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 B3 R" ^9 G3 R% ?
Trump is doing the right thing for the U.S., and we Democrats should judge the war on
; n" K. s: J i( X: u2 cthe merits. 6 h( f, s+ L+ g i
By David Boies
3 M' ~, p$ {, q4 a- B* V z# zMarch 12, 2026 1:34 pm ET 4 E- l' W# u' a7 z3 e) a
9 G+ m: F( ]7 v$ r
Every past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that 9 D- f: O6 P! e5 G
Iran couldn’t be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it.
- z6 W) G0 I; i3 u! @Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran’s role in terrorism against - Z5 m/ F+ E& c+ c7 D
American citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it. Instead each president
" E0 @# x$ W: w1 s# B* bleft his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to / V# p! m: a& z) N# D' z
address.
; P- q0 w$ I* N5 C6 b( z% L [; b: [: b
Last June President Trump undertook a limited military operation designed to interrupt
1 x- k; F. O! H) SIran’s development of nuclear weapons and discourage the country from continuing its
0 ]% ~1 Q' j7 u6 ?nuclear program. In the face of Iran’s refusal to forswear nuclear weapons and evidence
, z' O" ~9 U; |1 q$ M$ r6 f$ qthat it was rapidly increasing the number, sophistication and range of its missiles, Mr.
4 Y, O+ f9 B% k5 o1 `; rTrump began the current military campaign.
- _( w, A5 M( g# P8 ?$ I" @1 W: S# O
If he hadn’t acted, his successor would have been left with an even more dangerous
! c3 K! G3 f* Ychoice than his predecessors left him. Three or four years from now, the Iranian missiles - `) ]: q' T- m4 A; R! Y2 t' p. l
now hitting Iran’s neighbors could be hitting Berlin or London, perhaps even New York $ I) W' o9 j& \0 ~4 s! X& [, Z2 r0 W
or Washington—perhaps with a nuclear device or at least a dirty bomb.
4 P6 r7 x9 Q! U& R. H# l) @. x
7 |' {, \5 t$ r) G2 l9 M6 d, ~No sensible person wants a war, a president least of all. Wars destroy lives, waste
/ R* D9 D( m+ i3 G& i# `& X3 M! _treasure and usually are unpopular. But the widespread hostility to this military action
, M) f7 w$ Y5 A" M, Oseems untethered to any serious discussion of the merits. What is the alternative?
9 [7 e3 u6 `. Q
, O5 Y+ X. R+ [& i$ k* MObviously, few are prepared to say it is simply to permit religious madmen who swear
' Z6 E, Z' U0 B6 K# s- t“death to America” and back up their threats with terrorism to secure nuclear weapons
8 L# E; t' z6 ]. t: ?: Zand the capability to deliver them. The scope and scale of Iran’s response show how
5 B p/ n H, H2 Rmuch its military capabilities have progressed, and how dangerous it would have been
5 ?/ x; W! {/ q" {5 Zto permit them to increase further. 2 {6 Y! k& T6 t( t9 S1 W
; W W) Y9 N8 g2 A1 k
For three decades we have tried everything that each president could think of. We’ve
) h# a: x, ?% e' P. @9 Wtried being nice, talking tough, moral suasion, negotiated agreement, economic
/ u% `7 w H/ B1 @' T4 z% Msanctions. None worked. The problem is that there is only one language Iran’s leaders
0 o$ j1 i5 r( ]5 Nunderstand.
& G( @7 J+ ?. c4 X% t0 B- a
4 k. ?* I, H& F; N. H) zI understand some of the hostility to Mr. Trump’s action. The isolationist wing of the
j& I( R, I, b* B* y; t$ J, t# vRepublican Party and the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party each are wrapped in the $ }$ ]7 f+ u. ?7 H R, c
fantasy that we can afford to ignore the capabilities and intentions of enemies because
* x$ {6 g( Z8 {% e& A1 ^' V# b1 Vthey are thousands of miles away. Two hundred years ago that view was credible. One
H+ x* s! N9 `( ohundred years ago it was plausible. Today it takes only one missile carrying a nuclear or
+ ~) S B& y2 wdirty bomb to get through our defenses, or one such device smuggled into this country, * u/ |6 x A7 g3 n7 X# R
to devastate a city. 5 I$ d- _+ y2 p8 c: u7 z
7 h# k7 i4 B" A$ _0 o5 H7 o
I also understand—and deplore—the fringes of both parties that apparently hate Israel
. T8 G8 t- ]+ R; Fand Jews so much that they oppose any action to neutralize Israel’s enemies.
