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 ' Z! C$ t3 A1 H$ a }! Y# `
Trump is doing the right thing for the U.S., and we Democrats should judge the war on ' N3 Z0 }& M2 [2 D# P' [0 \( T- P$ N
the merits.
4 R5 o7 \# j' o. {2 o: z; cBy David Boies
; z+ u6 B* _; c* n( kMarch 12, 2026 1:34 pm ET 4 Q- D8 ^3 @8 \* y, B0 Z
+ C f$ O! ], j, s' A
Every past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that - D t6 H: g8 a* @9 A; C! q1 f; X
Iran couldn’t be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it. # _2 `" z- }( N, b1 ?
Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran’s role in terrorism against ) ]1 p* \& a- d( a, L$ @5 ^" ]3 t8 c
American citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it. Instead each president
C7 X c! b8 y/ B$ [' P0 rleft his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to 5 ]/ |- h9 g# _2 E, G
address.
# t" [" ]( g8 i( \. ^( t0 r$ f) T5 Q. S9 a8 j2 `' k) Z
Last June President Trump undertook a limited military operation designed to interrupt 7 h- d, u% o; r9 N
Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and discourage the country from continuing its
: E+ I# O2 Q j8 @+ R, T s3 Qnuclear program. In the face of Iran’s refusal to forswear nuclear weapons and evidence
9 d# m1 n z, ?' Q9 Q5 fthat it was rapidly increasing the number, sophistication and range of its missiles, Mr.
8 i6 y, a: S3 {( `, [Trump began the current military campaign. 8 a2 }% h& A8 d; \9 T+ n
W6 {' A' `7 `! `7 y2 vIf he hadn’t acted, his successor would have been left with an even more dangerous $ P! _3 h$ _% b) x; |% m
choice than his predecessors left him. Three or four years from now, the Iranian missiles
$ c* `2 r% ?9 E- Ynow hitting Iran’s neighbors could be hitting Berlin or London, perhaps even New York
+ A; D! P8 b! D- @: `1 r/ r" Hor Washington—perhaps with a nuclear device or at least a dirty bomb. ! s* X- P2 s, e5 V; `( V/ p
y, j( N Y; a. e8 \1 N
No sensible person wants a war, a president least of all. Wars destroy lives, waste 4 [$ y. i$ |# c! c# q, d3 D
treasure and usually are unpopular. But the widespread hostility to this military action / Y* g7 O: y% O% U, T; x
seems untethered to any serious discussion of the merits. What is the alternative?
+ X- V5 ?' f$ \$ l% F ?3 X
0 o4 K" d# _: ^9 T+ L& f; sObviously, few are prepared to say it is simply to permit religious madmen who swear
/ z" c& i% c- v- R" h) v; e“death to America” and back up their threats with terrorism to secure nuclear weapons ( v* z7 G5 s& D. N y
and the capability to deliver them. The scope and scale of Iran’s response show how ; q, z5 L# f4 q) f& l9 r9 D( j0 y) R
much its military capabilities have progressed, and how dangerous it would have been
$ L, K& X: w P* }* S5 V" D( {to permit them to increase further.
1 y1 R0 s8 ^+ y4 R+ O
$ |+ W0 C) s* _1 O! l2 UFor three decades we have tried everything that each president could think of. We’ve
( O7 @( _" G' Utried being nice, talking tough, moral suasion, negotiated agreement, economic ' I7 ? n% z+ x; v
sanctions. None worked. The problem is that there is only one language Iran’s leaders 8 [) ]1 _# t0 J0 f) Q# |
understand.
6 F, ~, n# Z/ T6 Y/ N) i- x: f5 s) n: ]% `. }* U
I understand some of the hostility to Mr. Trump’s action. The isolationist wing of the + J2 M: }1 k% D; F
Republican Party and the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party each are wrapped in the } R0 O! l! C
fantasy that we can afford to ignore the capabilities and intentions of enemies because 6 j9 S; p5 U! d2 h Y
they are thousands of miles away. Two hundred years ago that view was credible. One , r( F+ y$ h' W2 r4 y/ p
hundred years ago it was plausible. Today it takes only one missile carrying a nuclear or
' C2 E% ? \$ l$ m8 Q$ f4 Gdirty bomb to get through our defenses, or one such device smuggled into this country,
, c2 w5 [7 B( f3 ito devastate a city. : N6 i9 Q6 l+ N
- q6 K) Q; y% s1 L" Q' z: L4 RI also understand—and deplore—the fringes of both parties that apparently hate Israel * E$ U# }9 _4 L6 D1 x
and Jews so much that they oppose any action to neutralize Israel’s enemies.
; Q" [- O2 E2 \+ f/ Q$ e6 R3 C- k: h; j2 [0 j: i
What is harder to understand, and particularly troubling for our country, is opposition # Q6 J9 U0 D) h" z6 a0 O9 Z
rooted simply in antipathy toward Mr. Trump himself. We used to say that politics stops ! K6 k' G# s. J0 L6 B, A0 c! G
at the water’s edge. That was never completely true; the willingness to bludgeon a
* L# j$ o9 v2 x# ^! [president over foreign policy for domestic political gain is as old as Vice 7 g: ?2 J! }# ~( u
President Thomas Jefferson’s attacks on President John Adams. Yet for most of our
1 n1 }, a u# t& c0 ~history we have given the president the benefit of the doubt.
