Japan Cautious About Dispatching SDF to Middle East due to Constitutional Constraints, Exploring Feasible Ways to Assist

By Yujiro Okabe / Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writer

15:43 JST, March 17, 2026

The government is cautious about dispatching the Self-Defense Forces to the Strait of Hormuz in the Middle East due to constitutional and legal constraints on their operations in combat zones.

While gauging the intentions of U.S. President Donald Trump and the moves of other nations, the government is urgently exploring feasible ways to contribute, including dispatching the SDF to waters outside of the Strait of Hormuz or waiting until after the conflict has subsided.

At a House of Councillors Budget Committee meeting on Monday, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi brought up the possibilities of dispatching naval vessels to gather information, as well as having the SDF conduct mine-clearance operations, escort ships and provide logistical support for foreign militaries.

“We’re figuring out what [Japan] can and can’t do,” Takaichi said. “I will take responsibility for making the decision.”

During the meeting, the focus was on whether “maritime security operations” under the Self-Defense Forces Law are permissible.

When asked if she intended to issue a maritime security operations order to have the SDF maintain maritime security and have its destroyers protect civilian ships in the Strait of Hormuz, Takaichi said, “[Regarding the use of weapons], if the opposing entity is presumed to be a ‘state or an organization equivalent to a state,’ we cannot dispatch them.”

After the government issued a maritime security operations order in 2009, destroyers began escorting ships in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia. These operations were intended to protect ships from local pirates and did not involve a state or an organization equivalent to a state.

The situation in the Strait of Hormuz is completely different, as combat continues between states — with the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other.

If Japan were to dispatch its destroyers this time and the SDF were to engage in combat with Iran, it could be interpreted as Japan exercising force, violating Article 9 of the Constitution.

Even removing Iran’s mines, meant to be used as part of an attack against the United States, before a ceasefire takes effect could constitute a use of force against Iran.

The government’s position is that as long as the fighting continues, it would be difficult to dispatch the SDF to the Strait of Hormuz.

Right to collective self-defens

The government’s interpretation is that Article 9 permits the use of force for self-defense. If Japan were to come under direct attack from Iran, the country could retaliate under the right to individual self-defense.

It has been confirmed that a Mitsui O.S.K. Lines container ship was damaged in the Persian Gulf, and the government is investigating the cause and whether it was the result of an attack.

“At this point, there is no evidence to conclude that Japan has been subject to an armed attack by Iran,” said a government official familiar with the matter.

If the security-related laws enacted in 2015 are applied, Japan could exercise the right to collective self-defense in support of the United States, making it possible to clear mines and escort ships during wartime.

However, this would require the government to recognize a “survival-threatening situation,” which in this situation would be crude oil imports being cut off due to a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, thereby threatening Japan’s existence.

During Diet deliberations in 2015, then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe repeatedly stated that Japan would not exercise the right to collective self-defense for a country that launched a preemptive attack.

A former senior Defense Ministry official involved in drafting the legislation said: “We never anticipated a scenario in which the United States would launch a preemptive attack like this one. It may be difficult to apply the security-related laws.”