TEHRAN- Senior American Senator Lindsey Graham’s calls for the assassination of a head of state, Russian President Vladimir Putin, has sparked widespread condemnation and reflects another example of Washington’s failure to adhere to the rules of law within the international community. 

Yes, the White House tried to distance itself from the remarks made by the South Carolina Senator saying they do not reflect the position of the United States. 

And yes, some congress members did come out and criticize Lindsey Graham’s remarks. The problem is that his statements do represent American foreign policy. 

Graham, who is widely viewed as an influential Senator within the Republican Party on military and foreign-policy matters, made public what many senators and American foreign policymakers think privately. 

Speaking to American media, Graham  called for a hit job on a sovereign independent head of state saying "I'm hoping someone in Russia will understand ... you need to take this guy out back any means possible.”

The hawkish Senator carried on with his threatening rhetoric, telling American media that Russians must “rise up and take [Putin] down.”

He also carried on his intimidating statements on social media platforms, making similar calls against the Russian President. Another question here of course is can you actually intimate the Russian President? That’s an issue for another day. 

The Senator’s statements also reflect the inability of the United States to think, act and behave rationally at times of crisis. 

As the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov put it “unfortunately, in such an extremely tense atmosphere, and even more so in countries such as the United States, a hysterical Russophobic fit is being whipped up. These days, not everyone manages to maintain sobriety, I would even say sanity, and many lose their mind.”

The Russian ambassador to the U.S.,  Anatoly Antonov, denounced Graham’s remarks as “unacceptable” and “outrageous”, saying the degree of "Russophobia and hatred in the U.S. towards Russia was off the charts.” 

In a statement posted on the embassy’s social media platforms, Antonov said “It is impossible to believe that a senator of a country that promotes its moral values as a ‘guiding star’ for all mankind could afford to call for terrorism as a way to achieve Washington’s goals in the international arena.”

Washington’s assassination of anti-imperialist figures and independent leaders hasn’t been off America’s foreign policy agenda. 

In the 1960s, the U.S. government put together several attempts and plans to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro using various methods such as exploding cigars, murderous mobsters, an exploding seashell, and the infamous poison pen.

Also in the 1960s, many political figures inside the U.S. itself were assassinated, including one of history’s most iconic black civil rights leaders Dr. Martin Luther King as well as another very iconic black civil rights leader Malcom X. 

After the murder of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy which shocked America, successive President’s claimed enough was enough and signed executive orders prohibiting the “use of assassinations as a tactic of American operatives.”

Unfortunately, American executive orders are not worth the paper they are written on. 

There are also terrorist leaders who worked hand in hand with Washington and were later assassinated by U.S. Special Forces instead of being captured and put on trial. Critics argue taking these individuals for instance, Osama Bin Laden, to an independent International tribunal would have exposed the level of coordination with leaders of the now many terror groups. 

Over the years, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, another sovereign head of state survived multiple American-backed attempts on his life. 
 
As lately as January 2020, the U.S. carried out the assassination of Iran’s top military commander General Qassem Soleimani and the highest-ranking military commander in Iraq Abu Mehdi al-Muhandis with drone strikes in the vicinity of Baghdad International Airport under the direct order of former President Donald Trump.

The United Nations declared the U.S. drone strikes against the late Iranian anti-terror war hero as “unlawful” and an “arbitrary killing” that violated the UN charter.

Again, that hasn’t stopped American senators such as Lindsey Graham from adding fuel to the fire in Ukraine by openly calling for the killing of President Putin. 

Some congress members have hit back at the Republican Senator which critics say is aimed at distancing America from any involvement in the Ukraine conflict, which the U.S. and it’s NATO partners sparked in the first place. 

Representative IIhan Omar wrote, “I really wish our members of Congress would cool it and regulate their remarks.”

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene said, “this is irresponsible, dangerous & unhinged.”

Representative Matt Gaetz wrote, “When has Sen. Graham encouraging regime change ever ended badly?”

Even Texas Senator Ted Cruz noted, “this is an exceptionally bad idea, use massive economic sanctions; BOYCOTT Russian oil & gas; provide military aid so the Ukrainians can defend themselves.”

The problem with Cruz’s thought process is that Ukraine has lashed out at the U.S.-led NATO alliance for abandoning Kyiv. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has chastised the bloc for its refusal to establish a no-fly zone over the country amid the ongoing Russian offensive that hit Ukraine last week.

Zelensky, in a videotaped address, told America and it’s NATO allies that “people will die because of you” in the country.

He said “NATO knowingly approved the decision not to close the skies over Ukraine. We believe that the NATO countries themselves have created a narrative that the alleged closing of the sky over Ukraine will provoke direct Russian aggression against NATO”.

He also slammed the lack of aid from the alliance, saying that it has only managed to authorize a small fuel delivery for the country. While Ukraine has been recognized as a special “partner” of the alliance, NATO has repeatedly reminded the Ukrainian President that it would not go into a war with Russia for the sake of his country.

Zelensky says “all that the [NATO] alliance could do today was to allocate some 50 tons of diesel fuel for Ukraine through its procurement system.”

He also lashed out at the latest NATO meeting saying "today there was a NATO summit, a weak summit, a confused summit, a summit where it was clear that not everyone considers the battle for Europe's freedom to be the number one goal," Zelensky said

A similar statement has been made by the Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, who said the ongoing conflict has exposed NATO’s “weakness.”

Speaking to Ukrainian media, Kuleba said “before the war, Ukrainian people believed that NATO was strong, while the EU was weak and indecisive. And after the war began, the people saw that the opposite was true.”

The top Ukrainian diplomat also claims that the European Union “gave us a candidate status and prospects of membership, while NATO could not decide on anything.” 

The reality is that Ukraine has not been given an EU candidate status, because a country needs to live up to certain conditions before attaining such a status.

The EU Parliament has only passed a non-binding resolution that states it would welcome Kyiv’s membership application. 

It’s actually not quite a difficult process to both enter or leaves the EU as Turkey and Britain found out. 

The Belarusian President, meanwhile, pointed out that the U.S. and its Western allies want to prolong the conflict.

Alexander Lukashenko says “all of [NATO & EU] keep shouting about ending war in Ukraine. In public, but what they need there is war, the more of it, the better. In order to drown Russia and us, too, in that war”.

Lukashenko also says that the West is not allowing “Ukraine to make a move” to end the conflict.