Transcript:Once upon a time, America, albeit for a millisecond, saw South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham strap on a pair and condemn the tyranny of Donald Trump. On the night of January 6, 2021, hours after a violent mob breached the U. S. Capitol at Trump’s behest, Graham took to the Senate floor to deliver a rebuke of Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election.“Count me out!” he thundered. “Enough is enough!” he roared. And most of us said, “Was that Lindsey Graham?” Two days later, he spent four hours with Trump and soon after was calling fellow senators to urge them not to impeach. The rest, they say, is history, and in this case, speculation that Trump knows something about Graham’s history or has something on him that keeps the lapdog South Carolina senator barking on his behalf. That conjecture, of course, is that Trump has a hold on Graham’s voters. That said, there’s something deeply strange about Graham and his vicious fits of outbursts around the war with Iran that beg the question, “Why are you so angry, Lindsey?”Since the United States launched military strikes against Iran, the senior senator from South Carolina has been practically giddy, like a boy who fawns over the muscles and ruggedness of his G. I. Joe doll. Graham has been popping up everywhere, that is, Fox News, press conferences, television studios, and Sean Hannity’s podcast, radiating a kind of frantic, over-the-top machismo that is rivaling the “warrior ethos” of Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth. Graham has declared the war the “most significant thing that’s happened in the Mideast in a thousand years.” I guess the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire following World War I was just a dust storm? He called Iran’s leadership “religious Nazis” and compared the conflict to a “21st Century Berlin Wall moment.” Is he comparing Ronald Reagan’s soaring words, “Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” to Trump’s taunting, “Watch what happens to these deranged scumbags?”He told Fox News the U. S. is going to “make a ton of money” once the Iranian regime falls, because apparently we’re treating the destruction of a nation and the possible humanitarian crisis of displacing 90 million people as a cash cow. The war costs an estimated 1 billion dollars per day, we’re told. Graham has essentially been touting it as money well spent and a good investment. Sure sounds like America First. To him, it’s better than helping those who lost their health insurance or face sky-high premiums with their bills. Then, casually, he mentioned he’d be going back to South Carolina to ask constituents to “send their sons and daughters” to the Middle East. Someone else’s sons and daughters. Never his own, because he doesn’t have any children, and he has absolutely no earthly idea what a horror it is for parents to send their children into a war, especially one that was started for no good reason. This is Graham’s usual pathetic posturing. He’s a man who has spent decades desperately wanting to be perceived as something he is not. While Hegseth talks tough and aggressively, motor-mouthing lethal force, Graham seems to have found his own real-life G. I. Joe doll to slather over. But why? Graham has been in Washington since 1995 and cultivated a reputation as a foreign policy hawk, primarily as the late Senator John McCain’s moderate sidekick. Palling around with the manly McCain, who actually fought, was wounded and imprisoned in a war, made Graham feel like a Beltway tough guy. The man who would ostensibly bomb anyone, anytime, anywhere. Graham was all about “warrior ethos” before there was such a thing as “warrior ethos.”The transformation from the occasional voice of Senate moderation to full-throated, whacked-out warmonger was complete somewhere around 2016, and it has only accelerated since. The more Trump screws up, the more Graham “man’s up” for Trump. What’s revealing isn’t just what Graham says. it’s also how he operates. Reporting from the Wall Street Journal detailed how Graham worked behind the scenes to drag a reluctant Trump into this war. According to the reporting, he coached Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on how to pitch Trump, specifically how to appeal to him by telling the stable genius how he could “make history.” Graham started lobbying Trump on the golf course shortly after the 2024 election, arguing that obliterating Iran’s nuclear facilities was the president’s “moment to shine.”The Journal also reported that he coordinated a media campaign with retired General Jack Keane and columnist Marc Thiessen, designing television appearances and op-eds to capture Trump’s attention and make, as reports describe it, the “bait irresistible.”When it comes to being “irresistible,” Graham apparently hasn’t learned how to do the same in his personal life. But I digress. Graham also admitted to visiting Israel to meet with intelligence officials, boasting that “they’ll tell me things our own government won’t tell me,” which he then used to strengthen his case to the White House. Mmm, one wonders how the story of a heroic and conquering Graham, who secret agents confide in with their