The Graham Doctrine: How an unofficial envoy steered the US toward war with Iran

For nearly two decades, Senator Lindsey Graham’s warnings regarding Iran were a fixture of the Washington landscape, yet often relegated to the sidelines of actual policy execution.

The South Carolina Republican frequently termed the ayatollahs “religious Nazis” and staunchly maintained that diplomacy was ineffective, arguing that the clerical regime in Tehran only respected force. For years, these pronouncements, though consistent, rarely dictated the official direction of national security command.

That paradigm shifted dramatically on a golf course in West Palm Beach.

The military action now known as “Operation Epic Fury,” which commenced on February 28, was the culmination of several converging factors. Sources indicate aggressive lobbying by Israeli officials played a role, alongside the psychological impact on the administration following the capture of Nicolás Maduro in January, which reportedly left President Donald Trump in a confrontational stance.

However, multiple sources confirm that the most persistent and effective voice urging military action belonged to Senator Graham.

Graham’s central argument, articulated during rounds of golf and reinforced in numerous transition-period phone calls, was that Iran acted as a comprehensive “spoiler” for the administration’s core Middle East ambitions. This included the expansion of the Abraham Accords, the normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia, and the president's overall historical legacy in the region.

According to reports, Graham told the president that successfully engineering the collapse of the regime would be a historical achievement on par with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

President Trump, whose second term has seen an accumulation of military interventions outpacing several predecessors, was ultimately persuaded by this persistence. At the end of February, American and Israeli warplanes executed strikes on Iranian military installations, including, significantly, a compound in Tehran during a meeting of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and senior military commanders.

The execution of Operation Epic Fury highlights a remarkable dynamic in modern American foreign policy: a single U.S. senator, holding no formal position in the chain of military command, operated as one of the primary architects of the most consequential U.S. military action in decades.

Lindsey Graham - The mothership of terrorism is sinking

While Graham’s hawkish stance is not new, his recent level of influence is distinct. He has spent thirty years in Congress, leveraging his time to build deep relationships and institutional knowledge. In the early 2000s, he was known as one of the “three amigos” alongside Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, a bipartisan trio that traveled extensively and shaped national security debates. His frequent meetings with foreign leaders have led many to view him as an unofficial diplomatic envoy.

Observers note, however, that institutional standing alone does not explain his role in the recent escalation. The determining factor appears to be unprecedented access.

While other senators, even those on relevant committees, often waited for formal briefings, Graham maintained direct access via social and informal settings. He frequently played golf with the president, visited the Oval Office, and traveled on Air Force One. Sources familiar with these interactions suggest Graham used this proximity to frame the strategic choices in terms resonant with the president, often contrasting dynamic action against mere rhetoric.

Graham also engaged in extensive personal diplomacy, traveling to Israel to meet with intelligence officials. There, he reportedly advised Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on the most effective methods for presenting intelligence to the Trump administration. Additionally, he flew to Saudi Arabia specifically to brief Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that an attack was imminent.

With the operation now underway, Senator Graham has shifted his focus to advocating for a specific post-conflict vision. In multiple television appearances and interviews following the strikes, Graham has outlined an optimistic cascade of events he believes will follow.

In this scenario, the fall of the Iranian regime immediately weakens its proxies—Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Subsequently, Saudi Arabia, no longer facing intimidation from Tehran, is projected to formalize relations with Israel, potentially resolving the generational Arab-Israeli conflict.

However, when pressed on the specific mechanisms for this transformation, Graham has shown impatience. “The future of Iran is going to be determined by the Iranian people,” he told NBC’s Kristen Welker when asked about the existence of a concrete administration plan. “No, it’s not his [President Trump’s] job or my job to do this.”

This vision has drawn criticism from analysts who describe it as detached from the historical complexities of regime change. Reports indicate Graham likened Iran’s leadership to Adolf Hitler, suggesting the country was in a historically weak position.

Critics point out that the comparison overlooks the massive cost of defeating Nazism, which required years of total war, occupation, and the subsequent multi-billion-dollar investment of the Marshall Plan, alongside a decades-long U.S. military presence in Europe—a commitment neither Graham nor the current administration has shown interest in replicating in Iran.

Furthermore, reports from the region suggest the assumption that the Islamic Republic is on the brink of collapse may be oversimplified. The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) remains intact, heavily armed, and has already begun retaliatory strikes against American bases and civilian infrastructure across the Gulf.

The regime also demonstrated administrative continuity by swiftly naming Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the late Ayatollah, as the new Supreme Leader within a week of his father’s death. These actions suggest a consolidation of power rather than an immediate collapse.

The political landscape among the Iranian population is similarly complex. While some citizens reportedly celebrated the strike against Khamenei, others harbor deep resentment toward the foreign intervention. Opposition groups in exile, including monarchist circles favored by Graham, appear to have limited traction inside the country.

Crucially, President Trump has indicated he does not fully endorse Graham’s long-term vision for a transformed, democratic Iran. When asked by CNN if he would insist on a democratic successor state, Trump replied, “I don’t mind religious leaders. I deal with a lot of religious leaders, and they are fantastic.”

For Graham, who has framed the conflict as a struggle against “radical Islamic terrorist” oppressors, the president's apparent indifference to the nature of the future regime presents a significant policy divergence.

The regional impact also challenges Graham’s assumptions. The premise that Saudi Arabia will immediately normalize relations with Israel overlooks the consistent Saudi demand for a credible political path for Palestinians—a condition intensified by two years of war in Gaza.

Currently, signs suggest the Abraham Accords may be a primary target for retaliation. Bahrain and the UAE, the Gulf signatories, have been significantly affected by Iranian counter-strikes. Prominent UAE figure Khalaf al-Habtoor, initially a strong supporter of normalization, published an open letter directly addressing President Trump on the platform X, condemning the escalation. “Did you consider that the first to suffer from this escalation will be the countries of the region itself?” al-Habtoor wrote.

The reaction from figures like al-Habtoor reflects a sense of frustration among Gulf elites who feel drawn into a wider conflict. This atmosphere appears counterproductive to immediate diplomatic expansion.

Ultimately, Lindsey Graham’s long-advocated conflict has materialized. The critical aspect of this dynamic is not merely that a senator engaged in high-stakes lobbying but that this unofficial advocacy successfully steered the execution of U.S. military power. As Graham insists the future is now in the hands of the Iranian people, Washington is left to navigate a complex, uncertain aftermath without a clearly defined plan.