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 - q! D1 I' m& G% C3 ~* \8 z
Trump is doing the right thing for the U.S., and we Democrats should judge the war on 6 g& g2 I0 k7 {- C) k' l- D" W
the merits. ! f8 M! }) P0 H7 X
By David Boies
1 Q) Z6 U7 J* eMarch 12, 2026 1:34 pm ET - y' R" I3 j, x! D) q# l
- d5 k7 u% |9 c2 Q! ~
Every past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that
) q/ o) V1 @+ ~Iran couldn’t be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it. 2 L1 U. I9 F U' E. T
Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran’s role in terrorism against $ ~( C# \8 A* ?; a- Z8 q I. o
American citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it. Instead each president 1 f7 C* H7 b5 {& w) r7 J" U4 Z
left his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to
N. e) P+ p3 N saddress. 9 e3 a- R$ ]$ w
1 f. \. |7 k5 W/ Q5 z. t
Last June President Trump undertook a limited military operation designed to interrupt 4 @7 K# a' h4 \2 z
Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and discourage the country from continuing its 2 i ?& m5 e' `" e# S5 h" G- B
nuclear program. In the face of Iran’s refusal to forswear nuclear weapons and evidence
* F: q" N: O! m6 Jthat it was rapidly increasing the number, sophistication and range of its missiles, Mr.
- `& P# C: q- ]+ e, `" Z4 a- HTrump began the current military campaign.
: D- `$ d0 t/ f6 r2 }, M' _! x, R( h! y
If he hadn’t acted, his successor would have been left with an even more dangerous & r2 a4 W: v v4 x( x
choice than his predecessors left him. Three or four years from now, the Iranian missiles ' {% W" T7 q" }4 _$ m& ~
now hitting Iran’s neighbors could be hitting Berlin or London, perhaps even New York
1 b" v1 e Z7 A0 ?) nor Washington—perhaps with a nuclear device or at least a dirty bomb.
; R4 k8 U9 G5 ?, n7 ^2 U1 W3 L+ ~: t1 D, M, U: K* ]
No sensible person wants a war, a president least of all. Wars destroy lives, waste . Q! s: E/ ~+ O* ~/ A4 w
treasure and usually are unpopular. But the widespread hostility to this military action # z; h2 H, L3 r# c# `; Y
seems untethered to any serious discussion of the merits. What is the alternative? & L/ x6 e4 e/ J) Q) V" |
/ m# X* f1 |) H4 ZObviously, few are prepared to say it is simply to permit religious madmen who swear
/ j" q! Y% G/ E; y$ Z9 b$ E& E“death to America” and back up their threats with terrorism to secure nuclear weapons 8 Q# [4 |" V% w; G, ^ ~8 V" ~- t& V
and the capability to deliver them. The scope and scale of Iran’s response show how 5 r- d) l4 V( d! ~7 ~
much its military capabilities have progressed, and how dangerous it would have been7 P8 y* b2 E% L I
to permit them to increase further.
: |; r. T6 I6 ]; U1 U2 f7 r/ y3 T& h
For three decades we have tried everything that each president could think of. We’ve
& q- y. C# c* g# p: d7 Ltried being nice, talking tough, moral suasion, negotiated agreement, economic ) _% _( }. h6 _
sanctions. None worked. The problem is that there is only one language Iran’s leaders : j+ E% ~+ [; }! O6 C
understand. ! u8 G0 e* v+ {3 B* H* \
( }8 L. j+ L- V8 E" k/ p7 {5 U) p7 }I understand some of the hostility to Mr. Trump’s action. The isolationist wing of the
" P Q/ O$ \3 uRepublican Party and the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party each are wrapped in the 7 M/ s6 N6 K3 U. E' Z9 I" A/ M( z
fantasy that we can afford to ignore the capabilities and intentions of enemies because 4 s6 `6 L q( x) g
they are thousands of miles away. Two hundred years ago that view was credible. One - C& F) p7 U; G) F. K" E
hundred years ago it was plausible. Today it takes only one missile carrying a nuclear or
/ Z$ {. I- x% y2 c" w+ idirty bomb to get through our defenses, or one such device smuggled into this country,
7 [5 J7 J/ B7 ~( m3 m( o. ^5 `to devastate a city.
" N$ }: H, k: V7 s+ {/ p6 D5 }4 ?7 ?1 b; i1 z) X9 a
I also understand—and deplore—the fringes of both parties that apparently hate Israel / U$ a: H, q1 t5 |
and Jews so much that they oppose any action to neutralize Israel’s enemies.
7 i/ I2 j" X* n" A6 s/ L8 m
4 _5 X3 |1 u* \6 Z+ VWhat is harder to understand, and particularly troubling for our country, is opposition ( }; [2 |, }8 H% F
rooted simply in antipathy toward Mr. Trump himself. We used to say that politics stops d' c- L: x9 M j+ Q
at the water’s edge. That was never completely true; the willingness to bludgeon a
) q P& p# A- ]1 o0 Gpresident over foreign policy for domestic political gain is as old as Vice ' t! u! p" J0 R, n0 }
President Thomas Jefferson’s attacks on President John Adams. Yet for most of our
* O- Y8 _ x( R! W n! uhistory we have given the president the benefit of the doubt.
