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 - J1 U& v. i) [
Trump is doing the right thing for the U.S., and we Democrats should judge the war on
1 Y8 a) ^: F8 j8 l3 x9 s: s: Zthe merits. 0 s. m- c8 l& g$ h! E; Q
By David Boies 8 u) N7 U: m8 K) P
March 12, 2026 1:34 pm ET
+ }; l# G# u" C/ G$ W% L/ x$ v+ O2 d
Every past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that
# d2 W& }' S$ j% UIran couldn’t be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it. % w/ `" J" ~6 N/ y
Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran’s role in terrorism against " e% y3 N( j" M' Y! e
American citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it. Instead each president + }6 u: m4 M+ R R) @ f
left his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to
. W# N7 k9 Q# m3 paddress. : Z* Q3 P9 c, f' K; n8 D
/ R* ?0 @1 E5 o( h5 b! {- b, }Last June President Trump undertook a limited military operation designed to interrupt
% Z9 U5 ^& Z3 F7 _Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and discourage the country from continuing its 1 \- c" `: X2 V
nuclear program. In the face of Iran’s refusal to forswear nuclear weapons and evidence
8 `; Y( m+ H" l% Ithat it was rapidly increasing the number, sophistication and range of its missiles, Mr.
- {4 [! G2 t t( @. n* ~( sTrump began the current military campaign.
) P9 ^$ @5 {. c* v2 h' u% g m8 S# M
If he hadn’t acted, his successor would have been left with an even more dangerous 8 P/ Z0 ^4 n B+ U
choice than his predecessors left him. Three or four years from now, the Iranian missiles
) F2 x& z2 V7 n8 ^5 ?% T1 T1 Nnow hitting Iran’s neighbors could be hitting Berlin or London, perhaps even New York
+ r c; w- b C) ^* |! _or Washington—perhaps with a nuclear device or at least a dirty bomb. * W- L4 R! T0 t3 R$ ~8 s
i }2 a) n6 n% R" ?0 M- g& y% sNo sensible person wants a war, a president least of all. Wars destroy lives, waste
# u# ?, O# u( ftreasure and usually are unpopular. But the widespread hostility to this military action
8 D& G% E1 h# P0 y8 g+ n4 n' Q% mseems untethered to any serious discussion of the merits. What is the alternative?
/ O* i! R3 }4 M! j) k- _$ N( `: u- G8 n! \% o* d8 b
Obviously, few are prepared to say it is simply to permit religious madmen who swear 2 C4 @; z/ @0 ]$ L6 Y F, m& @7 E. J
“death to America” and back up their threats with terrorism to secure nuclear weapons
" \) u4 Y, Z8 Z/ @, \ Vand the capability to deliver them. The scope and scale of Iran’s response show how * }! J; m' W. n7 H. A A* |
much its military capabilities have progressed, and how dangerous it would have been+ u; X# ]# r7 I% E4 k7 K0 `
to permit them to increase further.
4 I: y+ F! k9 }4 d5 n8 R) u( `% L, y
For three decades we have tried everything that each president could think of. We’ve ( i: p+ A8 q7 x! M1 E$ G
tried being nice, talking tough, moral suasion, negotiated agreement, economic - a1 T) W0 k x+ n; V
sanctions. None worked. The problem is that there is only one language Iran’s leaders 3 A; p" q0 c& I7 h
understand. + I- S* z& r5 I, ]0 f% h* B) V9 g
5 g# x, G9 u" q/ Y) W @
I understand some of the hostility to Mr. Trump’s action. The isolationist wing of the 9 M1 G2 }3 T" j( N: ^; _
Republican Party and the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party each are wrapped in the ! V# b( e$ j, y8 x4 h- X
fantasy that we can afford to ignore the capabilities and intentions of enemies because
! j: Z6 B# g5 Ythey are thousands of miles away. Two hundred years ago that view was credible. One
0 `, l) h7 I$ W- E7 ?5 hhundred years ago it was plausible. Today it takes only one missile carrying a nuclear or % Z, t3 n9 m1 B* F+ ? ~ M
dirty bomb to get through our defenses, or one such device smuggled into this country, 9 D; ]& X7 x# s1 s( M X
to devastate a city.
% d; Y, n& B' Q# w8 ~2 I" R. W
& X V- C( |) B3 XI also understand—and deplore—the fringes of both parties that apparently hate Israel
& G0 ?- }- F& D2 w# X* c* g9 Tand Jews so much that they oppose any action to neutralize Israel’s enemies. , I/ k) l/ M9 A: }% m
* a+ ?) f3 C4 VWhat is harder to understand, and particularly troubling for our country, is opposition + V) i" W) b* Y
rooted simply in antipathy toward Mr. Trump himself. We used to say that politics stops 4 S, x `' q0 V- }2 ~& [# Q5 V
at the water’s edge. That was never completely true; the willingness to bludgeon a ) c3 a6 ? A# u E, B/ o! R
president over foreign policy for domestic political gain is as old as Vice - N" z! t+ e* B6 O u3 ]' d
President Thomas Jefferson’s attacks on President John Adams. Yet for most of our
3 v& y2 s2 [, X( v% P, f6 ^) ]' dhistory we have given the president the benefit of the doubt.
