Iran envoy urges Japan to take stand against U.S. attacks, Trump's remarks
U.S. President Donald Trump points to a reporter to take a question in the briefing room of the White House in Washington on Friday.
Iranian ambassador to Japan Peiman Seadat has urged Tokyo to stand against U.S. and Israeli strikes on nuclear facilities in his nation after President Donald Trump's remark likening the U.S. attacks to the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The ambassador said in a recent interview with Kyodo News that the comment is an "insult" not only to Iran, but also to Japan, the world's only country to have suffered atomic bombings.
Japan should raise a "very loud voice," Seadat said, adding that Japan's voice is "important" to the international community.
The interview was held after the United States, Japan's close ally, bombarded key Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday. Israel and Iran had been engaged in a tit-for-tat conflict following Israeli airstrikes on military and nuclear targets on June 13 before announcing a cease-fire on Tuesday.
Trump said Wednesday during his visit to the Netherlands for a NATO summit, "I don't want to use an example of Hiroshima, I don't want to use an example of Nagasaki, but that was essentially the same thing. That ended that war."
Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya said in a statement Monday that Japan "understands" the U.S. military action as a demonstration of its resolve to de-escalate the situation while preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Stability in the Middle East is vital for resource-poor Japan, given its heavy dependence on the region for crude oil, and it has traditionally maintained friendly ties with Iran.
Seadat criticized Trump's reference to the atomic bombings on the two Japanese cities in the closing days of World War II as an "outrageous" and "irresponsible" statement showing "total disregard for human suffering."
The envoy said the U.S. attacks on the nuclear sites deserve "global condemnation," calling them "acts of aggression" committed in violation of international law.
He also said that "forcing peace is not peace," in reference to Trump's comment on his Truth Social media site that "Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region."
The U.S. military action right in the middle of nuclear negotiations was an act of "betrayal by the Trump administration," Seadat said.
© KYODO
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
4 hours ago
ICC Pres. Akane Criticizes U.S. Sanctions
News from Japan World Jun 28, 2025 18:40 (JST) Tokyo, June 28 (Jiji Press)--International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane has criticized U.S. President Donald Trump's sanctions against the Hague-based court. "The sanctions have had impacts on third countries, and they violate international law," she told Japanese media outlets online Friday. "The ICC system based on the rule of war, which the international community has developed over the years, could collapse" if the sanctions continue, she added. The ICC had launched an official investigation into alleged war crimes by U.S. service members in Afghanistan. The court also issued arrest warrants, including for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. These actions angered the United States, which is not an ICC member. [Copyright The Jiji Press, Ltd.] Jiji Press
Japan Times
4 hours ago
- Japan Times
Trump's court win opens a path to clear hurdles to his agenda
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling curbing the power of judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis has raised questions about whether dozens of orders that have halted President Donald Trump's policies will stand. The conservative majority's ruling Friday came in a fight over Trump's plan to limit automatic birthright citizenship. But it may have far-reaching consequences for the ability of U.S. courts to issue orders that apply to anyone affected by a policy, not just the parties who filed lawsuits. Judges entered nationwide preliminary orders halting Trump administration actions in at least four dozen of the 400 lawsuits filed since he took office in January, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Some were later put on hold on appeal. Nationwide orders currently in place include blocks on the administration's revocation of foreign students' legal status, freezes of domestic spending and foreign aid, funding cuts related to gender-affirming care and legal services for migrant children, and proof-of-citizenship rules for voting. The Supreme Court's new precedent doesn't instantly invalidate injunctions in those cases. But the Justice Department could quickly ask federal judges to revisit the scope of these and other earlier orders in light of the opinion. 'Fair game' "Everything is fair game,' said Dan Huff, a lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office during Trump's first term. A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. Trump said at a news conference in the White House Friday that the administration will "promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' Trump listed cases that they would target, including suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding and "stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries.' The Trump administration has made it a priority to contest court orders that block policies on a nationwide, or universal, basis, although the controversy over whether those types of rulings are an appropriate use of judicial power has been brewing for years. Conservative advocates won such orders when Democratic presidents were in office as well. Noting the mounting pushback and debate, judges in dozens of other cases involving Trump's policies have limited their orders against the administration to the parties that sued or within certain geographical boundaries. Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation whose practice includes suing the federal government, said she didn't see the ruling as a total "retreat' from judges' authority to enter universal orders going forward. Multiple paths "It's addressing the case where a plaintiff is getting relief that applies to everyone across the country merely because judges think that it's an important issue,' she said. "But it doesn't change the case where the plaintiff needs that relief.' Boden offered the example of a challenge to government spending, in which the only way to halt an unlawful action would be to stop payment of federal dollars across the country, not just to individual plaintiffs or in certain areas. Trump's opponents say the justices' decision still leaves them with multiple paths to sue the administration over actions they contend are unlawful and even to argue for nationwide relief. Those options include class action lawsuits, cases seeking to set aside agency actions under a U.S. law known as the Administrative Procedure Act and even continuing to argue that nationwide relief is the only way to stop harm to individual plaintiffs, like parties did in the birthright citizenship cases. But they also acknowledged the court significantly raised the burden of what they have to prove to win those types of orders. "This is going to make it more challenging, more complicated, potentially more expensive to seek orders that more broadly stop illegal government action,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said. "It is watering down the power of federal courts to check government misconduct.' The Supreme Court sent the birthright citizenship cases back to lower court judges to reconsider the scope of orders pausing Trump's restrictions while the legal fight on its constitutionality continues. The justices did not rule on the core question of whether the policy itself is lawful. The administration can't fully enforce the birthright policy for at least another 30 days. Democratic state attorneys general involved in the birthright litigation highlighted language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion that the court didn't shut off the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. Speaking with reporters after the ruling, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said that he and his Democratic colleagues would "assess' the impact on other cases. He said they already had been judicious in asking judges for nationwide relief as opposed to orders that restricted administration policies in specific states. "The court confirmed what we've thought all along — nationwide relief should be limited, but it is available to states when appropriate,' Platkin said.
