Sure there is.
Is there any way--any way at all--after 1930 for the Japanese to attack only the European colonies in southeast Asia (French Indochina, Dutch Indonesia, British Malaya, etc.) for the same reasons IOTL? As in, not attacking the Phillipines or Pearl Harbor.
Certainly. The Japanese believed the US would intervene, and if the US would intervene, the Philippines were an extremely good base for such intervention, so Japan believed they had to attack the Philippines and fight the US. But their assumption that the US would intervene was not realistic. In the 1930s, US opinion was strongly isolationist, and there would have been very little public support for voluntary US intervention in a war between Japan and European colonial powers. For one thing, the US was not prepared for such an operation. The Army (and its Air Corps) was little more than a token force; the Navy had been neglected since 1920. By 1941, the US was better prepared, and the actions of Germany and Japan had caused many Americans to believe that the US should be at least willing to intervene against international aggressors. But even then, it is not clear that the US would have gone to war against Japan if Japan attacked British and Dutch colonies, but not the US or its possessions.
Suppose Japan had attacked in fall 1940, before the Presidential election. Roosevelt might have wanted to intervene, but if he called for a declaration of war because the Japanese had invaded Malaya, he could lose the election. Nearly all Republican Representatives or Senators would vote against such a declaration on principle; so would many Democrats. Others would vote against for political considerations.
Japan of course failed to understand US political dynamics. If the dynamics had been made explicit, though...
For instance: suppose Roosevelt lost to a Republican in 1940. The "no-third-term" doctrine was a very substantial burden to Roosevelt. But he may have been saved by the Republican nomination of Willkie, a political novice who had never been a candidate before. One very astute observer at the time (Robert Heinlein) thought that Willkie hurt himself repeatedly with foolish and clumsy statements. An experienced candidate would have avoided these mistakes, and perhaps won. And the Republican Party was dominated by isolationists; no Republican President would take the US into a foreign war.
Another possibility: Roosevelt decides not to run again. Perhaps he has a health crisis just before the Democrat convention. That would throw the convention wide open. Sen. Burton Wheeler (D-MT) had been privately maneuvering for the nomination, in case FDR withdrew; he mught get it. He would not have FDR's prestige, but he wouldn't be running for a third term, either. If he faced the novice Willkie, he'd probably win. And he was a
fanatical isolationist, quite likely to declare explicitly that the US would not intervene against Japan.