WSJ Article - Partisanship with Iran is dangerous for America

A recent WSJ article which is interesting

--

Trump is doing the right thing for the U.S., and we Democrats should judge the war on the merits.

By

David Boies

Every past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that Iran couldn’t be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it. Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran’s role in terrorism against American citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it. Instead each president left his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to address.

Last June President Trump undertook a limited military operation designed to interrupt Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and discourage the country from continuing its nuclear program. In the face of Iran’s refusal to forswear nuclear weapons and evidence that it was rapidly increasing the number, sophistication and range of its missiles, Mr. Trump began the current military campaign.

If he hadn’t acted, his successor would have been left with an even more dangerous choice than his predecessors left him. Three or four years from now, the Iranian missiles now hitting Iran’s neighbors could be hitting Berlin or London, perhaps even New York or Washington—perhaps with a nuclear device or at least a dirty bomb.

No sensible person wants a war, a president least of all. Wars destroy lives, waste treasure and usually are unpopular. But the widespread hostility to this military action seems untethered to any serious discussion of the merits. What is the alternative?

Obviously, few are prepared to say it is simply to permit religious madmen who swear “death to America” and back up their threats with terrorism to secure nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them. The scope and scale of Iran’s response show how much its military capabilities have progressed, and how dangerous it would have been to permit them to increase further.

For three decades we have tried everything that each president could think of. We’ve tried being nice, talking tough, moral suasion, negotiated agreement, economic sanctions. None worked. The problem is that there is only one language Iran’s leaders understand.

I understand some of the hostility to Mr. Trump’s action. The isolationist wing of the Republican Party and the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party each are wrapped in the fantasy that we can afford to ignore the capabilities and intentions of enemies because they are thousands of miles away. Two hundred years ago that view was credible. One hundred years ago it was plausible. Today it takes only one missile carrying a nuclear or dirty bomb to get through our defenses, or one such device smuggled into this country, to devastate a city.

I also understand—and deplore—the fringes of both parties that apparently hate Israel and Jews so much that they oppose any action to neutralize Israel’s enemies.

What is harder to understand, and particularly troubling for our country, is opposition rooted simply in antipathy toward Mr. Trump himself. We used to say that politics stops at the water’s edge. That was never completely true; the willingness to bludgeon a president over foreign policy for domestic political gain is as old as Vice President Thomas Jefferson’s attacks on President John Adams. Yet for most of our history we have given the president the benefit of the doubt.

More important, criticisms have historically been based on policy differences over the military action at hand, not knee-jerk opposition to the president himself. Many Republicans supported Mr. Clinton’s military actions and President Obama’s surge in Afghanistan; many Democrats supported President George W. Bush’s actions in Afghanistan and (at least initially) Iraq. More Republicans than Democrats probably supported President Lyndon B. Johnson’s actions in Vietnam.

More important still, even when we believed a president’s actions were misguided, we almost always wanted him to succeed if possible. Some efforts to curtail what the president is doing in Iran seem motivated simply by a desire not to give him a win—even if it means a loss for America.

When North Korea invaded South Korea President Harry S. Truman acted to stop it. It was so unpopular that Truman didn’t seek re-election in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on the promise that he would go to Korea and end the war. But while Truman was president, lawmakers on both sides supported Truman, even when he removed the popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur from his command.

Truman’s successful defense of South Korea began a four-decade bipartisan effort to contain, and ultimately end, communism as a global threat. One wonders what the result would have been if he faced a country as divided and partisan as today’s.

Republicans, including Mr. Trump, bear a share of the blame for the divisiveness and extreme partisanship that has stunted our ability to cooperate and work together. Those of us who generally oppose Mr. Trump but who recognize the threat Iran poses need to support the military action not because we owe anything to Mr. Trump but because we owe it to ourselves, our country and our children.

If we opposed the war and succeeded in pressuring Mr. Trump to curtail it before the mission is accomplished, we would have the satisfaction of defeating someone we generally oppose, which might help ourselves politically. But America would be worse for it.

America’s national security is too important to hold hostage to partisanship. We Democrats need to begin by asking what our position would be, and why, if the action had been taken by Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. I’m not counting on it, but maybe in 2029, when a Democrat is in the White House, our Republican neighbors will return the favor, and judge that president’s efforts to keep our nation safe on the merits and not merely obstruct.

If we believe that Iran presents a serious threat, we need to support the president on this issue. There’s plenty to disagree with him about, and we don’t need to like or admire him. But on Iran we should be on common ground. Not primarily because we want to reduce partisanship in foreign affairs—although that is conceivable. Not because the voters will reward us for a more measured response—although I hope they will. But because it is the right thing to do for our country, our children and the Democrat who will succeed Mr. Trump as president.

