Editor's note: Azhar Azam, a special commentator for CGTN, is a market and business analyst who writes on geopolitical affairs and regional conflicts. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's first official visit to the United States to reaffirm "unwavering solidarity" between Tokyo and Washington comes as Japan uses the regional environment to justify expanding its military position.

Since assuming office, Takaichi has adopted a strikingly hawkish tone toward China, frequently portraying Beijing as the central challenge to Japan's national security.  

In a recent policy statement, she argued that her country was facing the most "severe and complex" security environment of the post-war era, citing China's military modernization and regional activities. Such rhetoric has become an essential component of her efforts to rally political support for sweeping changes to Japan's security policy.

Takaichi continues to rehash this confrontational message. Speaking at the National Defense Academy of Japan, she declared that Japan must strengthen its defense capabilities "without excluding any option." The remarks suggest Tokyo's intent to move beyond a strictly defensive posture and deepen concerns over its gradual abandonment of its pacifist posture in favor of a more assertive – even offensive – military identity.

Japan's militarization is accelerating this drift. Tokyo's defense reforms including raising military spending to 2% of GDP and coming under the US nuclear umbrella – Washington's pledge to employ its nuclear arsenal to defend allies like NATO members and Japan against nuclear or major conventional attacks – reflect a dramatic expansion of its security ambitions.  

These measures further mark a clear departure from Japan's longstanding commitment to its three non-nuclear principles: not possessing, not producing and not allowing nuclear weapons to enter Japanese territory or its territorial waters.

Last week, Japan's Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi confirmed that Tokyo had begun receiving US-made Tomahawk and Norwegian Joint Strike Missiles. The acquisition of these offensive weapons is a significant escalation in Japan's military approach. While successive governments have interpreted Article 9 of the Constitution to allow self-defense, acquiring long-range strike capabilities is a clear shift toward a more assertive military role, stretching the limits of Japan's pacifist framework.

These actions have sparked an outrage in Japan's civil society and among opposition political leaders, many of whom view the missile acquisitions as a violation of Article 9. The controversy illustrates how far Japan has moved from its peaceful doctrine.

Tokyo frames this hardline stance as a response to growing regional threats. In practice, the narrative has become a familiar tool for pushing through military expansion and gradually dismantling the restraints of its post-war security guideline.

Since becoming prime minister, Takaichi has been emphasizing the centrality of the US-Japan alliance to secure US President Donald Trump's support for her contentious security agenda. She has repeatedly signaled goodwill toward him, highly accommodating his terms, highlighting cooperation on trade, defense spending and strategic alignment with Washington.

Yet this overture ignores the underlying feature of American foreign policy. For Washington, alliances are rarely altruistic. The Trump administration – and Washington more broadly – tend to treat partners through the lens of national interest and transactional pragmatism. The "America First" logic is explicit: Alliances are valued only if they advance US objectives.

From the US perspective, the Tokyo-Washington alliance is not an unconditional security guarantee but an instrument of geopolitical convenience. Within the US Indo-Pacific strategy, Japan functions as a strategic piece on the regional chessboard rather than an equal partner or staunch ally – valuable to contain China, yet expendable when American interests demand flexibility.

Senior American officials have already clarified that Washington's policy toward China and Japan will not be driven by an either-or choice. Recently, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that the US intends to maintain both close ties with Tokyo and constructive engagement with Beijing, calling tensions between the two countries "preexisting."  

For Japanese policymakers, this statement should dispel any illusion that the US could be leveraged to pressure China. Japan's role in US strategy has inherently been and will remain contingent, dictated by American interests rather than Tokyo's security ambitions. Washington may at times seek to counterbalance Beijing's influence but it wants to maintain an extensive diplomatic and economic relationship with China.  

Public opinion in the country backs this approach with many Americans supporting friendly cooperation and engagement between the world's two largest economies.

Relying on the US alliance to underwrite Japan's growing military assertiveness therefore is a risky strategy. Historically, Washington-Tokyo relations have proven transactional. Washington has demonstrated that it prioritizes its own economic and strategic interests. Trade negotiations, for example, have seen Japan accept tariffs and commit to large investment packages in the US.

Even US intelligence has flagged Takaichi's controversial remarks on Taiwan – that a Taiwan contingency would constitute an "existential crisis" for Japan – as a "significant shift" from a sitting Japanese leader.  

By leaning on US support to justify its military expansion, Japan risks trading decades of restraint for a security promise that may never hold. Caught between Trump's demand to provide escort ships in the Strait of Hormuz and widespread domestic opposition to US-Israel actions in Iran, Tokyo's strategy will threaten its own pacifist principles, fracture public consensus and inflame regional tensions.  

And whenever American priorities shift, it will leave the nation exposed, delivering neither security nor stability.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)