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 & f+ m5 _* x5 T. ]0 s! t0 M
Trump is doing the right thing for the U.S., and we Democrats should judge the war on ; Z2 {$ {2 m" r4 T# T/ \1 q# T
the merits. . n* d* b- g5 E5 \ |
By David Boies
) C. k8 u/ R$ x8 F% o4 aMarch 12, 2026 1:34 pm ET + |, R; x* \% b3 j
z! D7 W$ p6 C& S2 qEvery past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that ( v1 `7 S. e0 K+ |' q9 B
Iran couldn’t be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it. 8 q" ?+ }* P! S0 W6 K
Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran’s role in terrorism against ' D: }+ W' \$ r" Y; |
American citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it. Instead each president
1 P: J( R% F. f0 w8 F) Dleft his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to ' e3 x, i$ d7 C# |- d
address.
( N5 m5 o- g" z$ L2 N7 m- M- ^/ \" S: f) j% ~$ m& r3 X+ m
Last June President Trump undertook a limited military operation designed to interrupt ; N; u. w! ?' N: h9 [, |8 b' R* {$ o
Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and discourage the country from continuing its
. L5 c6 g# A' F' pnuclear program. In the face of Iran’s refusal to forswear nuclear weapons and evidence
( B0 n+ H. F1 nthat it was rapidly increasing the number, sophistication and range of its missiles, Mr.
" P. B" K6 F% f Q! j/ `6 fTrump began the current military campaign.
* S' L% ?# t, S6 U
) F7 Z- B. {; U2 }) c9 }If he hadn’t acted, his successor would have been left with an even more dangerous ) {9 j; [: T7 m# {( G
choice than his predecessors left him. Three or four years from now, the Iranian missiles ' p6 |+ A( A9 @% ?8 v- |' X
now hitting Iran’s neighbors could be hitting Berlin or London, perhaps even New York / t, X/ x, d) d. l+ V
or Washington—perhaps with a nuclear device or at least a dirty bomb. % m1 A* R: ^9 H
/ D, c: Y4 c3 P3 P" t$ K
No sensible person wants a war, a president least of all. Wars destroy lives, waste
6 e! \0 s5 M6 streasure and usually are unpopular. But the widespread hostility to this military action
, v7 R4 |! W# j- g& X3 v; P! jseems untethered to any serious discussion of the merits. What is the alternative?
, o& X+ Z6 V) I9 r' d& l' A) P% W6 E9 [( V* A
Obviously, few are prepared to say it is simply to permit religious madmen who swear . g) f! |4 \# x w3 A, J! D
“death to America” and back up their threats with terrorism to secure nuclear weapons " R8 d' }5 D( @
and the capability to deliver them. The scope and scale of Iran’s response show how
. U. I k$ j+ a* y5 zmuch its military capabilities have progressed, and how dangerous it would have been* F6 T; b; f: M& e# b0 }% @
to permit them to increase further. ) p: o8 r/ @$ g& W
9 E( a& ~3 J5 ZFor three decades we have tried everything that each president could think of. We’ve 4 y" _+ k) A' J+ y" N
tried being nice, talking tough, moral suasion, negotiated agreement, economic
7 a: V5 y1 }0 f1 P* vsanctions. None worked. The problem is that there is only one language Iran’s leaders
4 S4 v2 {& X8 [/ wunderstand. ' Z/ z! b% Q) d, R
3 t" Y, m7 Y- [6 M' m* {
I understand some of the hostility to Mr. Trump’s action. The isolationist wing of the 2 j) ~, ?) T$ A+ Z0 ~ f, j4 `
Republican Party and the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party each are wrapped in the ; M8 v7 J1 L5 i: A3 U
fantasy that we can afford to ignore the capabilities and intentions of enemies because 1 }7 }: _) U( G' W) j0 V
they are thousands of miles away. Two hundred years ago that view was credible. One
5 k/ d7 d R2 K5 ]; l* qhundred years ago it was plausible. Today it takes only one missile carrying a nuclear or
% `, F+ g2 v4 q( p8 E: jdirty bomb to get through our defenses, or one such device smuggled into this country, ; X& T- t/ e4 w/ k9 ~9 j: O* \
to devastate a city. " Z! q7 X j5 {
( g+ J L0 o+ D4 vI also understand—and deplore—the fringes of both parties that apparently hate Israel & {4 u# L) s- d: f
and Jews so much that they oppose any action to neutralize Israel’s enemies.
8 I2 L$ g& x0 x5 v% }$ f- l; e9 Y- w6 T2 t7 j4 p
What is harder to understand, and particularly troubling for our country, is opposition 9 Y8 X% C; a* s; N# l3 [8 e
rooted simply in antipathy toward Mr. Trump himself. We used to say that politics stops
* k+ \' M4 `& Tat the water’s edge. That was never completely true; the willingness to bludgeon a
" t; Y) ?. D; h8 s9 t0 S1 ?president over foreign policy for domestic political gain is as old as Vice
/ L# ?7 u. L4 O$ S! E0 s; u% NPresident Thomas Jefferson’s attacks on President John Adams. Yet for most of our
2 `+ ~2 v" i" ^% h1 p- Ahistory we have given the president the benefit of the doubt.