, c5 x/ G( M3 L4 V& ~8 J" [* D
6 q! O* ~0 T* A3 x; g9 a5 x6 c( dWhat is harder to understand, and particularly troubling for our country, is opposition % Y, I5 I, l9 ^7 a' k" E
rooted simply in antipathy toward Mr. Trump himself. We used to say that politics stops
$ H+ m2 v8 A2 ~9 O5 L+ cat the water’s edge. That was never completely true; the willingness to bludgeon a
r U! j) m2 p) r' Z1 y4 [president over foreign policy for domestic political gain is as old as Vice $ C) j5 |, ]4 ]# {8 k0 }% B
President Thomas Jefferson’s attacks on President John Adams. Yet for most of our
* U" V& r* s# Z8 p% Uhistory we have given the president the benefit of the doubt. 5 u2 p' S: J2 i+ t n. T+ l i4 u6 n8 ~
6 j, J8 M! {7 J% U: d: p
More important, criticisms have historically been based on policy differences over the
" r8 y2 ` x2 x: _$ x1 Q3 [( Fmilitary action at hand, not knee-jerk opposition to the president himself. Many
% t5 n. |6 E" O. t8 X' L' D% ?4 ]Republicans supported Mr. Clinton’s military actions and President Obama’s surge in ! N! H* Z/ v3 j2 H% m5 T
Afghanistan; many Democrats supported President George W. Bush’s actions in
. U( H, l7 A- e7 Y, W1 U/ ]Afghanistan and (at least initially) Iraq. More Republicans than Democrats probably - X& F# r8 ~' ~* z8 |, _& `/ u
supported President Lyndon B. Johnson’s actions in Vietnam. 6 X( z5 d: c8 e) Y# q( p
+ `! H9 t3 p9 G5 i9 b
More important still, even when we believed a president’s actions were misguided, we ( l# E( P9 |4 V% h+ ~" c# B( \
almost always wanted him to succeed if possible. Some efforts to curtail what the ! e9 K) y! J8 Y; E3 d4 T
president is doing in Iran seem motivated simply by a desire not to give him a win— `' y% h: D" ?( }
even if it means a loss for America.
4 D! E2 c& L q @+ x
% l* m% |' v& ^ P8 {: {When North Korea invaded South Korea President Harry S. Truman acted to stop it. It
/ A6 \+ f2 F( |: F, Z5 R' t2 k B. Vwas so unpopular that Truman didn’t seek re-election in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower was 3 x! P o* E" Y4 N9 W* y
elected on the promise that he would go to Korea and end the war. But while Truman " U) i# E8 k; U, p3 a5 `1 }0 o
was president, lawmakers on both sides supported Truman, even when he removed the
/ b) }9 o P9 }/ d) m& B4 @popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur from his command. : u' O" M8 {/ ]4 V
8 W1 \. C `) v; T# l* M# ATruman’s successful defense of South Korea began a four-decade bipartisan effort to 9 I) n: l" A$ Z' c
contain, and ultimately end, communism as a global threat. One wonders what the
+ V8 e; s5 U4 m6 Sresult would have been if he faced a country as divided and partisan as today’s. ' } n2 ?' v8 C5 Q, I
Republicans, including Mr. Trump, bear a share of the blame for the divisiveness and
5 P2 v B; v. b, ]* Wextreme partisanship that has stunted our ability to cooperate and work together. Those # x+ v, u/ M" [; p, R/ V2 v9 i4 K
of us who generally oppose Mr. Trump but who recognize the threat Iran poses need to & s$ G) g5 q/ w
support the military action not because we owe anything to Mr. Trump but because we . N' i5 O) k- D! h, ]1 f+ ~2 k
owe it to ourselves, our country and our children. , _" }3 d5 Q2 x; G
; R, `: }7 i9 Z
If we opposed the war and succeeded in pressuring Mr. Trump to curtail it before the
. r( m% }1 Q- S8 t( Vmission is accomplished, we would have the satisfaction of defeating someone we
: f( o. S1 g' x8 Sgenerally oppose, which might help ourselves politically. But America would be worse
1 F# }8 U5 J- [. q' G/ C9 b9 Nfor it.
( n" a5 O4 }2 K+ \ X$ N- |% @: S7 U% m% q+ a! V f9 {0 [
America’s national security is too important to hold hostage to partisanship. We
H' Q" G4 n. ~' x% cDemocrats need to begin by asking what our position would be, and why, if the action
" B$ j' _" ?" j6 N+ m1 b7 }had been taken by Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. I’m not counting on it, but / R$ j2 F5 _" J! Q5 ~+ v
maybe in 2029, when a Democrat is in the White House, our Republican neighbors will
2 b! b/ W9 Y$ Dreturn the favor, and judge that president’s efforts to keep our nation safe on the merits
( n1 M: b% ^( t! N8 j# v; Tand not merely obstruct. 5 Z% x% s; s# n: V
# I8 X0 H, s( e
If we believe that Iran presents a serious threat, we need to support the president on W1 g8 N% A7 Y$ Q+ v3 O
this issue. There’s plenty to disagree with him about, and we don’t need to like or + T; V0 w/ I7 @9 D; L L% p' Z( t
admire him. But on Iran we should be on common ground. Not primarily because we * A8 w" x' O5 L1 J; Y7 |+ J ~
want to reduce partisanship in foreign affairs—although that is conceivable. Not 3 i7 S: x2 b. K* Q; k: c
because the voters will reward us for a more measured response—although I hope they
* C- ^! B6 C2 X% pwill. But because it is the right thing to do for our country, our children and the
3 t' V4 T% s' Q6 |Democrat who will succeed Mr. Trump as president.
8 h9 [& L# r' R N) I. i
2 `+ I: c2 {: \! K; o) kMr. Boies is a founding partner of the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner |
|