Mr. Boies is a founding partner of the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner.

Hang on, why is any of this relevant? Didn't your hero say the war was already won?

Why aren't you celebrating victory instead of writing all this stuff about the danger Iran poses?

Iran's nuclear capabilities were "obliterated" last June, their military has been defeated, their navy is destroyed and their leadership all killed. What's the danger here?

Or are you agreeing that's all just a load of bullshit?

‘Those of us who generally oppose Mr. Trump but who recognize the threat Iran poses need to support the military action not because we owe anything to Mr. Trump but because we owe it to ourselves, our country and our children’

David Boies is the lawyer who supported Gore in the election contest, a deeply credentialed Democrat. It’s encouraging there are still adults around thinking dispassionately about weighty issues.

We went through almost 50 years of terror where our fate hung on mutual destruction. Who can forget Cuba, when we we went to bed, not knowing if the world would still exist when we woke up the next day,

Now try mutual destruction with an enemy that believes a better life awaits them in the next life.

Sorting out this Iranian threat is necessary not an entertainment. Every action they take in response to a set back demonstrates just how committed they are to get a bomb. After this it will be more so….the job has to be finished..

’No boots on the ground’ may be too restrictive. No occupation may be a better rule. Control things from the air, but in selective cases like Hormuz, it may be necessary to clean out an area.

Americans don’t want their sons and in these days their daughters to be fighting in a foreign country. But this is a job that needs to be done and if Europe won’t help, America has to do it on it’s own.

I don't know what is bullshit and what isn't, but I do know that the threat that Iran poses has been very real and prominent over the last few decades.

I do not in any way like the way that Trump initiated this war, nor do I agree with what has already transpired during this ongoing war, especially the unnecessary innocent casualties ......and I don't always agree with many of the things that Trump says and does, and I have stated this very clearly, many times on this forum...... but I do agree that Iran pose too much of a threat, to just leave alone, to do their own thing.

Like Ukraine, there is no quick fix here, and I most certainly don't profess to have the answers to this Iran war, as well as the Ukraine war......but what I can and will say, is that I would definitely accept what is happening right now in Iran, even given the casualties......instead of waking up to discover that some nuclear device has just gone off in the middle of Times Square, on new years eve....in 2 years time.

The only irony to that statement I just made right now, is that these actions of Trump could make that more of a possibility in the future, due to this very unfortunate war, but I genuinely do believe that this is the better option to take, rather than just leaving Iran to their own devices, and just hoping that nothing happens in the future.... and if that comes with some casualties right now, I would still take that any day, rather than seeing New York being written off the world map from some smuggled in nuclear device or dirty bomb that bypasses their detectors.....which is a very distinct possibility given all the previous threats from the Iranian regime.

Now if that sounds like a naive fairytale, I can honestly understand why people would think that way, and I will take it on the chin.....because in most people's minds, that could just never ever happen to the mighty USA........could it...........just like Pearl harbour and 9/11 could never have happened.

Now try mutual destruction with an enemy that believes a better life awaits them in the next life.

100% Moz .. such and important point to make given it is Iran involved here.

I don't agree with what Trump says and does all the time, he infuriates me with his egotistcal and sometimes narcisistic bullshit, but I do often agree with what he does.....just not how he does it......but get it done, he does.

Trump has ADHD in bucket loads ...makes him impatient and impulsive, but he is much smarter than being given credit for and he is on the right side of the most important issues we are facing at the moment. In some cases the wrong choice is still better than indecision...the Iran issue needs to be dealt with ...

But hang on, according to Bozo there is no more threat from Iran and the war is won.

Why are you even discussing this still . . . unless of course you think he's been lying all along, in which case, say so.

You guys are saying how much you like the way Bozo "gets things done", so if you think Iran still poses any kind of threat then you have to admit that your hero lied through his teeth, surely?

So which is it?

Very funny article that makes no sense. Liberalism leaks from every spot.

There is a lot of things.See how liberals imagine things.

Supposedly, Congress have the power of war and Trump did not respect it. By liberal tenets, congress should fight to reclaim their power. This liberal says 'no' on the ground that bipartisanship would be damaging.

It is not the first time Trump has disrupted the usual way things are meant to work. How well has Congress opposed it? Not so well, very little effect.

But this time, this liberal imagines that an opposition from Congress to Trump could have any weight. When there is no evidence of it. This article is merely meant to provide the so called opposition with an importance it never had under Trump. The opposition is irrelevant under Trump. Trump merely dismisses it and the consequence is there is no risk in partisanship.

