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 8 h5 N) x9 y& V3 f6 ^- g7 H& d; a" Z
Trump is doing the right thing for the U.S., and we Democrats should judge the war on ; {- `( h! U: @) [& x
the merits.
& i5 d6 B6 [- z1 T" \7 IBy David Boies 4 K% l: _; j, X+ A
March 12, 2026 1:34 pm ET
9 E+ G2 }2 V* |% ^- [6 o% H+ q! ^. ~0 `, t
Every past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that
# f5 m6 Z7 `9 E; Z/ EIran couldn’t be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it.
; S6 \; [4 }% ]Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran’s role in terrorism against ' p# B( j5 g; N H
American citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it. Instead each president ( P# V" k* Z8 w6 G6 b, W; e
left his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to 7 U& r0 d! f7 z; w. m9 ~& X" [1 n
address. " \1 i% q9 B; T9 C
, I2 u4 z8 P' r+ Y% ?Last June President Trump undertook a limited military operation designed to interrupt ) ^5 a" V, q* v/ E6 E* y
Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and discourage the country from continuing its 6 ]4 c8 X& J* h4 k5 L
nuclear program. In the face of Iran’s refusal to forswear nuclear weapons and evidence ' B& k0 B! [1 ]/ @3 h- b( b \& {/ U
that it was rapidly increasing the number, sophistication and range of its missiles, Mr. 3 a6 A* q& c+ m+ q9 q
Trump began the current military campaign.
# a- V$ d0 s h! Z# a* Q5 T8 q! v7 j' L" e$ \/ @1 H# H5 s
If he hadn’t acted, his successor would have been left with an even more dangerous
2 F3 Z- T3 R% e# y- K$ ^8 W3 k" achoice than his predecessors left him. Three or four years from now, the Iranian missiles
- P. R! z. J0 v( ] c) jnow hitting Iran’s neighbors could be hitting Berlin or London, perhaps even New York 9 q0 ^# I2 V, u* X% z% V
or Washington—perhaps with a nuclear device or at least a dirty bomb.
8 G# q- s2 ~0 Z1 E) A3 c1 n. a7 ]
' l9 A. w/ V2 S1 ]* h- YNo sensible person wants a war, a president least of all. Wars destroy lives, waste . x$ C& \' Y' \: X
treasure and usually are unpopular. But the widespread hostility to this military action
# f. K9 d7 y& C3 Y. H, w; n1 G* l7 lseems untethered to any serious discussion of the merits. What is the alternative?
/ y% h5 s3 D* V
8 F, A) D, D/ p4 UObviously, few are prepared to say it is simply to permit religious madmen who swear 7 T) ]( a# v4 R0 L
“death to America” and back up their threats with terrorism to secure nuclear weapons ; Q v* P) x: d5 o7 h
and the capability to deliver them. The scope and scale of Iran’s response show how 3 b( V! Z: n y# M9 S
much its military capabilities have progressed, and how dangerous it would have been
# Z7 r3 N$ j( [. O" V5 @$ oto permit them to increase further. , W1 b' v" G J: C# ^ s8 V
4 X y8 g- J4 L* cFor three decades we have tried everything that each president could think of. We’ve
, f" O& g& P# k4 [( {% x9 H6 j0 ~tried being nice, talking tough, moral suasion, negotiated agreement, economic $ F5 ^% V' M( Z) M, e, m' P
sanctions. None worked. The problem is that there is only one language Iran’s leaders # K ]! c8 w8 ?) c+ `( C
understand. 7 |" |3 P4 m$ U
# F5 U$ Y6 `# ?I understand some of the hostility to Mr. Trump’s action. The isolationist wing of the 1 X$ b* |8 C( l
Republican Party and the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party each are wrapped in the
$ G3 o% s( x3 m, vfantasy that we can afford to ignore the capabilities and intentions of enemies because * a% r: `# ?) S. j! f- a0 }$ W) i
they are thousands of miles away. Two hundred years ago that view was credible. One * m9 m8 F& b1 [. q. k+ b
hundred years ago it was plausible. Today it takes only one missile carrying a nuclear or
0 a* p& D @3 h% D9 l6 Bdirty bomb to get through our defenses, or one such device smuggled into this country, # \+ Q+ {6 g7 m$ M
to devastate a city. * C6 J, H# ^! N0 d! F1 h" l
8 s7 F$ L8 |1 J* s' j* |/ B9 QI also understand—and deplore—the fringes of both parties that apparently hate Israel
: F/ G. }+ R; r) f E- oand Jews so much that they oppose any action to neutralize Israel’s enemies. 4 N; G$ q! c; r
' k' W; e A1 C; X" J; c9 V3 qWhat is harder to understand, and particularly troubling for our country, is opposition
' f5 e* ]" P: Grooted simply in antipathy toward Mr. Trump himself. We used to say that politics stops 2 q" w$ n6 P* \7 d8 t
at the water’s edge. That was never completely true; the willingness to bludgeon a
; \: u$ a- S" ]7 j0 T( h8 p! Xpresident over foreign policy for domestic political gain is as old as Vice
9 j1 j3 A/ T5 v% h, a; S9 S7 G" uPresident Thomas Jefferson’s attacks on President John Adams. Yet for most of our
* h- O3 |- N( bhistory we have given the president the benefit of the doubt. $ L6 j+ a: b( A* P
& t6 j* Z! ]' SMore important, criticisms have historically been based on policy differences over the
; L5 |% r( S+ q; hmilitary action at hand, not knee-jerk opposition to the president himself. Many
+ ~3 P) c. O- TRepublicans supported Mr. Clinton’s military actions and President Obama’s surge in % W1 m* `- W* D6 G6 s
Afghanistan; many Democrats supported President George W. Bush’s actions in
0 ?7 C+ f, l4 B: d8 \Afghanistan and (at least initially) Iraq. More Republicans than Democrats probably + o( m& |- X8 X/ c) M7 e( _: M7 _
supported President Lyndon B. Johnson’s actions in Vietnam.