1 M# ^6 z. V" H( L' g- @. M! h5 R; T6 E1 W
More important, criticisms have historically been based on policy differences over the
+ _2 T' d# |+ N! T! }1 f4 Y7 ^4 a. Fmilitary action at hand, not knee-jerk opposition to the president himself. Many . ?% L# K X$ b+ d8 A
Republicans supported Mr. Clinton’s military actions and President Obama’s surge in
# k7 s9 ]. _! I4 yAfghanistan; many Democrats supported President George W. Bush’s actions in
4 u) Z6 U4 t5 h. `9 z" {7 r: {Afghanistan and (at least initially) Iraq. More Republicans than Democrats probably
( M! g" t1 L* H# [* C! ]$ ]' P Jsupported President Lyndon B. Johnson’s actions in Vietnam.
' I, g! H7 {4 j0 |' g1 |# O4 \$ n, J- K m4 |* G4 r5 J
More important still, even when we believed a president’s actions were misguided, we ; [2 Y4 P3 u; U0 H9 A; ]$ M4 A
almost always wanted him to succeed if possible. Some efforts to curtail what the ( ?8 U N, E% q9 n$ ]* x
president is doing in Iran seem motivated simply by a desire not to give him a win—0 N0 f3 |9 t1 a- m' B1 J. b
even if it means a loss for America. . _& o+ C& b7 v7 |( u! Q7 ?
. R4 { a* V( s
When North Korea invaded South Korea President Harry S. Truman acted to stop it. It , d7 C/ G7 L0 u/ v3 O
was so unpopular that Truman didn’t seek re-election in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower was
* p* c6 B! F! G' `& G& Velected on the promise that he would go to Korea and end the war. But while Truman
% {$ R5 |* Z# T* V! ?2 N1 u* p0 rwas president, lawmakers on both sides supported Truman, even when he removed the * r" f; \ ^3 i" O/ [8 b) I( w
popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur from his command. K$ Q% U% d" Y$ }7 R5 R$ W
) H6 i6 |* W& F- DTruman’s successful defense of South Korea began a four-decade bipartisan effort to 9 U! |" I2 M+ q+ t2 o8 n# c
contain, and ultimately end, communism as a global threat. One wonders what the 4 o1 m# `2 w* C: h
result would have been if he faced a country as divided and partisan as today’s.
" A0 s8 P1 y+ v! _+ gRepublicans, including Mr. Trump, bear a share of the blame for the divisiveness and 1 d; k5 U; i7 J) r2 T
extreme partisanship that has stunted our ability to cooperate and work together. Those . }) u/ {: W8 I
of us who generally oppose Mr. Trump but who recognize the threat Iran poses need to
6 g% z" r, B G$ Xsupport the military action not because we owe anything to Mr. Trump but because we ) f! Y# I4 J6 \8 F" L( m* e; E" z( o
owe it to ourselves, our country and our children.
6 F4 d) X M& g- Y; `& C- ~5 `7 U9 y6 t4 ^2 P$ Z
If we opposed the war and succeeded in pressuring Mr. Trump to curtail it before the
2 D' z2 M' Q% G. ]mission is accomplished, we would have the satisfaction of defeating someone we - ]: k5 Y" L9 ]& N' R
generally oppose, which might help ourselves politically. But America would be worse
1 Q3 z3 e4 _2 Z9 f& zfor it.
7 K- k" G" R" P, I1 v. s
7 `5 m8 Q3 P7 D0 v# CAmerica’s national security is too important to hold hostage to partisanship. We
, B3 F6 O9 k" f+ jDemocrats need to begin by asking what our position would be, and why, if the action
0 @: ` W, ^& \$ ^" l9 s5 m2 shad been taken by Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. I’m not counting on it, but 1 G$ v. z: D. ^0 n0 L/ L4 Z
maybe in 2029, when a Democrat is in the White House, our Republican neighbors will
* j, s: \$ ]1 ~" W/ E6 C& wreturn the favor, and judge that president’s efforts to keep our nation safe on the merits
" ~3 t) z i& }7 ~( @* N3 gand not merely obstruct. 1 H4 t+ p1 F# t3 h, F3 y
0 C0 C; d% b5 t/ i5 D0 v2 |5 |7 o
If we believe that Iran presents a serious threat, we need to support the president on
9 c# Z7 m" p+ Y- }this issue. There’s plenty to disagree with him about, and we don’t need to like or - ^8 t. _* o4 H/ a6 h
admire him. But on Iran we should be on common ground. Not primarily because we
6 u; v" M" ~: s9 p6 @7 V- iwant to reduce partisanship in foreign affairs—although that is conceivable. Not
- F- ~- S, p1 j" d# O# {because the voters will reward us for a more measured response—although I hope they 0 W0 _2 z7 M* i% X! ]
will. But because it is the right thing to do for our country, our children and the
/ z1 `! ~6 z7 x) v/ t1 ODemocrat who will succeed Mr. Trump as president. M! G. z4 B4 {- a$ W: v7 c5 {( l
/ }) z/ T9 ~ S
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