biggest state secrets, ended up as front-page news in the Wall Street Journal? Oh, what the wildly insecure, emasculated Lindsey Graham wouldn’t do to feel important and be one of the boys. Why, Lindsey, do you need this so badly? The man represents a state with 5.3 million people, a state with real problems: poverty, healthcare access, crumbling infrastructure. Instead, he’s out playing war-mongering warlord, channeling his inner G. I. Joe on Fox News, asking other people’s children to bleed in the desert while he licks his chapped lips about the investment returns of death and destruction. It’s all the fantasies of a lonely, double-chinned old man who wants so badly to be treated like a man by hobnobbing with the young, chiseled jaws of military might. Lindsey Graham wants to be seen as a war hawk because he thinks it makes him look powerful. What it actually makes him look like is someone who has never quite grown up, still playing with his G. I. Joe doll, only this time doing so by putting other people’s precious lives at risk.Our Analysis:The Curious Case of Lindsey Graham: Between Power, Perception, and PolicyIn dissecting the swirling narrative around Senator Lindsey Graham, a figure tinged with controversy and contradiction, it's imperative to peel back the layers of political maneuvering, personal ambition, and the broader implications of his actions on both domestic and international stages. The article in question paints a vivid picture of Graham's transformation from a voice of moderation to a war-mongering hawk, particularly in the context of U. S. relations with Iran. To navigate these waters, we must distinguish between institutional power, decision-making, and the potential misdirection of responsibility.Institutional Power and Decision-MakingAt the heart of this analysis is understanding the institutional power at play. As a U. S. Senator, Lindsey Graham holds significant sway, particularly in matters of foreign policy given his tenure and positions on key committees. However, it's crucial to differentiate between the senator's influential capacity and the executive branch's ultimate authority in deploying military action. The President, advised by the Secretary of Defense and other key figures, holds the reins to military operations. Therefore, while Graham may advocate for certain actions, the decision to engage militarily with Iran rests with the executive branch.Graham's Role and Influence: Graham's actions, as described, suggest a concerted effort to shape U. S. policy towards Iran. His advocacy for military strikes, coordination with foreign leaders, and media campaigns to sway public and presidential opinion highlight a strategic use of his platform. Yet, these actions, no matter how fervent, do not equate to unilateral decision-making power over U. S. military actions.Misdirection of Responsibility?: The article’s framing implies Graham’s hawkish stance and behind-the-scenes maneuvering bear a significant responsibility for the U. S.’s aggressive posture towards Iran. While his influence is undeniable, attributing the entirety of the U. S.'s military decisions to Graham overlooks the broader institutional mechanisms and the executive's central role in such matters. It's a convenient scapegoat that simplifies the complex interplay of national security decision-making.The Personal and the PoliticalGraham's personal transformation, as depicted, from a moderate voice to a staunch advocate for military intervention, raises questions about the motivations behind his political evolution. The speculation around his relationship with President Trump and the implications for his policy positions underscore a broader narrative of political survival and adaptation. Yet, the personal motivations, while fascinating and perhaps even telling, do not absolve or fully explain the institutional dynamics at play.Why the Focus on Graham?: Focusing on Graham's personal ambitions and perceived need for validation might offer insight into his character but risks overshadowing the systemic issues that enable and perpetuate aggressive foreign policies. It's an easy narrative that personalizes complex policy debates, potentially diverting attention from the collective responsibility of the U. S. government and its branches.Conclusion: Beyond the Man, the SystemIn the final analysis, while Lindsey Graham's actions and motivations warrant scrutiny, it's critical not to mistake his part in the chorus for the sole voice driving the narrative. The institutional power dynamics, the executive branch's primacy in military engagements, and the broader context of U. S. foreign policy ambitions provide a more comprehensive understanding of the situation.The article's focus on Graham, though not without merit, leans into a narrative that may oversimplify and misdirect. It's a reminder that in the intricate dance of power, perception, and policy, focusing solely on individual actors risks missing the systemic structures and decisions that shape our world. In holding figures like Graham accountable, let's not lose sight of the institutional and executive powers that ultimately dictate the course of action.s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com