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 P1 G8 y! U4 ?. }! u, R5 Y. M; n
Trump is doing the right thing for the U.S., and we Democrats should judge the war on : ^* A, d5 i* R) D) g$ n& h
the merits.
5 f1 ?; }. |! Z2 }* iBy David Boies / C( H/ _9 S4 z- G
March 12, 2026 1:34 pm ET
' [/ e! D& T J! J$ Z: n ~( Z; R. |. V0 q# H7 `& p& e
Every past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that 9 v# U3 V. @3 p
Iran couldn’t be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it. ; m3 u8 o# [0 d) Z2 a# p
Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran’s role in terrorism against , P# l" _# v0 T
American citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it. Instead each president
* C) T1 \$ b6 v( U4 X" s4 Y9 Vleft his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to
; R* a0 q# o" l- ?address.
5 P+ x3 s: J4 q% p( w6 x: e2 |0 p1 M
% A1 l$ x% [+ jLast June President Trump undertook a limited military operation designed to interrupt , Q; b" e( `0 F8 z6 A8 s& W
Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and discourage the country from continuing its * x) @# `9 C1 U2 i
nuclear program. In the face of Iran’s refusal to forswear nuclear weapons and evidence
# d6 m) Z5 R; D) Vthat it was rapidly increasing the number, sophistication and range of its missiles, Mr.
- g0 ?3 s5 ] d4 v/ q: MTrump began the current military campaign.
: k l& O) x/ `( \5 U2 p9 ]
6 p8 N: O- h: {: c5 t3 dIf he hadn’t acted, his successor would have been left with an even more dangerous * v3 j6 X4 d( u0 {4 @
choice than his predecessors left him. Three or four years from now, the Iranian missiles 3 ~/ X$ V W9 s0 `
now hitting Iran’s neighbors could be hitting Berlin or London, perhaps even New York
, c8 O+ T6 z6 W9 i- |8 W2 } yor Washington—perhaps with a nuclear device or at least a dirty bomb.
5 X& |/ S# q2 P
" x. |! V! z6 J9 j( [8 c2 WNo sensible person wants a war, a president least of all. Wars destroy lives, waste * x3 k# V% @4 a$ {7 u
treasure and usually are unpopular. But the widespread hostility to this military action
3 z7 L3 i4 d( D% W' N$ ]seems untethered to any serious discussion of the merits. What is the alternative? ( W% i3 ^* Z6 x. c# |
8 Q l# v! ^" S" g- e2 q0 d5 bObviously, few are prepared to say it is simply to permit religious madmen who swear
: i# b. g6 y5 |" o" G- X“death to America” and back up their threats with terrorism to secure nuclear weapons
j G7 ^- a9 \7 Vand the capability to deliver them. The scope and scale of Iran’s response show how 7 _5 }6 c/ B4 }4 r5 B
much its military capabilities have progressed, and how dangerous it would have been, x3 |# |! V- D' }1 |
to permit them to increase further. ) o' k \# o7 C; c
~6 q: ^$ Z. y
For three decades we have tried everything that each president could think of. We’ve
$ u; w0 n$ F+ K8 t6 A5 Etried being nice, talking tough, moral suasion, negotiated agreement, economic 5 V& u) G: U8 y1 V9 W
sanctions. None worked. The problem is that there is only one language Iran’s leaders
! f5 p' G9 i$ e. [) m$ x6 qunderstand. % e, A( H* [8 q! b1 t9 E, v
5 z" ]' ?; f& h7 A1 S8 i+ [& I
I understand some of the hostility to Mr. Trump’s action. The isolationist wing of the
+ a. Q8 t; }; l$ w9 d; k) |Republican Party and the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party each are wrapped in the
7 G3 k7 W+ G, _0 F# P8 A( Kfantasy that we can afford to ignore the capabilities and intentions of enemies because
4 F/ ] B/ R6 ]0 c: w: nthey are thousands of miles away. Two hundred years ago that view was credible. One 6 u3 k4 `8 Z- L# \7 q: T
hundred years ago it was plausible. Today it takes only one missile carrying a nuclear or
* ]4 H- U% L7 j+ Kdirty bomb to get through our defenses, or one such device smuggled into this country,
" d, m) z8 N2 |: `to devastate a city.
5 f3 Q; J- i& h" H
" V0 Z/ f5 h% z) z" f+ Y8 pI also understand—and deplore—the fringes of both parties that apparently hate Israel 3 J! m! y* g& X* p4 `' }4 M; m5 B
and Jews so much that they oppose any action to neutralize Israel’s enemies. * ^; _6 J5 j% z/ g' J
c6 x; ?. [' J7 Z& e7 | J
What is harder to understand, and particularly troubling for our country, is opposition & ^, |6 q9 G5 ]. x" K4 e
rooted simply in antipathy toward Mr. Trump himself. We used to say that politics stops $ y4 L. z z6 ]% ?: i: F; \
at the water’s edge. That was never completely true; the willingness to bludgeon a
6 A0 P6 o5 N6 n I% x/ K2 H) @president over foreign policy for domestic political gain is as old as Vice
/ k8 H o2 n! K. b8 ?President Thomas Jefferson’s attacks on President John Adams. Yet for most of our ! A$ e7 J5 Q# ?6 g- N( N
history we have given the president the benefit of the doubt.
