TA的每日心情 | 擦汗
2026-3-17 22:01 |
|---|
签到天数: 1133 天 [LV.10]大乘
|
沙发
楼主 |
发表于 2026-3-16 12:04:37
|
只看该作者
Partisanship on Iran Is Dangerous for America
9 J1 C* p! ], U) W+ pTrump is doing the right thing for the U.S., and we Democrats should judge the war on 3 }9 e5 Y/ \- a9 s8 h) U8 D
the merits. 6 A' T. I! s5 ~" D/ g
By David Boies
|; z5 i9 X8 T1 Y# vMarch 12, 2026 1:34 pm ET
* G+ E4 K' O/ z& [- O0 [ y$ ]" @5 f
Every past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that ) S/ d$ e2 [" t* x; l
Iran couldn’t be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it.
# D. u7 k% c9 R: d; _Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran’s role in terrorism against
& Q* L5 O* J8 k; t# K( a9 JAmerican citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it. Instead each president
0 S! Y* R3 j8 N1 Y7 q! T# ?left his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to
- g, D; r; U0 j+ naddress.
3 i7 T4 S3 [9 M! n& c$ Z' e+ f% C& m/ i
3 n* @4 U5 S3 ?5 J! JLast June President Trump undertook a limited military operation designed to interrupt
; `7 f- R7 _2 Q% u RIran’s development of nuclear weapons and discourage the country from continuing its 0 p: L. t8 I% z5 U* s, u
nuclear program. In the face of Iran’s refusal to forswear nuclear weapons and evidence
. p5 z' z+ A8 @4 N3 d& u0 s& c# @that it was rapidly increasing the number, sophistication and range of its missiles, Mr. ) y) ]( q9 }7 f, ~: }0 Y
Trump began the current military campaign.
! d6 Q r K3 k$ |2 I) I
8 f( K5 M- O9 E9 U) }2 b" mIf he hadn’t acted, his successor would have been left with an even more dangerous
/ f9 Q- _+ e6 f2 W: d* Fchoice than his predecessors left him. Three or four years from now, the Iranian missiles * n5 o0 C; s8 r Q2 j/ ?4 }9 p
now hitting Iran’s neighbors could be hitting Berlin or London, perhaps even New York 4 x+ Q& s# Q4 E- k9 g. F0 J& Z2 z2 x
or Washington—perhaps with a nuclear device or at least a dirty bomb.
/ P1 l: U+ u( G% [$ P2 _* }+ f. B9 g7 V! M5 a' K3 Z+ V' e
No sensible person wants a war, a president least of all. Wars destroy lives, waste
8 P+ a5 R0 y! N' v/ ^$ X) \# B+ ~" ?treasure and usually are unpopular. But the widespread hostility to this military action
9 L# o3 f& ^; Y1 ]: ^seems untethered to any serious discussion of the merits. What is the alternative?
; o: x) @( q) |! {4 v- }, g ^9 y9 b* }: \3 A
Obviously, few are prepared to say it is simply to permit religious madmen who swear 6 ~* ?8 v% O$ k& d: Z1 N7 s! H
“death to America” and back up their threats with terrorism to secure nuclear weapons
' @& Y9 Y+ @1 e& T7 J) Nand the capability to deliver them. The scope and scale of Iran’s response show how
: e3 `& \- ~2 x# G; Bmuch its military capabilities have progressed, and how dangerous it would have been
+ {2 S& \. U# y, Pto permit them to increase further.
0 @5 q& Q0 T5 r' E+ d k7 }2 H$ Y' r3 V9 A( Z
For three decades we have tried everything that each president could think of. We’ve ( H. {' X6 P9 V: X
tried being nice, talking tough, moral suasion, negotiated agreement, economic
: d1 ?) Y0 a6 M& Z; Lsanctions. None worked. The problem is that there is only one language Iran’s leaders
/ O$ M- i1 R* Funderstand.
$ S7 X: R0 b4 c9 {; C E; U( [0 I
* E c3 u- M4 G8 h8 ZI understand some of the hostility to Mr. Trump’s action. The isolationist wing of the
6 k e: P+ q9 s* `Republican Party and the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party each are wrapped in the : }) u* X$ V( Z+ i
fantasy that we can afford to ignore the capabilities and intentions of enemies because
! [' Q2 o: l* o+ f& ^2 V! k' Q( m+ @they are thousands of miles away. Two hundred years ago that view was credible. One 6 a9 ?7 Y, j; ~7 R* E
hundred years ago it was plausible. Today it takes only one missile carrying a nuclear or B8 K0 m9 F) V# B( e
dirty bomb to get through our defenses, or one such device smuggled into this country, : t# o% m& x/ k$ z8 v# `0 M9 F
to devastate a city. N& }% f/ f c+ x a3 M
. b" h* b! d9 u- B# U" G( HI also understand—and deplore—the fringes of both parties that apparently hate Israel 8 Z5 g3 W/ M! r: S" o! J
and Jews so much that they oppose any action to neutralize Israel’s enemies. , |$ i% o2 n; H8 e; ~* ^8 o
7 d; u2 O. C, x) Q* AWhat is harder to understand, and particularly troubling for our country, is opposition
9 z; B* J3 M! o9 trooted simply in antipathy toward Mr. Trump himself. We used to say that politics stops ' X) H% G) e; z/ \, x
at the water’s edge. That was never completely true; the willingness to bludgeon a ' c: o9 f2 M# S5 ^+ u) f" R, p
president over foreign policy for domestic political gain is as old as Vice
@2 x7 d! k% J* m6 _2 PPresident Thomas Jefferson’s attacks on President John Adams. Yet for most of our
" d1 M) _; C: g4 U% chistory we have given the president the benefit of the doubt.