. J; X5 D0 e6 \2 W/ G- z4 K& M8 Z8 y" r
More important still, even when we believed a president’s actions were misguided, we
. M' X- A$ j' O: `; M( J. _almost always wanted him to succeed if possible. Some efforts to curtail what the - v* d& A! G$ x& n
president is doing in Iran seem motivated simply by a desire not to give him a win—
$ ? p3 {+ }! L+ @. Keven if it means a loss for America. * s8 E* c1 z) |; a7 ^3 U u
$ W1 Z4 y4 h, r& x* X
When North Korea invaded South Korea President Harry S. Truman acted to stop it. It
# H# T; m$ \; n1 Q) qwas so unpopular that Truman didn’t seek re-election in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower was
. L$ m8 ]" Q( {2 X3 Selected on the promise that he would go to Korea and end the war. But while Truman 6 B+ D9 T+ P. g1 o
was president, lawmakers on both sides supported Truman, even when he removed the - R# u- [0 P: k! t* B
popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur from his command.
0 `8 F- K! q0 X0 S) i( h1 m% F
8 g0 u2 Z( `& e! G6 pTruman’s successful defense of South Korea began a four-decade bipartisan effort to
* \. L8 D1 s# P$ j$ ucontain, and ultimately end, communism as a global threat. One wonders what the 1 |2 J+ v& u, B4 \
result would have been if he faced a country as divided and partisan as today’s. ) N/ L0 I) W: ^ F
Republicans, including Mr. Trump, bear a share of the blame for the divisiveness and + H5 I; P2 u: X. D% d
extreme partisanship that has stunted our ability to cooperate and work together. Those 7 w' h( P5 K: R8 r' j
of us who generally oppose Mr. Trump but who recognize the threat Iran poses need to
" l" Z- X2 F2 b5 ysupport the military action not because we owe anything to Mr. Trump but because we
$ ~. k' y) W: r: k8 lowe it to ourselves, our country and our children.
8 @1 Z: D- s1 c m
; ~4 a" V$ o8 xIf we opposed the war and succeeded in pressuring Mr. Trump to curtail it before the
; u1 K. e. u3 l+ K6 i; O$ w! Mmission is accomplished, we would have the satisfaction of defeating someone we M& S* C) I. v2 Q3 ^
generally oppose, which might help ourselves politically. But America would be worse
2 `9 J4 z# N$ W6 I& Efor it.
8 N& _. X) p1 g& Q$ v
+ k, r- u) Q0 i( q. |$ WAmerica’s national security is too important to hold hostage to partisanship. We % W# t6 d' R% d# E9 y
Democrats need to begin by asking what our position would be, and why, if the action : @3 H" _5 G( V3 f, ?
had been taken by Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. I’m not counting on it, but / c* o$ t/ {5 A
maybe in 2029, when a Democrat is in the White House, our Republican neighbors will / {( D* e# T) A$ h3 ^) q/ i% m
return the favor, and judge that president’s efforts to keep our nation safe on the merits ( }9 V6 Z1 }) F& z* F
and not merely obstruct.
6 u8 J- \$ m. Y1 }2 y9 f. L3 @. _" q$ V4 z' Q4 q6 b' i) N
If we believe that Iran presents a serious threat, we need to support the president on
8 }$ [ V0 t% x( C5 D3 L' nthis issue. There’s plenty to disagree with him about, and we don’t need to like or 6 M" z4 Y9 D4 m$ ]
admire him. But on Iran we should be on common ground. Not primarily because we - j0 U# c' B) _ X T
want to reduce partisanship in foreign affairs—although that is conceivable. Not
! ~2 l/ G. d* L" v: d& z7 R* K( q( sbecause the voters will reward us for a more measured response—although I hope they 8 J, d( R8 j+ X8 _$ X7 k: a
will. But because it is the right thing to do for our country, our children and the 1 G/ y- h0 n7 e" M% c- C$ [
Democrat who will succeed Mr. Trump as president.
* u B b) w- k
6 B6 v3 e; E7 ]Mr. Boies is a founding partner of the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner |
|