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 a/ E/ K' rTrump is doing the right thing for the U.S., and we Democrats should judge the war on # j) r2 l7 O$ Y7 A) V/ R9 K! f# a
the merits. : }, f" a5 }1 D% Z
By David Boies " \% e) p: [5 M1 }) ?- `
March 12, 2026 1:34 pm ET 8 @: {, Z& E& w1 X; f& e# r. L
/ Z5 S. h' a E, j2 Y$ AEvery past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that
! J, f" o7 _, d# B" G8 a: Q8 t0 d7 a: \Iran couldn’t be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it. # C+ t+ Q$ \0 b
Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran’s role in terrorism against
: u* I, y( I& Q4 K* ^# O9 @American citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it. Instead each president
1 k: J8 U/ N% ~ i% n+ V( wleft his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to / z5 y$ H; X' P, L' P+ k S$ b
address.
L6 }/ y2 x5 y- k0 H" u9 ^ J7 C* J7 ]# B/ ]* P
Last June President Trump undertook a limited military operation designed to interrupt
" W1 O1 U. i. K; G* \+ [Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and discourage the country from continuing its
/ M8 H4 ]: `1 g4 {4 hnuclear program. In the face of Iran’s refusal to forswear nuclear weapons and evidence + f) I6 }7 S8 n' |! J& {! Q
that it was rapidly increasing the number, sophistication and range of its missiles, Mr.
" y _0 q6 u: j/ iTrump began the current military campaign.
$ G2 J' o" t. E- t" ?8 N+ {( C9 S* p# D# v: ?0 y0 x6 g
If he hadn’t acted, his successor would have been left with an even more dangerous 2 C0 o- r( B; o/ E, k$ g! K
choice than his predecessors left him. Three or four years from now, the Iranian missiles + h) H1 D% n1 ~) j j/ B: J9 ^
now hitting Iran’s neighbors could be hitting Berlin or London, perhaps even New York % c+ r- Q6 S$ B9 x+ Y
or Washington—perhaps with a nuclear device or at least a dirty bomb. : I7 c9 a* ~, u- ^: @$ a: O
& s$ Y2 x3 C. `( s- M, }
No sensible person wants a war, a president least of all. Wars destroy lives, waste
$ v0 Z( c: ?) u2 j8 btreasure and usually are unpopular. But the widespread hostility to this military action
3 K' W" s# m8 E. w# A5 k- rseems untethered to any serious discussion of the merits. What is the alternative? , V" b/ F0 v# \0 |7 {
: {7 ~( ]+ @+ s8 ~, p
Obviously, few are prepared to say it is simply to permit religious madmen who swear
& X; @1 a/ Z8 C1 x8 \“death to America” and back up their threats with terrorism to secure nuclear weapons ; C( H* |, d' @8 Z$ R
and the capability to deliver them. The scope and scale of Iran’s response show how 0 L) E( k9 k% X/ C
much its military capabilities have progressed, and how dangerous it would have been
9 [& {& x3 ~0 k6 t* lto permit them to increase further. ' q* h8 P8 e1 L
/ H" O; T ~' }0 dFor three decades we have tried everything that each president could think of. We’ve
/ Y( J( U* |1 R [; {4 K" _tried being nice, talking tough, moral suasion, negotiated agreement, economic * L$ p+ ~4 x' ?/ ]/ w* S% y; b* O
sanctions. None worked. The problem is that there is only one language Iran’s leaders % r+ N d, O! ^( L( |1 {
understand.
. d. s4 U$ O5 i* @6 x# \$ K' c8 Q* D, @5 Z+ L2 X* ]
I understand some of the hostility to Mr. Trump’s action. The isolationist wing of the
+ H5 V% `$ I; J" jRepublican Party and the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party each are wrapped in the T7 X7 S& d6 E/ H) F' m; g
fantasy that we can afford to ignore the capabilities and intentions of enemies because . X" E8 C6 U/ G- @
they are thousands of miles away. Two hundred years ago that view was credible. One
3 _5 u+ }" e" ~7 l3 r% Ihundred years ago it was plausible. Today it takes only one missile carrying a nuclear or
+ p4 e q( b: {) O/ @dirty bomb to get through our defenses, or one such device smuggled into this country,
/ G& J8 {7 ]* ?2 V4 mto devastate a city. - O5 Z, }2 q" m+ o2 T" M
. ~, B" o+ A, ^9 A
I also understand—and deplore—the fringes of both parties that apparently hate Israel ; f4 B; M! c P
and Jews so much that they oppose any action to neutralize Israel’s enemies. # r5 N6 | n) `5 A- K
5 ~( ]+ J' R* k9 R& K* S
What is harder to understand, and particularly troubling for our country, is opposition 9 {0 M) G+ A- o0 s& y. a
rooted simply in antipathy toward Mr. Trump himself. We used to say that politics stops
5 C) }- E6 A' P! \+ Nat the water’s edge. That was never completely true; the willingness to bludgeon a
: p) a% Y& E s | B# }) M7 Kpresident over foreign policy for domestic political gain is as old as Vice + F; a$ K7 F& v' h$ c; s9 L
President Thomas Jefferson’s attacks on President John Adams. Yet for most of our 0 W% a# S5 R" s/ ^8 Z
history we have given the president the benefit of the doubt. - m% ?# r2 T! z5 B, s* [& R
- E( L/ t# ?/ Y: u( y/ b
More important, criticisms have historically been based on policy differences over the % A; m, \+ p/ j
military action at hand, not knee-jerk opposition to the president himself. Many # y& M2 K+ `1 Z# P
Republicans supported Mr. Clinton’s military actions and President Obama’s surge in 4 N) t: ~# e8 J' E% q) [
Afghanistan; many Democrats supported President George W. Bush’s actions in
" ?6 X& l$ G- {/ h1 F, ?Afghanistan and (at least initially) Iraq. More Republicans than Democrats probably 9 }3 z& ?( g) a- }$ q
supported President Lyndon B. Johnson’s actions in Vietnam.