$ j4 t2 e I: R5 r0 t s$ D- r F' @& J6 _2 M; F2 Z* Z) N$ B
More important, criticisms have historically been based on policy differences over the 7 Z5 b8 e/ L! \2 m; r; C L6 Y, P; x
military action at hand, not knee-jerk opposition to the president himself. Many + {3 V4 S: f( [0 g" r4 {
Republicans supported Mr. Clinton’s military actions and President Obama’s surge in
5 X) z2 `# B, s+ x* CAfghanistan; many Democrats supported President George W. Bush’s actions in
5 {& M1 W1 q+ b! TAfghanistan and (at least initially) Iraq. More Republicans than Democrats probably 0 A# b. x8 {- I- C" [* b
supported President Lyndon B. Johnson’s actions in Vietnam.
. L# \6 H$ O& @% ?: ]. x! `. `
" S4 F+ b# o# Z* W* a ZMore important still, even when we believed a president’s actions were misguided, we 6 ]8 k M8 j! i) k; k# A
almost always wanted him to succeed if possible. Some efforts to curtail what the
9 X1 c/ e2 ^+ V! _ `president is doing in Iran seem motivated simply by a desire not to give him a win—
% g2 @; @* ^* T& Geven if it means a loss for America.
. e! y1 `% J Q `% x6 n5 N: @0 z* {9 N1 m# x
When North Korea invaded South Korea President Harry S. Truman acted to stop it. It
9 A* ?" ]+ X0 K) Y+ cwas so unpopular that Truman didn’t seek re-election in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower was
' l# A- P1 l" o, @, t) ~6 p4 z+ melected on the promise that he would go to Korea and end the war. But while Truman . C9 m: |" A; q' o# ^4 A
was president, lawmakers on both sides supported Truman, even when he removed the " s& G/ k [/ ]. _
popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur from his command.
$ }3 p1 a. X: O2 K' ^ U; E- G. s, |0 M3 r
Truman’s successful defense of South Korea began a four-decade bipartisan effort to
! u4 _! L( M; B, P2 ~! }! Econtain, and ultimately end, communism as a global threat. One wonders what the : v! x/ j. V5 y- G0 O
result would have been if he faced a country as divided and partisan as today’s. 9 O' K& F6 ^, K2 J* E
Republicans, including Mr. Trump, bear a share of the blame for the divisiveness and 3 Q2 C0 Z8 _- M/ E9 x; P! P
extreme partisanship that has stunted our ability to cooperate and work together. Those
1 h* F+ a% g# W( N) X7 Qof us who generally oppose Mr. Trump but who recognize the threat Iran poses need to
& _6 `7 i4 W; F3 ^; W( W* psupport the military action not because we owe anything to Mr. Trump but because we
9 X( l( P5 y# j |: Kowe it to ourselves, our country and our children. 5 x q! L/ R, ?
9 _6 X, R5 C# W* x, T/ UIf we opposed the war and succeeded in pressuring Mr. Trump to curtail it before the $ H& Z: y' H9 {) e6 A
mission is accomplished, we would have the satisfaction of defeating someone we
3 ?8 N* n# g P8 Zgenerally oppose, which might help ourselves politically. But America would be worse & q! v. E+ S* @
for it. 9 _, w( b6 N l( `0 a
0 g: w. ~0 L0 K2 Q. e
America’s national security is too important to hold hostage to partisanship. We ?2 d( R6 w9 R& y$ h9 J7 P
Democrats need to begin by asking what our position would be, and why, if the action ' H `' h! I( a; ~. H
had been taken by Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. I’m not counting on it, but , T3 ]# B. l2 p
maybe in 2029, when a Democrat is in the White House, our Republican neighbors will , j0 U9 X! J h- H1 S
return the favor, and judge that president’s efforts to keep our nation safe on the merits + U8 a. X' N5 T, q% X3 }! r
and not merely obstruct.
( w: d# I. S6 ?6 D6 z
" r6 B l( x5 y7 E! K- K9 _" E, |If we believe that Iran presents a serious threat, we need to support the president on
0 `; e- d n3 qthis issue. There’s plenty to disagree with him about, and we don’t need to like or . U8 R6 ~8 y6 N. |; i: Y
admire him. But on Iran we should be on common ground. Not primarily because we
. D8 P n% T: y5 }9 W$ V) lwant to reduce partisanship in foreign affairs—although that is conceivable. Not ' D: t$ _; w: ^8 j
because the voters will reward us for a more measured response—although I hope they
+ t5 c1 [) H3 }1 [will. But because it is the right thing to do for our country, our children and the
( r, O: o2 Y. ]8 z! D4 eDemocrat who will succeed Mr. Trump as president.
$ p3 s0 z0 c+ c* q! @! i5 U
6 X- C5 Y: s, Y- j2 MMr. Boies is a founding partner of the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner |
|
雷达卡
收藏
分享
淘帖
支持
反对
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2026-3-16 13:12:57
。 对普金而言导弹丢到中东比丢到乌克兰划算多了