which Eiji Hashimoto, the company's chairman and chief executive officer, known as the 'iron negotiator,' has in abundance. Last year, the company's bid for the storied U.S. steelmaker was opposed both by outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden and Donald Trump, then the Republican presidential candidate. Trump, who returned to the White House, eventually approved the deal after Nippon Steel decided to enter into a national security agreement with the U.S. government and issue a 'golden share,' which enables Washington to veto key management decisions of U. S. Steel. Looking back on the year-and-a-half-long negotiations with the U.S. administration, Hashimoto said governments becoming increasingly involved in the economy is a new global trend, not something unique to the United States. While Nippon Steel spent about $14 billion (2 trillion yen) to purchase U. S. Steel, the company has substantially downsized operations in China. With the world's two superpowers being increasingly decoupled, Hashimoto said his company has chosen to work with the United States, instead of China. Nippon Steel was the world's fourth-largest steelmaker in crude steel production in 2024. The acquisition of the 29th-placed U. S. Steel put the company closer behind Chinese rival Ansteel Group Corp., which ranked third. Hashimoto said Nippon Steel will build a new mill in the United States, its first in more than half a century, through U. S. Steel as part of its strategy for a resurgence in the global steel industry. Excerpts from the interview with Hashimoto follow: * * * Question: U. S. Steel, which offered to sell itself to a rival due to financial difficulties, once competed for the top spot in the world's steel industry. How did Nippon Steel secure Trump's approval for bringing the iconic American steelmaker under its umbrella? Hashimoto: Trump has a precise goal of reviving the U.S. manufacturing industry. To meet his goal, we promised to invest in U. S. Steel's plant and equipment. We also argued that simply imposing high tariffs on imports was not enough to rehabilitate the industry. I believe that Trump was eventually convinced and changed his mind. The Trump administration's series of actions were not anything special to one country, but taken against the backdrop of a new trend common in the world. It is a trend of governments becoming increasingly involved in the economy and business through industrial policy. Q: Will you elaborate? A: While addressing geopolitical risks such as the U.S.-China confrontation, countries around the world must balance economic growth and the prevention of global warming. Neither companies nor government alone can meet these two formidable challenges. The only way is for the public and private sectors to join forces. China has been giving priority to state-owned enterprises. Japan is also trying to rebuild its chip industry under a government initiative. Q: The shift appears particularly striking in the United States because the country tended to leave the economy to the private sector and the market. What is your observation? A: During the Cold War, the United States favored Japan to confront the Soviet Union. But once the Cold War was won, the United States bashed Japan, which had become economically stronger, and went easy on China. It established the World Trade Organization to promote free trade and helped China join in 2001. However, China, the biggest beneficiary of free trade, has become too strong and also confronted the United States militarily. That is why the United States shifted its policy. I do not expect this trend to change under either a Republican or a Democratic administration. Q: Government involvement in companies in particular stands out in the steel industry. The British and Australian governments are also rehabilitating weakened steelmakers. Why? A: I think there are two reasons. One is the magnitude of the impact of a steelmaker going bankrupt. A wide range of manufacturing industries depends on steel products. The other is the structure of the steel industry, which tends to result in excess production. Steel is indispensable for a country's industrialization and urbanization. As steel mills usually take 10 years to start operations, they are designed with the capacity to meet demand for an increase in domestic consumption and exports. However, as the country develops, domestic demand passes its peak and production capacity becomes excessive. China's steel demand is the largest in the world, but it has begun to shrink since reaching its peak in 2020. State-owned manufacturers and other companies have been exporting large quantities of steel that became redundant amid the country's real estate slump at low prices, which is worsening market conditions around the world. Excess production capacity should be reduced, but the government cannot make the decision, considering the impact on tax revenues and employment. Q: Why has Nippon Steel downsized Chinese operations? A: The Chinese government has collected data from state-owned manufacturers and spent public funds on the development of advanced technologies. Last summer, we decided to dissolve an automotive steel sheet joint venture with Baoshan Iron and Steel Co., which is under (the world's largest crude steel producer) China Baowu Steel Group Corp. Q: Amid the ongoing decoupling between the United States and China, Nippon Steel is clearly shifting to the United States. What is the reason? A: In business, we lose unless we keep an eye on international rules and trade rules and stand by those who formulate them. China, which became stronger under the rules created by the United States, is suffering because the United States has changed those rules. When we must choose between the two, it is taken for granted that Japan will side with the United States. We are focusing on the U.S. and Indian markets. With the population projected to increase, demand for steel is expected to grow. As the United States and India are politically