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
: ?: O' L5 R7 o$ v# b9 ]Trump is doing the right thing for the U.S., and we Democrats should judge the war on
& W! d. B% d9 y8 f) ^ O$ K# othe merits.
6 o0 U4 f( H% Q K, N2 f/ PBy David Boies ) D- c% v2 ^. `
March 12, 2026 1:34 pm ET
4 K2 s/ e! G: b, H
3 Z. M0 q: q' M8 m- SEvery past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that
6 g- w5 m7 X2 XIran couldn’t be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it.
& o/ [6 I+ }: hEvery president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran’s role in terrorism against
. d) X, W5 f& X Y( hAmerican citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it. Instead each president
0 M, L- S) t5 {) yleft his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to
8 q5 t! [7 R. I) Z- _; xaddress.
$ T. R- D1 L: f: B7 P: G! w" @1 V1 ?1 V8 r: J
Last June President Trump undertook a limited military operation designed to interrupt : r8 h4 |9 Q- n3 W2 Z
Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and discourage the country from continuing its
t" |1 N+ ]& w1 w Y- c/ wnuclear program. In the face of Iran’s refusal to forswear nuclear weapons and evidence
k) g& G( ~" ]4 p" a/ Sthat it was rapidly increasing the number, sophistication and range of its missiles, Mr. 1 W$ L1 R! m* v2 W
Trump began the current military campaign.
) @ C4 Q4 t# T- u, @3 k2 P* ]( T$ _" N8 _! K! I
If he hadn’t acted, his successor would have been left with an even more dangerous
# p9 e% [" }8 Dchoice than his predecessors left him. Three or four years from now, the Iranian missiles
4 H. B+ y/ H6 M7 h C/ n( A$ jnow hitting Iran’s neighbors could be hitting Berlin or London, perhaps even New York ; l* f% @% `; z3 z. z# Y* K: j
or Washington—perhaps with a nuclear device or at least a dirty bomb.
; g9 ~2 }( {/ F, g8 k, d8 ^7 N4 D+ y& ]/ r2 Q
No sensible person wants a war, a president least of all. Wars destroy lives, waste " A2 f8 I0 `5 u, V, ~$ Y
treasure and usually are unpopular. But the widespread hostility to this military action 0 K) Q! T# B/ @
seems untethered to any serious discussion of the merits. What is the alternative?
/ v3 z( V o' M& A5 j) P ^
+ T/ k0 v# M/ m/ ^& N0 A9 wObviously, few are prepared to say it is simply to permit religious madmen who swear
2 T4 b4 B4 {) j4 A2 ~% U“death to America” and back up their threats with terrorism to secure nuclear weapons
: o2 n. O+ U9 s$ w/ d4 ~3 hand the capability to deliver them. The scope and scale of Iran’s response show how ' c2 Q3 O3 t1 M& m8 [5 N& }( Y8 N8 x* E, m6 \
much its military capabilities have progressed, and how dangerous it would have been5 b3 u, ^3 T9 c- }; p
to permit them to increase further.
7 n: o7 P3 c; y: f: E; }
+ e* A' V$ s4 ~2 z0 XFor three decades we have tried everything that each president could think of. We’ve , D0 L; k' p. R g; V
tried being nice, talking tough, moral suasion, negotiated agreement, economic
& ?& U4 i8 {" \" f' bsanctions. None worked. The problem is that there is only one language Iran’s leaders
$ |- U4 G6 Y- p4 ~* q x& iunderstand. y: H' R3 H) C e9 a- Z) [0 M
6 O+ j3 ?0 _& H5 S( e# `9 YI understand some of the hostility to Mr. Trump’s action. The isolationist wing of the
% p% D5 \# ~- U6 p& x4 |Republican Party and the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party each are wrapped in the
% _6 Y# c8 d/ B+ G$ efantasy that we can afford to ignore the capabilities and intentions of enemies because
0 }. ]0 Z" t( _! zthey are thousands of miles away. Two hundred years ago that view was credible. One
/ S2 ~8 p( J$ j4 L; ]. J7 Hhundred years ago it was plausible. Today it takes only one missile carrying a nuclear or
8 Y8 p6 ~4 n1 jdirty bomb to get through our defenses, or one such device smuggled into this country, ( k/ j' H. ]' [: e; l8 K5 c
to devastate a city. 4 n# D* N3 W* x/ P" l x3 X
8 |, r+ [$ l( O. I+ r4 `9 CI also understand—and deplore—the fringes of both parties that apparently hate Israel
* k' L7 I& u0 m/ {1 c" xand Jews so much that they oppose any action to neutralize Israel’s enemies. 9 B: B6 y. | E7 P! E$ f
}0 ^$ ], Z8 e( u& G% w9 P
What is harder to understand, and particularly troubling for our country, is opposition
2 T5 t+ F( }8 H2 [- `5 f$ U+ ^, nrooted simply in antipathy toward Mr. Trump himself. We used to say that politics stops ' B) X1 t' F6 f! @% ?; l T" ~
at the water’s edge. That was never completely true; the willingness to bludgeon a
! _7 _* o) E+ ?president over foreign policy for domestic political gain is as old as Vice 6 t9 u' u, L5 B) {, {4 n. g' C7 b |! A
President Thomas Jefferson’s attacks on President John Adams. Yet for most of our
" J% V" b3 j% A, f( V& _ [" `history we have given the president the benefit of the doubt.
