No foreign policy position defined Lindsey Graham's hawkishness more clearly than his stance on Iran.
Over two decades, he consistently argued that Iran's nuclear program posed an existential threat to American allies and regional stability, that diplomatic agreements were insufficient without verifiable dismantlement of Iran's enrichment capacity, and that military options needed to remain credibly on the table.
His Iran position was closely linked to his Israel advocacy — he viewed Iran's nuclear program primarily through the lens of its stated goal of destroying the Israeli state.
Opposition to the JCPOA (2015)
Graham was among the most vocal Senate opponents of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration with Iran, the European Union, and other major powers.
His objections were several: the deal did not require dismantlement of Iran's enrichment infrastructure, it sunset after fifteen years, it provided significant sanctions relief that he argued would fund Iran's regional activities, and it did not address Iran's ballistic missile program or its support for terrorist organizations.
He supported the Congressional Review Act process that attempted (unsuccessfully) to block the deal and was a consistent critic of its provisions throughout its implementation.
Support for Maximum Pressure (2018–2020)
When the Trump administration withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 and imposed the "maximum pressure" sanctions campaign,
Graham was an enthusiastic supporter. He argued it was the correct approach — economic strangulation to force a more comprehensive agreement. He pushed for additional sanctions targeting Iranian oil exports, banking access, and regime officials.
Calls for Military Action
Graham's position went further than most of his colleagues were willing to go: he repeatedly called for military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities if diplomacy failed.
He made these calls at multiple points over more than a decade — during both Republican and Democratic administrations — and did not retract them when they drew criticism.
His argument was consistent: Iran's leadership had demonstrated it could not be trusted to voluntarily give up nuclear capability, and a nuclear-armed Iran would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Middle East in ways that would cost far more to address after the fact than before.
He drew analogies to the 1981 Israeli strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor, which he characterized as a model of preemptive action that prevented a catastrophic outcome.
Critics' Response
Critics argued that military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities would trigger a broader regional war, would not permanently end Iran's nuclear program (since the knowledge cannot be destroyed, only the infrastructure), and would hand hardline Iranian factions exactly the external enemy they needed to suppress domestic opposition.
The debate over those competing assessments was never definitively resolved during Graham's lifetime.
His full record on military interventions and his broader political legacy provide the context for understanding how his Iran position fit into his overall worldview.
