Past presidents claimed Iran couldn’t have nuclear weapons — Trump is the only one to take action

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, 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.

We tried it all

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 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 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.

History lesson

Many Republicans supported 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.

Come together

Republicans, including 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 Trump but who recognize the threat Iran poses need to support the military action not because we owe anything to Trump but because we owe it to ourselves, our country and our children.

If we opposed the war and succeeded in pressuring 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 Clinton, Obama or 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 Trump as president.

David Boies is a founding partner of the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner. From The Wall Street Journal.