! V1 F, k$ _1 ^
' S' d5 i d2 mMore important, criticisms have historically been based on policy differences over the & q4 w0 a% |) a
military action at hand, not knee-jerk opposition to the president himself. Many 7 m6 G2 C' b: E( m$ ? B
Republicans supported Mr. Clinton’s military actions and President Obama’s surge in
* h7 O4 n6 g' J8 oAfghanistan; many Democrats supported President George W. Bush’s actions in ; T% h0 b) F6 n* v' \7 n( c7 P& ]2 A
Afghanistan and (at least initially) Iraq. More Republicans than Democrats probably 0 S* [8 C# q1 U' [& ?6 I
supported President Lyndon B. Johnson’s actions in Vietnam.
- ?7 k1 G" l, J& R: a
/ ^ I0 v7 P7 H2 h" P/ @7 vMore important still, even when we believed a president’s actions were misguided, we 4 Z* F3 I q |4 g6 d
almost always wanted him to succeed if possible. Some efforts to curtail what the # C0 }/ O& D& S& Z
president is doing in Iran seem motivated simply by a desire not to give him a win—! F, ^5 {/ P0 ^+ t+ {7 A* Z
even if it means a loss for America. 2 {/ R0 ^7 R% ]1 W, u/ z+ x# C
4 ?: ]! R9 a) h& X' P9 s- d) i
When North Korea invaded South Korea President Harry S. Truman acted to stop it. It
) {% Q) t; O, fwas so unpopular that Truman didn’t seek re-election in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower was
1 I* O; C: z. r6 @( d$ telected on the promise that he would go to Korea and end the war. But while Truman ) ~. o3 W7 n' s. F
was president, lawmakers on both sides supported Truman, even when he removed the : ]; Z e/ G# f- Y& I
popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur from his command. " l6 S4 {. p. n9 q/ A
/ X* T' X1 A2 p. X
Truman’s successful defense of South Korea began a four-decade bipartisan effort to
4 ~% f" S7 O% C9 Q) U: ~" Icontain, and ultimately end, communism as a global threat. One wonders what the
/ W8 ^0 p5 Z: \4 Q n2 oresult would have been if he faced a country as divided and partisan as today’s. z3 Z/ x) ^ [
Republicans, including Mr. Trump, bear a share of the blame for the divisiveness and ! d/ u/ K; d$ V9 U3 ]
extreme partisanship that has stunted our ability to cooperate and work together. Those
6 t+ W* U( H) t' ]of us who generally oppose Mr. Trump but who recognize the threat Iran poses need to 0 Z4 A1 t5 ^9 J; h3 d) S( ?
support the military action not because we owe anything to Mr. Trump but because we 6 y8 q4 @# o4 S0 {6 }
owe it to ourselves, our country and our children. ) p( p- f/ Q2 o9 u7 j# S
$ g ?4 D9 `4 F( }! b. i$ Y+ n: g: J1 k
If we opposed the war and succeeded in pressuring Mr. Trump to curtail it before the ( h D+ y9 H# `3 [' S) F( K
mission is accomplished, we would have the satisfaction of defeating someone we . j% M" y! t A) P: k: P
generally oppose, which might help ourselves politically. But America would be worse
5 g5 \6 w! J* k' ~- Y: o+ d1 W5 Cfor it. ' }, E1 u) Q' L: Z% {6 A
7 I" a- o9 j$ L* D) H3 OAmerica’s national security is too important to hold hostage to partisanship. We $ f( k0 Y5 e# i! n+ S$ u
Democrats need to begin by asking what our position would be, and why, if the action / l1 x% k$ Z# w( W _% q
had been taken by Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. I’m not counting on it, but $ x5 n* x3 H) D( t4 y/ X
maybe in 2029, when a Democrat is in the White House, our Republican neighbors will % I$ K& O* v2 n5 [+ e1 }
return the favor, and judge that president’s efforts to keep our nation safe on the merits ' @+ J i/ u& D% ~* z- p/ d& a
and not merely obstruct. 4 K2 R1 u* h, @. {
, Y0 @ P# I7 w' k0 gIf we believe that Iran presents a serious threat, we need to support the president on % P# u, K' {; M% X% p
this issue. There’s plenty to disagree with him about, and we don’t need to like or ) k8 O3 t/ Y; K* Q9 q
admire him. But on Iran we should be on common ground. Not primarily because we
6 G+ X7 e% i2 Y: P+ Twant to reduce partisanship in foreign affairs—although that is conceivable. Not 1 `. d+ d6 J4 a$ ]0 g K
because the voters will reward us for a more measured response—although I hope they 4 f4 h6 j/ ]& M( D0 p- P. r
will. But because it is the right thing to do for our country, our children and the ! C. J4 g: D: S
Democrat who will succeed Mr. Trump as president.
6 q. l: D0 f/ d% i* n" L# @3 v' c7 ^# l$ E
Mr. 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