Follow us on social

google cta
2021-03-25t000000z_1095822690_rc2him95eu6w_rtrmadp_3_iran-usa-senators-scaled

On Reagan and Russian jets, Lindsey Graham is wrong again

US foreign policy is 'in free fall' only to the degree that anyone in charge listens to hawks like the senior senator from South Carolina.

Analysis | Europe
google cta
google cta

On Tuesday, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told Fox News host Sean Hannity how he thought the United States should respond to a report that a Russian jet had collided with a U.S. drone sending it into the Black Sea.

It was typical Graham. “We should hold them accountable, and say that if you ever get near another U.S. jet flying in international waters, your airplane will be shot down,” Graham spat out, seemingly very eager to start World War III.

The reliably hawkish senator then behaved as if Ronald Reagan would have done the same. “What would Ronald Reagan do right now?” Graham asked. “He would start shooting Russian planes down if they were threatening our assets.” 

“American foreign policy is in free fall,” Graham insisted.

He was right about that last part. American foreign policy is in free fall, but only to the degree that anyone in charge listens to people with the foreign policy views of Lindsey Graham.

Regarding Reagan and Reaganism as it pertains to foreign policy, Clinton era neocon-friendly politicians and pundits have long tried to co-opt the former president to promote their own hawkish agendas. John "100 years in Iraq" McCain used to say he represented the party of Reagan over that peacenik Rand Paul. Just last week, after Florida Governor Ron DeSantis called the Ukraine conflict a “territorial dispute” that America shouldn’t be writing a blank check for, Liz Cheney shot back, “DeSantis is wrong and seems to have forgotten the lessons of Ronald Reagan.”

Perhaps it is Mrs. Cheney who has forgotten the lessons of Reagan.

Graham seems to have forgotten. Yes it is true that Reagan ordered airstrikes on Libya in 1986 but that was because he blamed the terrorist bombing of a German discotheque in which American soldiers were killed on Libyan president Muammar Qaddafi.

A head of state ordering a hit that killed and maimed many is slightly different than a downed drone, accidental or not.

But on Reagan’s specific policies toward Russia, his greatest foreign policy legacy was doing precisely what Graham and other hawks insist President Joe Biden never do — sit down with the Russian president and find diplomatic solutions. When Reagan first met with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985, Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich said it was “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

As hawks often do, Graham likes to brandish the Munich analogy too.

But Graham’s use of Reagan for his own apparent bloodlust is even more ridiculous than that. Whereas Graham seems eager to start a war with a major nuclear power, Reagan came to fear the prospect of nuclear armageddon and many attribute his willingness to hold diplomatic talks to that concern.

When 1983 movie "The Day After" premiered on prime time television, Reagan wrote in his diary on Oct. 10 1983, “I ran the tape of the movie ABC is running on the air on Nov. 20. It’s called The Day After. It has Lawrence, Kansas wiped out in a nuclear war with Russia. It is powerfully done, all $7 million worth.”

Reagan was reportedly depressed by the movie and some biographers believe it fueled his desire to end nuclear proliferation.

We can’t speak for a fact as to what Reagan would do in 2023 about a U.S. drone getting hit by an Russian jet, but it’s hard to imagine a president so afraid of nuclear escalation trying to start a nuclear war over it. That’s not something any Western leader, past or present, should be reckless and stupid — and odious! — enough to do. It’s something no sane member of Congress or U.S. senator should ever suggest America do.

Yet, here we are.


FILE PHOTO: Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) hold a news conference on the death of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi and the humanitarian crisis in Yemen on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., December 12, 2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File Photo
google cta
Analysis | Europe
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

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.