. g) s7 g. @( M/ l
, r; ]% ^; z. BMore important, criticisms have historically been based on policy differences over the
( N! F+ ?- c- }6 V# Smilitary action at hand, not knee-jerk opposition to the president himself. Many & @' @9 C5 @# V7 f# Z8 j
Republicans supported Mr. Clinton’s military actions and President Obama’s surge in ( e0 K) \( R2 L7 c2 H
Afghanistan; many Democrats supported President George W. Bush’s actions in
4 g6 Y1 V d) u+ {1 R, W0 p" lAfghanistan and (at least initially) Iraq. More Republicans than Democrats probably
0 B( r8 S& z+ v" @& \supported President Lyndon B. Johnson’s actions in Vietnam.
; N7 h- W6 |$ J9 g2 a X2 ^4 ^0 X
3 V, C$ p4 U# M2 IMore important still, even when we believed a president’s actions were misguided, we ' O0 R3 V8 Z1 Q, W1 Y* [
almost always wanted him to succeed if possible. Some efforts to curtail what the
# l! p* L7 v4 _president is doing in Iran seem motivated simply by a desire not to give him a win—
) T7 y& O, Z9 V* E Zeven if it means a loss for America.
% }* R1 {* N2 E/ u- B+ q; i
( J, B! T4 q7 Y5 iWhen North Korea invaded South Korea President Harry S. Truman acted to stop it. It
. @ t; O+ F A, e! O, Vwas so unpopular that Truman didn’t seek re-election in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower was
6 X5 j3 a4 {% u6 B0 O5 h+ {# N2 Oelected on the promise that he would go to Korea and end the war. But while Truman # H* ^" O; M( j1 ?
was president, lawmakers on both sides supported Truman, even when he removed the # u6 ?, l6 f, k8 O" E& x3 d1 S
popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur from his command. ) V5 P6 x% z1 A/ d
# m: E% i* H+ f* j, vTruman’s successful defense of South Korea began a four-decade bipartisan effort to
/ E6 p |& i( q! L9 B- Tcontain, and ultimately end, communism as a global threat. One wonders what the 9 e) E ^% C5 \, W$ q6 x. b9 _
result would have been if he faced a country as divided and partisan as today’s.
: X3 Q7 o/ Y3 z( d3 D; s3 h; S( R2 NRepublicans, including Mr. Trump, bear a share of the blame for the divisiveness and
- W/ y! o ^$ P% _" A$ i6 j0 Aextreme partisanship that has stunted our ability to cooperate and work together. Those ]& e$ P! J$ o) ]
of us who generally oppose Mr. Trump but who recognize the threat Iran poses need to
8 C) q/ |" D4 s9 ssupport the military action not because we owe anything to Mr. Trump but because we
/ |8 C1 {* x/ z0 M; S" B% towe it to ourselves, our country and our children.
- H1 ~4 w& ?' ~% @ m7 S$ f- S1 _" I% `5 l- a0 {( P
If we opposed the war and succeeded in pressuring Mr. Trump to curtail it before the 2 h D" H: q8 g8 u
mission is accomplished, we would have the satisfaction of defeating someone we
. b$ ?6 z6 V( @generally oppose, which might help ourselves politically. But America would be worse 2 m! e4 A5 q$ v$ _
for it. 4 G# k' e( ]$ n
- {! n2 I4 E, E3 n
America’s national security is too important to hold hostage to partisanship. We
; g* D# g8 D. d% a8 s' lDemocrats need to begin by asking what our position would be, and why, if the action $ Q [/ d* l9 R4 B9 p0 k! k1 o! |
had been taken by Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. I’m not counting on it, but
" ~# \8 G& n0 V: s% w# ]) Z+ Dmaybe in 2029, when a Democrat is in the White House, our Republican neighbors will
^2 X3 W: ]2 Z6 a) g" ~7 dreturn the favor, and judge that president’s efforts to keep our nation safe on the merits . u9 F6 f; x$ g! M+ A5 }0 n \
and not merely obstruct. 1 V( N2 e' E, p1 X) ~* o
; G8 t$ \$ h* kIf we believe that Iran presents a serious threat, we need to support the president on
) D3 @, f$ b. v7 b z# D. I% Qthis issue. There’s plenty to disagree with him about, and we don’t need to like or
. g$ P( n$ A1 @+ N' I. Nadmire him. But on Iran we should be on common ground. Not primarily because we 4 ~4 x! P0 g! U' p7 a
want to reduce partisanship in foreign affairs—although that is conceivable. Not
7 B9 @7 [7 e! kbecause the voters will reward us for a more measured response—although I hope they 5 r- C6 r7 N+ b/ j7 |
will. But because it is the right thing to do for our country, our children and the ( C$ m9 H/ U( E; h$ V" a
Democrat who will succeed Mr. Trump as president. 0 \+ z0 i/ \7 D4 t; Z
0 h a9 z, F( |* y7 J: W( [
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