To the Editor:
Re “Trump Wins Iowa in Key First Step Toward Rematch” (entrance web page, Jan. 16):
Should you weren’t scared earlier than Monday evening’s Iowa caucuses, you need to be terrified now. The disgraced, twice-impeached, quadruple-indicted former president got here inside one vote of successful all 99 of Iowa’s counties, and acquired 51 p.c of the vote.
Ron DeSantis got here in a distant second with 21 p.c of the vote, and Nikki Haley was a distant third with simply 19 p.c of the vote.
The bid for the Republican nomination for president is all however over, leaving America with a horrible selection between the autocratic and terrible former president, and the clearly too outdated and frail present president.
Except Ms. Haley can win convincingly in New Hampshire, and match Donald Trump in South Carolina, the previous president would be the nominee.
Mr. Trump’s reputation appears to rise in direct proportion to his ever-growing authorized woes. He makes use of every courtroom case to boost extra money and additional enrage his core supporters.
This was a extremely dangerous evening for all People, Democrats and Republicans alike. It’s laborious to consider, however consider we should, that the specter of one other Trump presidency is perilously actual.
Henry A. Lowenstein
New York
To the Editor:
“Is this heaven?”
“No, it’s Iowa.”
Iowans of all stripes took provincial satisfaction in these iconic strains from the movie “Field of Dreams.” However so much has modified right here since that film was launched in 1989. A state with a distinguished pedigree in fields like civil rights and schooling has steadily darkened politically, from bright purple to deep red.
Monday was a chilly day in heaven, and I’m not speaking in regards to the frigid climate situations. A cult chief ran away with the nation’s first contest within the G.O.P. presidential nomination derby, setting an ominous tone for the remainder of this most vital of election years. Democracy, our very method of civic life, is imperiled.
I can see the sequel now. In “Field of Nightmares,” when the outdated ghost strolls out of the cornfield, he’ll go searching and say, “I thought this was heaven.” And the response shall be, “There was a time.”
Michael Wellman
Des Moines
To the Editor:
Donald Trump received the Iowa caucuses by a dominant margin, commandeering simply over 50 p.c of the votes. His nearest competitor was nearly 30 proportion factors behind him. It’s absolutely an indication that he’s the overwhelming favourite, even the prohibitive favourite, to win the Republican presidential nomination.
However issues are usually not as rosy for Mr. Trump as it’d first seem. It’s additionally a reality that just about half of the Iowan citizens rejected the previous president in favor of one other candidate. This can be interpreted as an indication that he’s not as pervasively common in his personal get together as he would really like us to consider. It’s also an indication of potential vulnerability within the normal election.
That is absolutely music to the ears of President Biden and his supporters.
Ken Derow
Swarthmore, Pa.
To the Editor:
With former President Donald Trump’s landslide victory within the Iowa Republican caucuses, President Biden and his working mate, Kamala Harris, shouldn’t be shocked after they develop into the following Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro within the 2024 election.
David Tulanian
Henderson, Nev.
To the Editor:
The Iowa outcomes weren’t nice for individuals who would like that Donald Trump not win the election. Then again, 49 p.c of the caucus voters did not vote for him. The climate was excessive. One could need to suppose that Mr. Trump’s nice followers confirmed up in a better proportion.
Subsequently it is probably not within the bag for Mr. Trump if one of many opponents chooses to drop out. However will they? Their ego could also be in the best way.
To the Editor:
Re “Prospect of a Rematch of Biden-Trump Causes Young Voters to Retreat” (information article, Jan. 7):
Some younger voters want reminding that choosing between the lesser of two evils is just not new in American democracy. ’Twas ever thus.
The election is just not about you, not about your conscience, not about your best candidate. It’s in regards to the one candidate of the 2 who shall be finest for the nation.
Deciding to not vote as a result of the candidates aren’t completely in keeping with your personal needs is puerile, egocentric and anti-democratic.
Simply vote.
Helen Nicholas
Oakland, Calif.
U.S. Strikes in Yemen
To the Editor:
Re “The Necessary Risk of America’s Military Strikes in Yemen,” by Bilal Y. Saab (Opinion visitor essay, nytimes.com, Jan. 13):
Mr. Saab argues that the US didn’t have a lot of a selection however to strike Houthi land targets in Yemen. The Purple Sea, he writes, is just too essential to the world’s provide chains for a ragtag insurgent group to carry it hostage.
We are able to debate whether or not the U.S. and its British allies made the best resolution, nevertheless it’s largely a tutorial query now. The extra essential one to ask is: What now?
Through the use of navy pressure in opposition to the Houthis to degrade their skill to assault service provider vessels, the Biden administration has now backed itself right into a nook. Whereas the strikes will clearly have a short-term impact on Houthi drone and missile capabilities, it’s troublesome to examine deterrence holding over the long run.
The group has fought numerous wars over the past 20 years, together with in opposition to a Saudi-backed navy coalition, and emerged stronger in spite of everything of them by outlasting its opponents.
Quite a lot of anti-ship missiles have been fired toward Red Sea shipping lanes because the U.S. and British strikes, which means that the Houthis are nonetheless wedded to their place of holding ships in danger till Israel both ends the warfare in Gaza or drastically steps up humanitarian provides there.
The Biden administration is now confronted with an unenviable selection: Take extra navy motion after every Houthi assault, or maintain your fireplace. The primary will increase the prospects of escalation, which the U.S. needs to be avoiding. The second will make the U.S. look confused and disjointed.
Ideally, U.S. officers would have thought via these dynamics earlier than the preliminary order to strike. Sadly, the emotional urge to “do something” appears to have trumped a chilly cost-benefit evaluation.
Daniel R. DePetris
New Rochelle, N.Y.
The author is a fellow at Protection Priorities, a overseas coverage suppose tank based mostly in Washington.
The Genocide Expenses In opposition to Israel
To the Editor:
Re “The Case Against Israel Is Strong,” by Megan Ok. Stack (Opinion visitor essay, Jan. 14):
Ms. Stack’s essay describes the destructiveness — when it comes to lives and infrastructure — of Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 assault by Hamas, however does little to show the frivolous declare of genocide.
No matter inflammatory and appalling statements by some members of Israel’s political management, the precise conduct of the warfare exhibits that an intent on genocide is certainly meritless. Israel’s navy drops leaflets to warn civilians of doubtless harmful areas, it calls civilians asking them to evacuate earlier than strikes, and it permits some meals, water and gasoline for civilian use, amongst different measures. International locations trying genocide wouldn’t do these issues.
South Africa’s cost of genocide, and Ms. Stack’s protection of that cost, cheapen the which means of the phrase by complicated what could quantity to potential warfare crimes — sadly widespread in conflicts — with precise makes an attempt to wipe a set of individuals off the map.
There are truthful arguments to be made relating to the legality underneath worldwide regulation of Israel’s mode of response, however the cost of genocide is a step too far.
Benjamin Davidoff
New York
