Could invading Hawaii have forced Japan's decisive battle?

An invasion of Hawaii is treated as a poor but internally coherent way to pursue Japan's decisive-battle doctrine. Holding Pearl Harbor would give the United States a target it could not ignore and might channel the first relief force into a prepared attritional battle. Japan could then seek a peace that demilitarized or nominally separated the islands from the United States. The opportunity would occur only once: even destruction of the first relief force would not stop later Essex-class carriers, Iowa-class battleships, and American industrial replacement. The counterfactual clarifies why a tactically successful Kantai Kessen could delay defeat without creating a sustainable Japanese strategy.