$ J y2 Q& [$ k. X
% O ~6 |- |- B* a% F2 Q ~" T# @More important, criticisms have historically been based on policy differences over the ' X0 m9 j4 P1 B) ?6 a K( [( I' Y
military action at hand, not knee-jerk opposition to the president himself. Many ) M ~6 f. {8 f4 f; [6 Y
Republicans supported Mr. Clinton’s military actions and President Obama’s surge in
5 `, H% }5 N- P6 y9 Z( a& |3 fAfghanistan; many Democrats supported President George W. Bush’s actions in
4 U: l4 u9 \) U0 ZAfghanistan and (at least initially) Iraq. More Republicans than Democrats probably
, s, s! j! e. n h# y) asupported President Lyndon B. Johnson’s actions in Vietnam. 3 e$ ]5 B, p7 X6 ^1 t+ o
+ H, l7 P0 v* A. V- j0 }; z
More important still, even when we believed a president’s actions were misguided, we 2 F4 z7 O/ K$ `7 {
almost always wanted him to succeed if possible. Some efforts to curtail what the
$ D4 P) ]3 S8 o/ r7 z9 H' d3 zpresident is doing in Iran seem motivated simply by a desire not to give him a win—
) X! L$ [7 b. B: r+ Q" \+ Xeven if it means a loss for America. 9 Z+ H; w; m8 H6 {, [" ?
* m9 m; X* E" m
When North Korea invaded South Korea President Harry S. Truman acted to stop it. It
& I% M8 T+ q. D' Qwas so unpopular that Truman didn’t seek re-election in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower was
: H! ^9 a+ a, @elected on the promise that he would go to Korea and end the war. But while Truman
/ w a1 V: G4 `was president, lawmakers on both sides supported Truman, even when he removed the
& ?$ l: |# S0 h1 f& Ipopular Gen. Douglas MacArthur from his command.
8 r. @: Y' y& x3 V
* P8 ?% t- I0 V; [- GTruman’s successful defense of South Korea began a four-decade bipartisan effort to
! v, ]! y9 g' ^: A' q5 F5 G% Xcontain, and ultimately end, communism as a global threat. One wonders what the
& h( v% B+ `$ u; vresult would have been if he faced a country as divided and partisan as today’s. & T+ c0 e2 e' n0 b( @
Republicans, including Mr. Trump, bear a share of the blame for the divisiveness and
7 A* e. M- T! ?; L8 v, |! g! j; {extreme partisanship that has stunted our ability to cooperate and work together. Those # j, G1 K1 q; q+ l, C3 k
of us who generally oppose Mr. Trump but who recognize the threat Iran poses need to $ [ n& K8 ~7 v. l; h
support the military action not because we owe anything to Mr. Trump but because we
: L) d1 P4 u! `( f aowe it to ourselves, our country and our children. ' ?6 f7 W [' U% b! K" S! G
" l) F! n$ @, i# m% I4 W* m, f- z
If we opposed the war and succeeded in pressuring Mr. Trump to curtail it before the
* d2 ]" y" {* O3 S% Lmission is accomplished, we would have the satisfaction of defeating someone we + ]( S: ^) k7 ?; r3 v" G
generally oppose, which might help ourselves politically. But America would be worse 2 n$ U1 ?8 J7 v$ ~6 N$ ~ u
for it. / x. o) k. P/ Y6 O& r
! ^* B! J4 A+ J" |, o6 c; IAmerica’s national security is too important to hold hostage to partisanship. We . V) v7 k- P2 E
Democrats need to begin by asking what our position would be, and why, if the action
% D5 o2 D4 P$ rhad been taken by Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. I’m not counting on it, but
5 e+ o Q8 ^) H8 C7 R) {' Vmaybe in 2029, when a Democrat is in the White House, our Republican neighbors will 8 L+ C% R' B! P+ _+ X
return the favor, and judge that president’s efforts to keep our nation safe on the merits
8 i6 E, u/ {' l! K6 `and not merely obstruct.
% Y8 l! J5 e; d1 s0 p
+ ?1 \% ^+ [. v: iIf we believe that Iran presents a serious threat, we need to support the president on
1 f/ }. o4 n1 A8 athis issue. There’s plenty to disagree with him about, and we don’t need to like or
/ C. h" t* ]% u. R1 Tadmire him. But on Iran we should be on common ground. Not primarily because we
) g9 ~: e, N6 _want to reduce partisanship in foreign affairs—although that is conceivable. Not
+ M4 c8 I: r, |5 a- ]because the voters will reward us for a more measured response—although I hope they
2 N/ Z4 h, V) D+ `! d6 M1 Owill. But because it is the right thing to do for our country, our children and the ; J/ G ?0 F4 U1 X7 p* ]' \
Democrat who will succeed Mr. Trump as president.
2 H& f; @, Y1 X# P& X# {
9 Q4 o- ` \+ }' h% @8 [/ yMr. 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