5 hours ago
イランに「孤独ではない」 旧ソ連経済同盟が首脳会議
After the Supreme Court issued a ruling that limits the ability of federal judges to issue universal injunctions — but didn't rule on the legality of President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship — immigrant rights groups are trying a new tactic by filing a national class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two immigrant rights organizations whose members include people without legal status in the U.S. who "have had or will have children born in the United States after February 19, 2025," according to court documents. One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, William Powell, senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, says his colleagues at CASA, Inc. and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project think that, with the class action approach "we will be able to get complete relief for everyone who would be covered by the executive order." The strategic shift required three court filings: one to add class allegations to the initial complaint; a second to move for class certification; and a third asking a district court in Maryland to issue "a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction asking for relief for that putative class," Powell said. In the amended complaint, filed two hours after the Supreme Court's ruling, the immigrant rights attorneys said that Trump's effort to ban birthright citizenship, if allowed to stand, "would throw into doubt the citizenship status of thousands of children across the country." "The Executive Order threatens these newborns' identity as United States citizens and interferes with their enjoyment of the full privileges, rights, and benefits that come with U.S. citizenship, including calling into question their ability to remain in their country of birth," reads the complaint. Rights groups and 22 states had asked federal judges to block President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. Issued on his first day in office, the executive order states, "the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States." But after three federal district court judges separately blocked Trump's order, issuing universal injunctions preventing its enforcement nationwide, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block universal injunctions altogether. The Supreme Court did not rule on the birthright issue itself. But after the ruling, Trump called it a "monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law," in a briefing at the White House. The president said the ruling means his administration can now move forward with his efforts to fundamentally reshape longstanding U.S. policy on immigration and citizenship. Friday's ruling quickly sparked questions about how the dispute over birthright citizenship will play out now — and how the ruling on universal injunctions might affect other efforts to push back on executive policies, under President Trump and future presidents. "Nationwide injunctions have been an important tool to prevent blatantly illegal and unconstitutional conduct," the National Immigrant Justice Center's director of litigation, Keren Zwick, said in a statement sent to NPR. The decision to limit such injunctions, she said, "opens a pathway for the president to break the law at will." Both Zwick and Powell emphasized that the Supreme Court did not rule on a key question: whether Trump's executive order is legal. At the White House, Attorney General Pam Bondi would not answer questions about how the order might be implemented and enforced. "This is all pending litigation," she said, adding that she expects the Supreme Court to take up the issue this fall. "We're obviously disappointed with the result on nationwide injunctions," Powell said. But, he added, he believes the Supreme Court will ultimately quash Trump's attack on birthright citizenship. "The executive order flagrantly violates the 14th Amendment citizenship clause and Section 1401a of the Immigration and Nationality Act," Powell said, "both of which guarantee birthright citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States, with only narrow exceptions for ambassadors [and] invading armies." The court's ruling set a 30-day timeframe for the policy laid out in Trump's executive order to take effect. "The Government here is likely to suffer irreparable harm from the District Courts' entry of injunctions that likely exceed the authority conferred by the Judiciary Act," a syllabus, or headnote, of the Supreme Court's ruling states. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also discusses the differences between "complete relief " and "universal relief." "Here, prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship," Barrett wrote. "Extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete." In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling suggests that constitutional guarantees might not apply to anyone who isn't a party to a lawsuit. The concept of birthright citizenship has deep roots, dating to the English common law notion of jus soli ("right of the soil"). The doctrine was upended for a time in the U.S. by the Supreme Court's notorious Dred Scott ruling. Current legal standing for birthright citizenship in the U.S. extends back to the 1860s, when the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was ratified, stating, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." "Any executive order purporting to limit birthright citizenship is just as unconstitutional today as it was yesterday," Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, told NPR. "There is nothing substantively in the decision that undercuts those lower court opinions. The opinion just undercuts the tools available to the courts to enforce that constitutional mandate." Copyright 2025 NPR