; V2 h2 F. q$ F0 x5 v
6 z& ~3 I% u) L0 |More important still, even when we believed a president’s actions were misguided, we ( F5 f0 W& p; G3 {, A4 F
almost always wanted him to succeed if possible. Some efforts to curtail what the
& T8 f4 C- @. V! [) y& L. ^9 N4 Tpresident is doing in Iran seem motivated simply by a desire not to give him a win— j5 L. N# x" s+ h* Y, ~
even if it means a loss for America. ( F! ?7 B# q8 ~* R6 k/ ^
2 f8 ~6 x' U+ \- s4 d! g3 @
When North Korea invaded South Korea President Harry S. Truman acted to stop it. It ) V. `! }- u& m( |* ~
was so unpopular that Truman didn’t seek re-election in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower was ; r9 K9 y1 @8 V. d5 _3 a
elected on the promise that he would go to Korea and end the war. But while Truman 8 {1 P" J5 H! m# P" i0 b
was president, lawmakers on both sides supported Truman, even when he removed the : H) s1 o1 {7 x7 Q
popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur from his command.
$ |, n ?3 p8 }+ o# E( O
4 [% B! ~6 b, a2 G1 w+ S/ NTruman’s successful defense of South Korea began a four-decade bipartisan effort to
/ N, a( Z$ H4 Mcontain, and ultimately end, communism as a global threat. One wonders what the ; E" X5 x6 ^8 l3 I; ]: I
result would have been if he faced a country as divided and partisan as today’s. " B( r+ S, [- ]7 i" j$ A* y* \0 C
Republicans, including Mr. Trump, bear a share of the blame for the divisiveness and ( s1 c$ U. ~* s* U: s! m
extreme partisanship that has stunted our ability to cooperate and work together. Those
- v. Z0 j- K! O, }5 M$ pof us who generally oppose Mr. Trump but who recognize the threat Iran poses need to 5 z. r1 S7 ?, @* s( P& |1 M
support the military action not because we owe anything to Mr. Trump but because we " c. K- {7 l6 T$ w: z
owe it to ourselves, our country and our children.
9 Y: M3 o7 q4 u! e' E) z5 u1 f/ h2 z. p& t/ o
If we opposed the war and succeeded in pressuring Mr. Trump to curtail it before the
# D" ?, Z0 H# c, Kmission is accomplished, we would have the satisfaction of defeating someone we
/ {4 E+ K' a9 u- Tgenerally oppose, which might help ourselves politically. But America would be worse
& p& u! M) v6 b# M: zfor it. ! n2 p& s5 P6 z% D" F4 I
& T" x; Q7 \ T4 ?/ x- RAmerica’s national security is too important to hold hostage to partisanship. We 0 X0 b/ e+ p, `# q% k. X2 k
Democrats need to begin by asking what our position would be, and why, if the action ! l& G$ ?4 N) A, M' i" \
had been taken by Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. I’m not counting on it, but O& w( c/ K8 | y& |
maybe in 2029, when a Democrat is in the White House, our Republican neighbors will 7 g, ~/ _$ {4 L& n8 A
return the favor, and judge that president’s efforts to keep our nation safe on the merits
1 W7 J6 h& ~9 b1 Z7 Hand not merely obstruct.
/ E d* G; t4 Q+ [! }/ [- V, U0 f% ]; q( l, @2 o
If we believe that Iran presents a serious threat, we need to support the president on
z, E/ T' \# lthis issue. There’s plenty to disagree with him about, and we don’t need to like or
7 ?2 J4 x+ U: [( c! Uadmire him. But on Iran we should be on common ground. Not primarily because we
8 d7 J1 Z, T7 J8 b1 v6 Vwant to reduce partisanship in foreign affairs—although that is conceivable. Not " M! P0 U* I- z: I7 B
because the voters will reward us for a more measured response—although I hope they
6 E4 k3 a$ B. P: ~8 `) J ewill. But because it is the right thing to do for our country, our children and the
/ n5 _% u) b: r8 DDemocrat who will succeed Mr. Trump as president.
) C1 k% Y2 z; v- \* a4 o+ K; x. w! u" r4 P
Mr. Boies is a founding partner of the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner |
|