. n& T! p. n/ }% [
6 \6 J# R' c. ^; b. }$ _ CMore important, criticisms have historically been based on policy differences over the " P8 f0 \" ]9 _
military action at hand, not knee-jerk opposition to the president himself. Many
/ P+ r1 l. t2 K6 F2 ERepublicans supported Mr. Clinton’s military actions and President Obama’s surge in
* I# J5 k" j% i+ {) cAfghanistan; many Democrats supported President George W. Bush’s actions in
/ v8 h' s3 r# \. T# k: eAfghanistan and (at least initially) Iraq. More Republicans than Democrats probably
- P- ~! h4 { M: \9 S- Isupported President Lyndon B. Johnson’s actions in Vietnam.
5 V/ M2 |5 a7 u, V' a. r9 H# N' K, W7 V4 L1 T5 Z
More important still, even when we believed a president’s actions were misguided, we + L5 e8 t0 A4 C+ p3 o
almost always wanted him to succeed if possible. Some efforts to curtail what the
' v* ]( c& z9 _) W& Kpresident is doing in Iran seem motivated simply by a desire not to give him a win—& B" O6 d4 Z" | T& X
even if it means a loss for America. 3 ?& U, c' J2 P
' k- V4 v. n6 S% b* V
When North Korea invaded South Korea President Harry S. Truman acted to stop it. It + e2 l: t9 [$ I' y
was so unpopular that Truman didn’t seek re-election in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower was ) d8 [) W l3 n+ i( h0 R* G
elected on the promise that he would go to Korea and end the war. But while Truman * e8 ^8 \' }9 n
was president, lawmakers on both sides supported Truman, even when he removed the
3 M7 J2 Z6 P! F' s- X1 \4 ^* |popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur from his command. ; d2 b7 t$ d% v: S" G
8 R: h1 P& M" x% hTruman’s successful defense of South Korea began a four-decade bipartisan effort to
: w/ D6 s9 _$ H+ n1 x* M6 z4 tcontain, and ultimately end, communism as a global threat. One wonders what the + _7 y) n, G% V
result would have been if he faced a country as divided and partisan as today’s.
, b2 O9 a+ S. n+ n- ^Republicans, including Mr. Trump, bear a share of the blame for the divisiveness and ; b8 E& ]0 ?" ]7 }
extreme partisanship that has stunted our ability to cooperate and work together. Those 8 ]1 U- b, ?1 G$ _! y
of us who generally oppose Mr. Trump but who recognize the threat Iran poses need to * l; h7 q$ r/ p3 z7 _2 j( e
support the military action not because we owe anything to Mr. Trump but because we & J- m* l5 e4 P3 N( b
owe it to ourselves, our country and our children.
6 {. o+ ?, ~, B) d8 T1 e' B
/ h3 R3 a0 I' W% i3 M' E7 B4 uIf we opposed the war and succeeded in pressuring Mr. Trump to curtail it before the 6 E! d1 j1 L1 K" p, y
mission is accomplished, we would have the satisfaction of defeating someone we
5 G& A/ b1 @/ m. ?. N$ v$ Zgenerally oppose, which might help ourselves politically. But America would be worse
% O- B6 u4 m" n& }: q/ P/ d7 ifor it. 0 G5 } p# i5 j9 K' t$ d
& P( {/ [, G9 o. S( [+ ]6 J
America’s national security is too important to hold hostage to partisanship. We
/ h$ B# [6 g6 e5 I9 h9 n% eDemocrats need to begin by asking what our position would be, and why, if the action 1 N4 s$ n) P$ N! g6 F
had been taken by Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. I’m not counting on it, but
# @7 T% U' F- `) ^; A" F$ U3 Zmaybe in 2029, when a Democrat is in the White House, our Republican neighbors will
! v& b- d( B" F$ @5 p5 \: Vreturn the favor, and judge that president’s efforts to keep our nation safe on the merits ( d* K) [+ z& E( b9 H0 P! D
and not merely obstruct.
6 U5 }+ B* f# v; s
. t' h7 I( c* D# g7 {) |, TIf we believe that Iran presents a serious threat, we need to support the president on
6 O2 n, i: A1 O% y1 I- Vthis issue. There’s plenty to disagree with him about, and we don’t need to like or ' \7 [* k+ O4 k! y, r8 H6 ]
admire him. But on Iran we should be on common ground. Not primarily because we
& O( [1 @- P# i. n2 Nwant to reduce partisanship in foreign affairs—although that is conceivable. Not
6 A2 G J, o- h& b7 P/ H* f, nbecause the voters will reward us for a more measured response—although I hope they 9 j9 T u2 R+ J3 [
will. But because it is the right thing to do for our country, our children and the
" I* {& U3 I3 UDemocrat who will succeed Mr. Trump as president. + x) G& _8 S2 O& \) `" c, }
' y! x1 a) H$ y) O- p3 q1 SMr. 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