opposed to China, their markets are also important because we can avoid negative effects of steel being exported from China at low prices. Q: Nippon Steel promised to invest 1.6 trillion yen in U. S. Steel's plant and equipment, up from the 400 billion yen indicated to the Biden administration. Why was the amount increased? A: To the Biden administration, which valued its relationship with the (steelworkers') union, we only presented (investments) to renovate the mills where its members worked. In the commitment to the Trump administration, we included all the investment projects we originally planned, including those for nonunionized mills. The increased investment was the deciding factor (for Trump's approval). Q: Nippon Steel signed a national security agreement, in which it promised not to cut U. S. Steel's production capacity without Washington's approval, and will also issue a golden share. Won't these impose constraints on the company's management of its subsidiary? A: There is no disagreement between Nippon Steel, which aims to expand its business, and the Trump administration, which intends to oversee the implementation of the investment. Neither the national security agreement nor the golden share will prevent us from doing what we want to do. Q: Of U. S. Steel's nine directors, Nippon Steel has given the U.S. government the authority to appoint an external director and approve the appointments of two others. Won't this shackle the company's operations in the future? A: Nippon Steel will nominate the remaining six directors, a majority. There is no problem at all. Q: Who proposed issuing the golden share? A: Nippon Steel did. It includes the word 'golden,' a favorite for Trump. It made it easier for him to explain to the American people that he had gained something great. U. S. Steel is one of the companies that have long supported the United States and made it prosper. The United States won World War II on the back of industrial strength represented by companies like U. S. Steel and Ford Motor Co. In deciding whether to approve the acquisition of U. S. Steel, it is only natural that the U.S. government tried to be cautious in the extreme and oversee (the implementation of) the investment. Imagine if Nippon Steel fell into financial difficulties and were about to be purchased by a foreign company. I do not think the Japanese government would make a judgment based solely on economic rationality. Q: Why was Nippon Steel adamant about acquiring all shares in U. S. Steel? A: We need to share cutting-edge technologies with U. S. Steel to rebuild its operations. It was essential to obtain a 100-percent stake to prevent the outflow of technologies. We had informed the Trump administration that we would rescind our buyout bid altogether if Washington did not approve the full ownership. Q: You are often called the 'iron negotiator' for being unafraid of causing friction and willing to take risks. What is your view about risks in business? A: When I was president, Nippon Steel substantially raised prices of automotive steel sheets and acquired a steel mill in India. Some people were opposed, but no matter what you do, there are risks. The biggest risk is that the company will continue to shrink without taking any risks. Companies that can effectively manage risks will be the winners. When I joined Nippon Steel in 1979, the company was the world's top steelmaker and Japan's largest manufacturing company. However, our presence in the industry declined, and we were surpassed in sales by Toyota Motor Corp. As a sales representative dealing with the automaker, I concluded that Nippon Steel was overtaken because automakers had taken on challenges overseas. 'Shrinking equilibrium' is a source of misguided thinking. If you just shrink, you will never reach a state of balance. Shrinking will deteriorate human resources, reduce vitality and result in further downsizing. A company will fail unless it takes risks to grow. Q: Nippon Steel was not always willing to take risks. What changed the company? A: The circumstances happened to be favorable. The cost of raw materials was low due to deflation, and we were able to secure manpower without raising wages because there were plenty of workers. Interest rates were low and even below 0 percent for some time. Now everything has been reversed. Prices have risen and workers are in short supply. Interest rates have also risen, albeit slightly. We have no other choice but to try to grow. Q: At a news conference following the acquisition of U. S. Steel, you promised a resurgence of Nippon Steel. What is your vision, including for its domestic business? A: The expansion of overseas operations and the maintenance of domestic operations are indispensable to each other, like the two wheels of a cart. Although domestic demand will decrease, we will maintain manufacturing bases in Japan by becoming the overwhelming top player, and develop technologies, including those for decarbonization. We will further increase the weight of high-end products that cannot be made in China and reduce costs by renovating facilities. The money required for this cannot be earned in Japan alone. We will expand overseas business and increase profits, which will be returned to Japan. Nippon Steel constructed many plants until around the time it became the world's leading steelmaker. However, no new mills have been built since the 1970s, and none of us has experience. Nippon Steel will build a new mill in the United States. We can develop human resources by dispatching people overseas and giving them opportunities. (This article is based on an interview by Seisaku Yamamoto.) * * * Born in Kumamoto Prefecture in 1955, Eiji Hashimoto joined Nippon Steel Corp. in 1979, before its merger with Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd. in 2012. He worked mainly in sales and also handled exports and overseas business. Hashimoto became president in 2019 and has served as chairman and chief executive officer since 2024.