; ^9 h- Z: w4 D8 I
! l1 o& o1 ]' DMore important, criticisms have historically been based on policy differences over the
, |$ }) h# R7 \' A- L2 |military action at hand, not knee-jerk opposition to the president himself. Many 2 J% C0 y+ L/ W: w3 D6 \: L
Republicans supported Mr. Clinton’s military actions and President Obama’s surge in
& C: f$ m% k5 qAfghanistan; many Democrats supported President George W. Bush’s actions in ) ~" G' k' l# o; b0 O' k6 x% z8 [
Afghanistan and (at least initially) Iraq. More Republicans than Democrats probably \. Y6 \8 e4 w
supported President Lyndon B. Johnson’s actions in Vietnam.
! a5 G, m6 E4 _. d1 R+ |- p- D- V6 k8 Q9 R) C% X
More important still, even when we believed a president’s actions were misguided, we : W; [! Z0 W6 j0 O5 f% H5 f
almost always wanted him to succeed if possible. Some efforts to curtail what the
+ f& @+ j% f9 ?8 f9 apresident is doing in Iran seem motivated simply by a desire not to give him a win—
0 Y, x0 v |; w4 Z; R* k- r$ Deven if it means a loss for America. ( K+ L! ]3 Y# U; Q1 k9 T& H8 m. z: k
: f5 A% r8 m1 [+ ^; @7 N# }+ LWhen North Korea invaded South Korea President Harry S. Truman acted to stop it. It
% m8 S$ ^5 ~3 [ fwas so unpopular that Truman didn’t seek re-election in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower was
) U. F6 e% U! `) Gelected on the promise that he would go to Korea and end the war. But while Truman , I9 T! g8 F/ x" Y7 S. |
was president, lawmakers on both sides supported Truman, even when he removed the . s" J+ M' w3 u1 H6 f8 L; n+ D. v9 w
popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur from his command. . ?+ G1 Y& {9 q5 V8 h# w0 I! A
' l) {) d$ K6 ?2 ATruman’s successful defense of South Korea began a four-decade bipartisan effort to - P9 S# {+ @! {+ }; s) j2 J, I
contain, and ultimately end, communism as a global threat. One wonders what the ' U2 P' F' ?8 X
result would have been if he faced a country as divided and partisan as today’s. ( p% o0 [$ d3 R$ s( b
Republicans, including Mr. Trump, bear a share of the blame for the divisiveness and
3 W8 |, I D2 |extreme partisanship that has stunted our ability to cooperate and work together. Those
+ X4 {& P8 ^( N% p0 v9 r: {of us who generally oppose Mr. Trump but who recognize the threat Iran poses need to
& x8 \) o* c7 d/ u2 Dsupport the military action not because we owe anything to Mr. Trump but because we
$ e: V$ n0 p/ S+ x. L: _owe it to ourselves, our country and our children.
1 H: F) p* b5 {, H1 `9 @% J/ b4 d9 u" j( R3 T" A3 B
If we opposed the war and succeeded in pressuring Mr. Trump to curtail it before the " W, M9 O/ w0 ~/ P" U$ Q! Z& w; ]
mission is accomplished, we would have the satisfaction of defeating someone we
+ n4 t0 Y1 j* q rgenerally oppose, which might help ourselves politically. But America would be worse
4 m$ A# T: U5 wfor it. 3 G: M3 |0 [1 b+ z2 T0 A- I* D/ F# z
& B( F5 f, ^" Z) Y, |9 {% eAmerica’s national security is too important to hold hostage to partisanship. We " L0 D2 E8 T- t
Democrats need to begin by asking what our position would be, and why, if the action
% c8 c5 c* O& H/ ? O8 Chad been taken by Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. I’m not counting on it, but
# j: _& j* g& C0 Dmaybe in 2029, when a Democrat is in the White House, our Republican neighbors will
& D* C2 A5 \/ B/ Rreturn the favor, and judge that president’s efforts to keep our nation safe on the merits 0 ?% [' j; z8 _# n1 _
and not merely obstruct. 8 H3 Z" {) U, a) d% c
& }& {# t, o. }, S; b4 \4 m' Y
If we believe that Iran presents a serious threat, we need to support the president on
2 J$ I# T% }# j7 c" ?" Lthis issue. There’s plenty to disagree with him about, and we don’t need to like or
, c# z) `0 r" f# F/ @. madmire him. But on Iran we should be on common ground. Not primarily because we
" a3 l0 Z( z# L5 g4 Y# p; Qwant to reduce partisanship in foreign affairs—although that is conceivable. Not . Y+ c! X( P9 O" Z$ W4 H0 k
because the voters will reward us for a more measured response—although I hope they + s; F( n8 d n6 }9 W Q, l
will. But because it is the right thing to do for our country, our children and the % V1 f- ~' {7 A* w
Democrat who will succeed Mr. Trump as president.
1 I5 T, E6 G9 w$ R
+ Z4 I! A7 [: S8 ?. 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