Lindsey Graham's relentless confrontational stance

For a brief moment, the headline about Lindsey Graham's commentary on CNN's "State of the Union" had me thinking he had flipped his usual foreign policy stance of all-confrontation, all the time.    The HuffPost headline read:  "Lindsey Graham Urges Discussions With Iran On Iraq."

He did say, "You just sit down and talk with them."   His interviewer, Dana Bash, was also taken aback and asked him to repeat it.  "I'm sorry, it's sort of hard for me to believe that I'm hearing a Republican say, 'Sit down and talk with Iran,'" she said.  

Not to worry, War Hawks.   Little Boy Lindsey hasn't gone ga-ga on us.  Here's the larger version of what he said: 

"We should have discussions with Iran to make sure they don't use this as an opportunity to seize control of parts of Iraq. . . . They're already on the ground. We need to put a red line with Iran" . . . .

"If Baghdad falls and the central government collapses in Iraq, the Iranians are the biggest winner. We're the biggest loser. . . ."We should be the ones who save Baghdad . . . .  to ignore Iran and not tell them, 'Don't take advantage of this situation' would be a mistake."

OK.  So his idea of "talking with" them is to issue a threat and an ultimatum, not to discuss a way to cooperate to keep our mutual enemy terrorist organization from taking over.

Well, at least we don't have to worry about Lindsey Graham "going wobbly," to quote what that crusty old hawk Margaret Thatcher once said to Ronald Reagen when he hesitated on a hawkish position she wanted him to back.

But -- let's think another moment.    For Lindsey Graham even to utter the words "sit down and talk" in the same sentence with "Iran," is actually quite stunning.  We would more expect him to be calling for airstrikes on their forces.    So maybe there is something going on in that head of his, now that he survived his primary challenge from the Tea Party.

Ralph