The Mainichi
10 minutes ago
- The Mainichi
Senate passes $9 billion in spending cuts to public broadcasting, foreign aid requested by Trump
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate has passed about $9 billion in federal spending cuts requested by President Donald Trump, including deep reductions to public broadcasting and foreign aid, moving forward on one of the president's top priorities despite concerns from several Republican senators. The legislation, which now moves to the House, would have a tiny impact on the nation's rising debt but could have major ramifications for the targeted spending, from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to U.S. food aid programs abroad. It also could complicate efforts to pass additional spending bills this year, as Democrats and even some Republicans have argued they are ceding congressional spending powers to Trump with little idea of how the White House Office of Management and Budget would apply the cuts. The 51-48 vote came after 2 a.m. Thursday after Democrats sought to remove many of the proposed rescissions during 12 hours of amendment votes. None of the Democratic amendments were adopted. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Republicans were using the president's rescissions request to target wasteful spending. He said it is a "small but important step for fiscal sanity that we all should be able to agree is long overdue." But Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said the bill "has a big problem -- nobody really knows what program reductions are in it." Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, joined Democrats in voting against the legislation. Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the former Republican leader, had voted against moving forward with the bill in a Tuesday procedural vote, saying he was concerned the Trump White House wanted a "blank check," but he ultimately voted for final passage. The effort to claw back a sliver of federal spending comes after Republicans also muscled Trump's big tax and spending cut bill to approval without any Democratic support. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that measure will increase future federal deficits by about $3.3 trillion over the coming decade. Lawmakers clash over cuts to public radio and TV stations Along with Democrats, Collins and Murkowski both expressed concerns about the cuts to public broadcasting, saying they could affect important rural stations in their states. Murkowski said in a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday that the stations are "not just your news -- it is your tsunami alert, it is your landslide alert, it is your volcano alert." Less than a day later, as the Senate debated the bill, a 7.3 magnitude earthquake struck off the remote Alaska Peninsula, triggering tsunami warnings on local public broadcasting stations that advised people to get to higher ground. The situation is "a reminder that when we hear people rant about how public broadcasting is nothing more than this radical, liberal effort to pollute people's minds, I think they need to look at what some of the basic services are to communities," Murkowski said. The legislation would claw back nearly $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it's due to receive during the next two budget years. The corporation distributes more than 70% of the money to more than 1,500 locally operated public television and radio stations, with much of the remainder assigned to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service to support national programming. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said he secured a deal from the White House that some funding administered by the Interior Department would be repurposed to subsidize Native American public radio stations in about a dozen states. But Kate Riley, president and CEO of America's Public Television Stations, a network of locally owned and operated stations, said that deal was "at best a short-term, half-measure that will still result in cuts and reduced service at the stations it purports to save, while leaving behind all other stations, including many that serve Native populations." Slashing billions of dollars from foreign aid The legislation would also claw back about $8 billion in foreign aid spending. Among the cuts are $800 million for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation and family reunification for those who flee their own countries and $496 million to provide food, water and health care for countries hit by natural disasters and conflicts. There also is a $4.15 billion cut for programs that aim to boost economies and democratic institutions in developing nations. Democrats argued the Trump administration's animus toward foreign aid programs would hurt America's standing in the world and create a vacuum for China to fill. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said the amount of money it takes to save a starving child or prevent the transmission of disease is miniscule, even as the investments secure cooperation with the U.S. on other issues. The cuts being made to foreign aid programs through Trump's Department of Government Efficiency were having life-and-death consequences around the world, he said. "People are dying right now, not in spite of us but because of us," Schatz said. "We are causing death." After objections from several Republicans, GOP leaders took out a $400 million cut to PEPFAR, a politically popular program to combat HIV/AIDS that is credited with saving millions of lives since its creation under then-President George W. Bush. Looking ahead to future spending fights Democrats say the bill upends a legislative process that typically requires lawmakers from both parties to work together to fund the nation's priorities. Triggered by the official recissions request from the White House, the legislation only needs a simple majority vote instead of the 60 votes usually required to break a filibuster, meaning Republicans can use their 53-47 majority to pass it along party lines. The Trump administration is promising more rescission packages to come if the first effort is successful. But some Republicans who supported the bill indicated they might be wary of doing so again. "Let's not make a habit of this," said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, who voted for the bill but said he was wary that the White House wasn't providing enough information on what exactly will be cut. Wicker said there are members "who are very concerned, as I am, about this process." North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis echoed similar concerns and said Republicans will need to work with Democrats to keep the government running later in the year. "The only way to fund the government is to get at least seven Democrats to vote with us at the end of September or we could go into a shutdown," Tillis said. Republicans face a Friday deadline Collins attempted to negotiate a last minute change to the package that would have reduced the cuts by about $2.5 billion and restored some of the public broadcasting and global health dollars, but she abandoned the effort after she didn't have enough backing from her Republican colleagues in the Senate and the House. The House has already shown its support for the president's request with a mostly party line 214-212 vote, but since the Senate amended the bill, it will have to go back to the House for another vote. The bill must be signed into law by midnight Friday for the proposed rescissions to kick in. If Congress doesn't act by then, the spending stands.


Kyodo News
10 minutes ago
- Kyodo News
OPINION: Ishiba skipping NATO summit exposes gaps in Japan's Europe engagement
WASHINGTON - Since a Japanese prime minister first attended a NATO summit in 2022, Japan has sent its highest-level representative to the event for three consecutive years. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was a key catalyst for Tokyo's decision to attend that year, and the 2025 summit in The Hague would have marked the fourth consecutive appearance by a Japanese leader. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba was expected to meet with like-minded NATO partners to deepen cooperation amid the security challenges that link the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific theaters. However, his participation was abruptly canceled, with Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya attending in his place. The decision not to attend personally represents a missed opportunity to strengthen ties with Europe at a time when Japan's strategic thinking is increasingly turning toward this region. Ishiba's glaring absence comes at a sensitive moment for Japan, as it confronts growing Chinese assertiveness while managing a more unpredictable United States. While previous U.S. administrations invested significant diplomatic and political capital in promoting cross-regional cooperation between NATO and its Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) partners, the current Trump administration has shown far less interest in advancing such efforts. In fact, President Donald Trump announced he would not attend a meeting between NATO and the IP4 partners during the summit in The Hague -- a move that likely prompted three of the four Indo-Pacific countries to cancel their leaders' attendance. Trump's emphasis on narrow, transactional negotiations over defense spending within allies' respective regions has broken the momentum for cross-regional cooperation built over the past three years. In this context, Ishiba's decision to skip the summit reflects Tokyo's desire to avoid confrontation with Trump over contentious issues such as defense expenditures and trade. These topics remain especially sensitive given the Japanese government's fragile approval ratings and the upcoming upper house elections in July. Ishiba's absence may have been an effort to preserve strategic flexibility in an increasingly unpredictable environment, but it risks halting the progress that Tokyo is making in advancing defense industrial ties with European NATO partners at a critical juncture. As geopolitical competition intensifies, defense technology innovation and a robust defense industrial base have emerged as indispensable strategic assets. Yet, this is an area where Japan has traditionally lagged, due to the longstanding constraints on its defense industry and heavy reliance on U.S. procurements. The tide, however, appears to be shifting. In its 2022 strategic documents, Tokyo identified reinforcing its defense production and technology base as a national priority. Since 2023, Japan has eased its export controls, allowing the licensed export of domestically produced defense equipment, including lethal systems, to boost competitiveness through economies of scale and access to overseas markets. At the same time, Tokyo seeks to diversify its defense procurement and development partnerships beyond the United States, increasingly