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
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?
Top image credit: Sens. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) sit look on during a congressional hearing in January, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA)

Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?

Washington Politics

On Wednesday, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) told CNN that he would support new funding for the U.S. war with Iran — but only if Israel and Arab Gulf states help pay for it.

“We’re using our taxpayer money to protect those countries,” Gallego said. “We’re using our men to protect these countries. They need to throw in and have skin in the game too.”

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.