Follow us on social

google cta
Graham

Sadly, Graham's call for Putin's assassination is not his craziest moment

If this Republican had his way we'd be on the brink of WWIII at least a half a dozen times in the last decade.

Analysis | Europe
google cta
google cta

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested on Thursday that Russian President Vladimir Putin should be assassinated, tweeting, “the only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out. You would be doing your country — and the world — a great service.”

Condemnations came fast and furious from colleagues on both the hard left and far right in both parties.

Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar tweeted, “I really wish our members of Congress would cool it and regulate their remarks as the administration works to avoid WWIII. As the world pays attention to how the US and it’s leaders are responding, Lindsey’s remarks and remarks made by some House members aren’t helpful.”

“This is an exceptionally bad idea,” Republican Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted. “Use massive economic sanctions; BOYCOTT Russian oil & gas; and provide military aid so the Ukrainians can defend themselves.”

“But we should not be calling for the assassination of heads of state,” Cruz wrote.

Even Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene — who is often accused herself of being unhinged — said that Graham was off his rocker.

“While we are all praying for peace & for the people of Ukraine, this is irresponsible, dangerous & unhinged,” Greene tweeted. “We need leaders with calm minds & steady wisdom.”

“Not blood thirsty warmongering politicians trying to tweet tough by demanding assassinations,” she observed. “Americans don’t want war.”

These lawmakers are right to denounce Graham’s reckless foreign policy rhetoric, but this is sadly nothing new for the Senator. 

In 2013, Graham said the U.S’s failure to strike Syria would mean America would get nuked.

“I believe that if we get Syria wrong, within six months — and you can quote me on this— there will be a war between Iran and Israel over their nuclear program,” Graham told a gathering of supporters in September 2013, according to U.S. News and World Report.

“It won’t come to America on top of a missile, it’ll come in the belly of a ship in the Charleston or New York harbor,” he added.

Luckily, the U.S. did not get into the kind of war Graham wanted with Syria, nor have nuclear weapons yet been detonated on American soil by a foreign power.

Reacting to the foreign policy portions of Obama’s 2014 State of the Union, Graham said, “The world is literally about to blow up” because in his view, Obama wasn’t being aggressive enough toward Iran and Syria.

To date, the world has not blown up, though Ukrainians at the moment might understandably disagree with this statement.

At the same time former Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned in 2012 that, “the results of an American or Israeli military strike on Iran could, in my view, prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world,” Graham was actively gunning for airstrikes and more. Later on, always eager for war, Graham was ready to send 20,000 U.S. troops to Syria and Iraq in 2015 to combat the Islamic State.

Just after his 2017 inauguration, President Donald Trump accused Sens. Graham and the late John McCain of “always looking to start WWIII.” Later on in August of 2017, raising the fear that the North Koreans could hit the U.S. with a nuclear missile, Graham told the Today Show, “there is a military option: to destroy North Korea’s nuclear program and North Korea itself.” 

He then added bits of conversation he supposedly got from a private conversation with Trump. “If there’s going to be a war to stop him, it will be over there…If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die over here — and he’s told me that to my face.” 

Two years later, Graham characteristically accused Trump of “weakness” for calling off a U.S. airstrike on Iran in 2019.

No one should be surprised when Lindsey Graham says crazy things. He has done it for years and will do it again, no matter how dangerous it is for U.S. national security.


New York, NY - April 29, 2018: US Senator Lindsey Graham speaks during 7th Annual Jerusalem Post Conference at Marriott Marquis Hotel (Shutterstock/Lev Radin)
google cta
Analysis | Europe
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi 首相官邸 (Cabinet Public Affairs Office)

Takaichi 101: How to torpedo relations with China in a month

Asia-Pacific

On November 7, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi stated that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could undoubtedly be “a situation that threatens Japan’s survival,” thereby implying that Tokyo could respond by dispatching Self-Defense Forces.

This statement triggered the worst crisis in Sino-Japanese relations in over a decade because it reflected a transformation in Japan’s security policy discourse, defense posture, and U.S.-Japan defense cooperation in recent years. Understanding this transformation requires dissecting the context as well as content of Takaichi’s parliamentary remarks.

keep readingShow less
Starmer, Macron, Merz G7
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Keir Starmer meets Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and António Costa, President of the European Council at the G7 world leaders summit in Kananaskis, June 15, 2025. Picture by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street

The Europeans pushing the NATO poison pill

Europe

The recent flurry of diplomatic activity surrounding Ukraine has revealed a stark transatlantic divide. While high level American and Ukrainian officials have been negotiating the U.S. peace plan in Geneva, European powers have been scrambling to influence a process from which they risk being sidelined.

While Europe has to be eventually involved in a settlement of the biggest war on its territory after World War II, so far it’s been acting more like a spoiler than a constructive player.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig
Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Saudi leans in hard to get UAE out of Sudan civil war

Middle East

As Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), swept through Washington last week, the agenda was predictably packed with deals: a trillion-dollar investment pledge, access to advanced F-35 fighter jets, and coveted American AI technology dominated the headlines. Yet tucked within these transactions was a significant development for the civil war in Sudan.

Speaking at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum President Donald Trump said that Sudan “was not on my charts,” viewing the conflict as “just something that was crazy and out of control” until the Saudi leader pressed the issue. “His majesty would like me to do something very powerful having to do with Sudan,” Trump recounted, adding that MBS framed it as an opportunity for greatness.

The crown prince’s intervention highlights a crucial new reality that the path to peace, or continued war, in Sudan now runs even more directly through the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The fate of Sudan is being forged in the Gulf, and its future will be decided by which side has more sway in Trump’s White House.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.