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
! K( d) E# \3 RTrump is doing the right thing for the U.S., and we Democrats should judge the war on
9 H/ w- P" k; L8 n8 Dthe merits. - }- b' x8 [; o& ~
By David Boies 2 v/ n5 W8 g1 W8 ^4 l; P
March 12, 2026 1:34 pm ET - U, z. q- c6 i$ I+ E- v6 o
2 A) M" x; T) f0 {! t" c. WEvery past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that
- s' f" X y- M. E0 z6 fIran couldn’t be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it.
. l: Q- ^3 x- l( o S0 R. k1 HEvery president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran’s role in terrorism against Y* ?+ f6 l# b
American citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it. Instead each president ' R5 t8 D" v. S8 {7 ]: m
left his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to
! O5 ]' D, R& y, W( n2 `# g y' Maddress.
5 z* T; ?; s, X" f7 ^7 V6 i
& A% r+ `8 u7 d/ V; ~# [" ULast June President Trump undertook a limited military operation designed to interrupt
( n H5 f: Y0 XIran’s development of nuclear weapons and discourage the country from continuing its - \. t( n T7 a/ h, [5 D0 i! ?; b
nuclear program. In the face of Iran’s refusal to forswear nuclear weapons and evidence # U( |5 n7 P, n
that it was rapidly increasing the number, sophistication and range of its missiles, Mr. 8 _. f9 k+ f! l# [4 a
Trump began the current military campaign. , k4 u# Q& Q" R8 O; U! a
% W, F- e% V1 t0 c
If he hadn’t acted, his successor would have been left with an even more dangerous
3 e+ J& A7 S; m* c$ z" uchoice than his predecessors left him. Three or four years from now, the Iranian missiles
- X; m/ {$ {2 A" E2 u; Z) gnow hitting Iran’s neighbors could be hitting Berlin or London, perhaps even New York ; }" ~& D$ e( j' ?5 j. j( Z
or Washington—perhaps with a nuclear device or at least a dirty bomb. # S; c9 l; w9 ~7 Z( u
0 S. m4 F1 h8 `' {3 t& D6 b
No sensible person wants a war, a president least of all. Wars destroy lives, waste
/ D g& ?& W9 f" W$ B% jtreasure and usually are unpopular. But the widespread hostility to this military action
/ z/ D% c2 p, e) e2 Z2 A& ]seems untethered to any serious discussion of the merits. What is the alternative?
, B+ g y2 n0 M4 w( J$ f# O9 c; p, M" n
Obviously, few are prepared to say it is simply to permit religious madmen who swear & z. F- f' X# s' [" d. F" i; E
“death to America” and back up their threats with terrorism to secure nuclear weapons
: p) J% e' w! X( B- p/ @and the capability to deliver them. The scope and scale of Iran’s response show how + T# ?8 X5 ~) V. o' T" V0 P$ Y
much its military capabilities have progressed, and how dangerous it would have been" J8 U% D( O$ O
to permit them to increase further.
) r- i. B: f8 E5 X! O
1 O* T* m+ D: `' }# C, OFor three decades we have tried everything that each president could think of. We’ve 6 C d# K. ~) B! O0 d! h
tried being nice, talking tough, moral suasion, negotiated agreement, economic ( _- L5 A" {1 o( k8 e" Z1 i
sanctions. None worked. The problem is that there is only one language Iran’s leaders
# F8 k/ e% r1 K" N( \8 tunderstand. $ x, S8 t$ _5 U) N; D: S# k. e. K, ^
: j+ c {) ~8 E
I understand some of the hostility to Mr. Trump’s action. The isolationist wing of the
5 V+ O4 x' ?6 I! C. xRepublican Party and the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party each are wrapped in the - ]' ^7 j6 `4 X
fantasy that we can afford to ignore the capabilities and intentions of enemies because
7 p: H) |0 E* {! l& M! e! Tthey are thousands of miles away. Two hundred years ago that view was credible. One
1 W8 ^2 }# P% g4 Shundred years ago it was plausible. Today it takes only one missile carrying a nuclear or
& i s, p. h9 k3 u" Y# y. N3 Fdirty bomb to get through our defenses, or one such device smuggled into this country, 1 u* ^) T1 d: O% K, g' l" y; |
to devastate a city.
+ Q% ^- k& L3 s' Q/ B, n! K% F+ u. D+ h% Z
I also understand—and deplore—the fringes of both parties that apparently hate Israel
' I5 n4 b% V9 {and Jews so much that they oppose any action to neutralize Israel’s enemies.
" U( W0 p- d: T# T+ J- C9 V& i8 v/ m$ A7 S4 N: S) _
What is harder to understand, and particularly troubling for our country, is opposition , o J# r8 X5 E1 p+ s
rooted simply in antipathy toward Mr. Trump himself. We used to say that politics stops
: m+ ]3 f1 f& P9 `7 N8 Eat the water’s edge. That was never completely true; the willingness to bludgeon a
* ^( a: X1 e. O' ^president over foreign policy for domestic political gain is as old as Vice
. o9 F8 U9 O8 m' FPresident Thomas Jefferson’s attacks on President John Adams. Yet for most of our 0 r% g4 O/ J! Z$ X# R
history we have given the president the benefit of the doubt.
