What makes an Iron Lady Iron? Sanae Takaichi, Japan’s first woman Prime Minister, has publicly embraced comparisons to Margaret Thatcher, claiming her as an inspiration and touting herself as Japan’s ‘Iron Lady’. But history suggests such titles are earned, not claimed, and the question remains: has she earned the title?
There are few better qualified to answer that question than John O’Sullivan, former Thatcher speechwriter in Number 10 and current President of the Danube Institute. According to O’Sullivan, Thatcher was not made Iron overnight but was forged by years of sustained decision-making under pressure. ‘We couldn’t have called Margaret Thatcher the Iron Lady in 1979, or even in her first term. She became that only after years of sustained decisions under pressure.’
This distinction is important in Japan today, where supporters and critics alike debate whether political rhetoric and popularity are enough to justify comparisons to Thatcher, or whether such titles can only be earned through sustained leadership under stress.
Thatcher was certainly tested during her time at the helm of Great Britain. At the height of the Cold War, she would have to face not only the Soviet Union but also an economic crisis and the Falklands War. The Argentine invasion caught the British off guard. Thatcher had to contend not only with an invading army on British soil but also with an apathetic Foreign Office that initially saw the Falklands as a nuisance. According to O’Sullivan, it was Thatcher’s boldness that made her the only person who could manage domestic discontent and lead Britain to victory during that time of war.
‘It was Thatcher’s boldness that made her the only person who could manage domestic discontent and lead Britain to victory’
Beyond the Falklands War, Thatcher was also forced to confront an economic crisis marked by inflation that peaked at nearly 25 per cent and heavy industrial stagnation. Her response of spending cuts, privatization, union reform, and tight fiscal policy was decisive but politically unpopular.
Opposition to these reforms was fierce and quickly weaponized against her. Even minor budget cuts, such as those to subsidized school cafeteria milk, prompted critics to publicly label her ‘Margaret Thatcher, milk snatcher’. However, according to O’Sullivan: ‘The picture drawn of her as a cruel and heartless woman is so detached from reality that anyone who worked for her can never take it seriously.’ According to O’Sullivan and those who personally knew and worked with the Iron Lady, Thatcher didn’t enjoy having to make all the decisions she made. She accepted political damage as the cost of policies she believed necessary for Britain’s recovery. It was these sorts of pressures that refined Thatcher and forged her into the Iron Lady we know today.
Japan today faces a different but no less serious dilemma. Japan’s economic stagnation and demographic decline are well known. Whether Takaichi—or any other leader—is willing to absorb the prolonged backlash, as Thatcher did, in order to address these problems remains to be seen.
Thatcher’s most delicate test came not from war, but from diplomacy in the shape of negotiations with China over Hong Kong, during which Mrs. Thatcher received direct threats from then Vice Chairman of the CCP, Deng Xiaoping, who told Thatcher that China could easily retake the territory by force within a day. While those close to her were riding high on their recent victory in the Falklands War just months earlier, Thatcher understood the real threat the Chinese Army posed. Strength is knowing when not to escalate, and according to O’Sullivan: ‘She wasn’t reckless or foolish. She tried to leave behind a Hong Kong in a stronger democratic position. There is such a thing as reality; you can’t buck the market.’ The result of the tense negotiations with Vice Chairman Deng was the framework for the ‘one country, two systems’ agreement, under which the British would ultimately hand Hong Kong back in 1997 after she left office.
This balance between restraint and resolve remains relevant for Japan’s current security. Facing an increasingly assertive Beijing, Tokyo must be able to deter without inviting escalation. Thatcher’s handling of Hong Kong underscores the often-overlooked reality of strength. It is proven not only by confrontation, but also by the wisdom of understanding one’s structural limits.
The question for Japan today is whether Sanae Takaichi demonstrates similar political characteristics within the context of modern Japanese politics.
In speaking about Thatcher, O’Sullivan repeatedly returned to several defining traits: ideological clarity, political stamina, and a willingness to confront institutional consensus even when doing so carried political risk. By those standards, Takaichi has already distinguished herself from many of her contemporaries within the Liberal Democratic Party.
On Japan’s national security, Takaichi has long advocated strengthening Japan’s defensive posture well beyond what Japan’s post-war political culture deemed necessary until recently. She has consistently called for constitutional revision to strengthen Japan and its alliance with the United States, ensuring a more assertive Japanese role in countering threats in the Indo-Pacific, such as a rising China and North Korea. Despite constant criticism from both her political opponents and voices within her own party, recent regional developments have led many to argue that her hawkish positions were more prescient than critics initially acknowledged.
Perhaps most importantly, like Thatcher, Takaichi has demonstrated a willingness to maintain controversial policy positions despite shifting political winds. From my experience working in politics in the United States, I have observed that the most consequential political figures are those willing to hold positions that carry political risk, rather than simply those who are currently popular. In that regard, Takaichi’s political career and persona bear many similarities to the type of ideological persistence O’Sullivan once identified in Thatcher.
However, it is important to remember that sincere differences exist between the two. Thatcher governed Great Britain at a time when she was forced to contend with crisis after crisis. From the threat of the Soviet Union to the possibility of a Chinese invasion of Hong Kong and a stagnating economy, Thatcher had to prove herself amid constant upheaval at the height of the Cold War. While Takaichi contends with mounting geopolitical tensions, global events, the growing instability in the international system, and China’s military rise, she has not yet faced a comparable test. Japan’s evolving strategic environment may soon provide one.
Above all, Thatcher possessed political stamina. ‘What Mrs. Thatcher had was political stamina. She understood that passing a policy was not the end. It had to be pursued, defended, and sustained through years of pressure,’ O’Sullivan reflected on his time working with the Iron Lady.
Thatcher’s legacy was not secured through rhetoric alone, but through sustained governance in the face of resistance, often at high political cost.
Based on the standards outlined by O’Sullivan, Takaichi has already demonstrated several of the qualities that once distinguished Thatcher from her contemporaries: ideological clarity, political resilience, and a willingness to challenge institutional consensus rather than merely accommodate it. Unlike many modern politicians, she has shown a willingness to absorb political criticism in pursuit of long-term strategic objectives.
However, history does not grant titles based on potential alone. Thatcher did not become the Iron Lady because she claimed the mantle, but because of her ability to endure and lead through continual trials by fire.
Furthermore, there are some key differences between how the two have chosen to govern. While both have had to contend with economic strife, Takaichi’s fiscal policies are far from ‘Thatcherite’; rather than following in the footsteps of her fiscally conservative role model, she has pursued aggressive fiscal stimulus policies that Thatcher would never have approved.
Is Takaichi the Iron Lady of Japan? No, at least not yet. While she has demonstrated great political skill and conviction, she remains untested. As John O’Sullivan has pointed out, Thatcher herself wasn’t an Iron Lady in her first term.
That is not to say that Takaichi can’t eventually earn the title. To truly merit comparison with Thatcher, Takaichi will have to demonstrate the long-term ability to govern amid the mounting pressures now facing Japan: economic stagnation, demographic decline, regional instability, and intensifying great-power competition in Asia. Whether she ultimately succeeds remains uncertain. But based on the evidence available today, the comparison is no longer merely rhetorical.
Related articles:
At a time when public debate is increasingly polarized and superficial, Hungarian Conservative remains committed to depth, intellectual honesty, and independent conservative thought.
Producing high-quality journalism requires resources. Your contribution helps us expand our coverage, reach new audiences, and keep our content accessible.
Please consider supporting our mission.