An even funnier piece is that on this board, people were told to dissociate the US from their government. You can not state the US but you must say the Trump administration.

As for an example, an opinion poll showing that US citizens oppose the war.

And now by the same channel, here's an article calling for rejection of partisanship on the issue of war against Iran. So most of representatives must support the war.

This liberal dude says that this war is good for the US but who else but WeThePeople is supposed to determine what is good for the US.

See how it works: you can not say the US because an opinion poll says US citizens are against it. Yet you can call for ending partisanship on this issue. US citizens are reported as against the war yet their representatives must be in favour of it.

It is very funny. Just like fascists, liberals respect nothing but power. Power is the only measure they acknowledge.

"But this is a job that needs to be done and if Europe won’t help, America has to do it on it’s own."

Where to start?

a) Why does he need help? He claims the war is won. Are you implying that he might be lying?

b) Bozo didn't give a single European "ally" a heads-up about this war, why should they get dragged into it when they weren't consulted and instead get regularly insulted by a clown?

c) Most European nations rely on NATO as a first recourse. As stated elsewhere, NATO only does defence, they don't join in on attacks against sovereign countries where no warning or reasons were provided. Not historically anyway.

d) When Bozo says to South Korea, China and Japan that they should come and help him protect "their" territory (apparently it's "theirs" because that's where they get their energy from), you have to question whether he's sane enough to hold his current position. That is what he's saying, right?

e) I'm not convinced this is a job that needed to be done and it sounds like the heads of Europe agree with me. This was all for Bozo, no-one else. Your Congress never got the opportunity to sanction this war. It's all on Bozo, no-one else.

The main battle is over, but there will forever be a war as long radical Islam remain...and it's almost impossible to curb that ...it helps a lot that their military power was all but destroyed.

Yes he was exaggerating when he said the war is done. Trump does this all the time and reverses himself without qualms. Some of the smarter guys on Wall Street may have deciphered all this, but start with the premise that his communications are often not to inform, but to gain a tactical advantage.

Focusing on the need for the war, there is no doubt things would be better in a week, a month a year if the war hadn’t been started. But in 10 years we would probably be dealing with an Iran with a bevy of action ready nuclear missiles….that’s five years after the Biden agreement sunsets.

So I come back to Boies’ point, the world can’t afford to have a rogue nation like Iran in the nuclear club,

As for your admiration for the German position Ronddha, consider Germany’s record. This is the country that started WW1 with help I’ll concede….then signed the worst peace treaty ever presented. Blew up their currency which introduced Hitler and his thugs. Totally capitulated to him. Decimated the unprepared Brits and Frogs and essentially controlled Europe. Was then stupid enough to open an impossibly huge second front in Russia, declared war on the US after doing that. Never booted the corporal, he topped himself. Endured half their capital city being controlled by communists for 45 years, only surviving because of America. Rebuilt themselves as an industrial power by exporting goods and then ensured they would have the most expensive energy in Europe by closing and dismantling their nuclear plants….just as AI was beginning to stir

Hint when the Germans adopt a political position the winning play is to adopt the opposite position,

I see . . . so if I understand correctly, you're saying that the German government of 80 years still has some bearing on the German political stance today?

It's not just Germany. It's also the powers that fought Germany 80 years ago refusing to be drawn into Bozo's war.

Nobody else wants a part of this, so you'll need to dig up historical dirt on more than just Germany . . . assuming their political position 80 years ago is pertinent to today's scenario . . . which any sensible person knows is not the case.

Mozart stop deflecting ... get a grip ffs.

The Germans are still ‘it’s our way or the highway’ people….and the Brits are still more cynical. The thing that’s changed is the stuff they are obdurate and cynical about. For the Germany it’s now Climate Change, not dominating the world.

Imagine 13 years ago beginning to close their nuclear plants and getting their energy from Russia. Incredibly committed and incredibly naive for a nation of brilliant people.

As somebody once said the Germans are either at your throat or at your feet.

Iran has become used to doing what they want and if they don't get their way they blackmail their way with threatening oil supply disruption....enough is enough .

I always liked the leg glance Blob in cricket and when a pretty girl walked by.

I am not really for any wars - but in this case of religious fanatics that they die as martyrs there are 72 virgens awaiting them if they die as martyrs, They will do anything an Ayatollaj tell them and make sure the people of Iran ges through a living hell.

The Ayatollah wants to estabish the 21st version of he Ottoman Empire, Suleman the Magnificent reigned ove, Gow large a art of Central and Southern European countries were part of that empire, If What the Ayatollah Regime have in mind Europe would colapsem

& now the Pakiistani & Afghans are going apeshit

They've been going apeshit for a while now.