0 ?7 t; u" }/ B# e* [. a- r8 K3 F7 D
More important, criticisms have historically been based on policy differences over the
% s0 r6 @, k2 x( fmilitary action at hand, not knee-jerk opposition to the president himself. Many ; L. V3 z7 C3 {! V! Y
Republicans supported Mr. Clinton’s military actions and President Obama’s surge in
/ y5 j& @$ h1 D$ x# z- K* JAfghanistan; many Democrats supported President George W. Bush’s actions in * m8 w8 f8 S/ f1 j0 t
Afghanistan and (at least initially) Iraq. More Republicans than Democrats probably 7 F. y# [" W+ b% G+ x
supported President Lyndon B. Johnson’s actions in Vietnam.
1 z/ M! D" g5 ]$ q- w- u$ {4 I6 ]1 W
# ^8 E+ r, b0 G$ bMore important still, even when we believed a president’s actions were misguided, we - [! c6 o5 c; w
almost always wanted him to succeed if possible. Some efforts to curtail what the + |& v" Q7 g; X
president is doing in Iran seem motivated simply by a desire not to give him a win—1 F" Q5 v( Y6 k
even if it means a loss for America.
2 W) {" L: y% j7 G# p
6 _' @2 z( w) E) X4 x6 |When North Korea invaded South Korea President Harry S. Truman acted to stop it. It # A" [5 g7 J) `* W7 O* d
was so unpopular that Truman didn’t seek re-election in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower was , d, N: F. K0 ?2 Q* R7 x
elected on the promise that he would go to Korea and end the war. But while Truman 0 V9 `1 q" g# D. a9 E: R
was president, lawmakers on both sides supported Truman, even when he removed the
, D, W% G( M7 q2 \9 i! Zpopular Gen. Douglas MacArthur from his command. 1 a" a4 E6 G' N S0 y! f
& f* `! p- O. R( q8 L
Truman’s successful defense of South Korea began a four-decade bipartisan effort to
J; q* {% I* ?" a ]contain, and ultimately end, communism as a global threat. One wonders what the 1 G/ z8 h5 W% S- Y0 R2 B& {
result would have been if he faced a country as divided and partisan as today’s. 3 o$ W3 _* B$ Y& I w$ x
Republicans, including Mr. Trump, bear a share of the blame for the divisiveness and
* J {9 c6 c: I$ @extreme partisanship that has stunted our ability to cooperate and work together. Those 6 ~( E0 T' v% u8 e
of us who generally oppose Mr. Trump but who recognize the threat Iran poses need to + s: c4 s8 u9 a- W
support the military action not because we owe anything to Mr. Trump but because we
+ ?; O$ y' P6 k( ?4 Cowe it to ourselves, our country and our children. % r7 h! T6 B8 i0 c" H6 s
' k5 B6 u$ [! q, r; p
If we opposed the war and succeeded in pressuring Mr. Trump to curtail it before the
, A- o% X" {; t5 R5 Z: w( emission is accomplished, we would have the satisfaction of defeating someone we $ z2 r( x; g- m9 [
generally oppose, which might help ourselves politically. But America would be worse
~! g3 {* \' Mfor it. " `+ Y0 e4 ?4 u k& u* a" i
1 U. T; O% V& z
America’s national security is too important to hold hostage to partisanship. We ) B6 e, x' e6 ]
Democrats need to begin by asking what our position would be, and why, if the action * \3 h. _) u- u
had been taken by Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. I’m not counting on it, but
* ]1 b8 p8 ]% kmaybe in 2029, when a Democrat is in the White House, our Republican neighbors will
) x3 ~$ \. @! t) freturn the favor, and judge that president’s efforts to keep our nation safe on the merits
; g- N0 N8 w: A \! o: Sand not merely obstruct.
7 D5 c0 T: C2 ~$ D
! B8 u U' ~! ?If we believe that Iran presents a serious threat, we need to support the president on + a) E" _7 l8 V" |
this issue. There’s plenty to disagree with him about, and we don’t need to like or
4 r3 B) X6 S- a& _" n2 H \admire him. But on Iran we should be on common ground. Not primarily because we 8 t& q3 ^5 d3 {3 J# B
want to reduce partisanship in foreign affairs—although that is conceivable. Not
8 S. I' u6 y4 T% F5 p! s0 tbecause the voters will reward us for a more measured response—although I hope they
1 q: h5 ~( X: Uwill. But because it is the right thing to do for our country, our children and the
9 C8 N) f* u sDemocrat who will succeed Mr. Trump as president.
3 t3 a; S1 h- I4 R; g
7 F1 Q* t4 E4 g# D2 M$ j, O DMr. 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