turning towards European partners. As Japan carefully balances its security and economic relations with its ally, concerns over U.S. unpredictability have indeed elevated the importance of European partners for Tokyo's foreign and defense policy. Europe now features prominently in Japanese strategic thinking, with Tokyo expanding security cooperation with several European states at the bilateral and multilateral levels, through mechanisms like NATO IP4 and the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP). GCAP, a new Japan-Italy-U.K. partnership for the development of a sixth-generation fighter jet, has been described as a "new alliance" since the multilayered cooperation between the three governments, militaries, and industries will inevitably strengthen security ties among the three nations. Japan's extensive and asymmetric dependence on U.S. defense collaboration and procurement has long been a source of frustration for Japanese officials and defense companies. According to a defense expert interviewed in July 2024, Tokyo maintains a "painful memory" of its co-development with the U.S. on the F-2 fighter program in the 1980s, which continues to shape Japanese perceptions. U.S. restrictions on the sharing of confidential technical information, coupled with the inability to freely modify procured systems without U.S. approval, have complicated both co-development programs like the F-2 and procurement of F-35s. An expert on Japan's defense industrial policy, also interviewed in July 2024, observed that the U.S. Foreign Military Sales system remains fundamentally "asymmetrical" since "the Japanese government cannot acquire necessary or valuable technological information." This lack of technological freedom creates persistent challenges for Japan's defense autonomy. In reaction to these concerns, Japan is diversifying defense industrial collaboration. Beyond GCAP, Japan is partnering with the U.K. on Joint New Air-to-Air Missiles (JNAAM) and a universal radio frequency sensor technology (JAGUAR), while collaborating with France on mine countermeasures, and trilaterally with France and Germany on railgun technologies. Reflecting this trend, the Financial Times reported on a notable increase in the presence of European defense companies at Japan's 2025 Defense and Security Equipment International (DSEI) expo. Moreover, in November 2024, Japan and the EU issued the "Japan-EU Security and Defence Partnership," their first-ever document outlining concrete cooperation initiatives in maritime security, space, cybersecurity, and hybrid threats. These efforts have gained urgency with Trump's return to the White House, as his administration's transactional approach to alliances raises new uncertainties for all allies. While these initiatives do not indicate a pivot away from the United States, they mark the growing significance of European partners for Japan. According to the Financial Times, Tokyo canceled the annual "two-plus-two" security dialogue scheduled in Washington after the U.S. suddenly asked its ally to boost defense spending to 3.5 percent -- higher than its previous request of 3 percent. Whether the cancellation was due to Washington's latest demand or a simple scheduling conflict, there is no denying that the two allies will need to face some difficult conversations in the coming months. Lack of technological freedom and overreliance on the U.S. for defense technology risk making Japan a captive of its own alliance, as the U.S. president has shown little hesitation in demanding higher purchases of American weapon systems, including offering the new F-47 to Japan as a bargaining chip in tariff negotiations. As Washington increasingly treats arms sales and security guarantees as transactional tools for managing trade imbalances, Japan, like Europe, faces the challenge of balancing U.S. demands while seeking diversification for its security partnerships. Ishiba's absence from this year's NATO summit, while shielding Japan from potentially difficult discussions with Washington in the short term, is therefore a missed opportunity for advancing ties with NATO partners at a critical moment. One of the objectives of the newly established Mission of Japan to NATO is to enhance European understanding of Japan and the Indo-Pacific. Ishiba's decision not to attend following the cancellations by other IP4 leaders may show a lack of leadership in the region, but it also risks sending the signal to Europeans that the Indo-Pacific is, after all, not as important as when former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida used to repeat "Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow." Ishiba, who replaced Kishida in October 2024, has yet to visit Europe, despite the fact that relations with European countries have taken on increasing importance in recent years. His personal engagement with European leaders would have signaled Japan's commitment to deepening these strategic partnerships -- a gesture increasingly valuable as both Japan and its European partners navigate the uncertainties of managing their respective alliances in the coming years. (Sayuri Romei is a Washington-based senior fellow in the German Marshall Fund's Indo-Pacific program. Her research focuses on U.S.-Japan relations and security issues in the Indo-Pacific region.) (Alice Dell'Era is an assistant professor at the Security Studies and International Affairs Department in the Florida-based Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University)