The following is an edited transcript excerpt from The Michael Knowles Show.
* * *
You know you’ve gone too far in your Middle East bombing campaign when Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) tells you to cool your jets.
Sen. Graham — whom I like personally — has never seen a Middle Eastern country he didn’t want to bomb. He’s been beating the drum for war for a very, very long time.
That’s why it gives a lot of credibility to his criticism in his recent tweets on X:
Our allies in Israel have shown amazing capability when it comes to collapsing the murderous regime in Iran. America is most appreciative…
You can just sense there’s a “but” coming. And here it is:
However, there will be a day soon that the Iranian people will be in charge of their own fate, not the murderous Ayatollah regime. In that regard, please be cautious about what targets you select. Our goal is to liberate the Iranian people in a fashion that does not cripple their chance to start a new and better life when this regime collapses. The oil economy of Iran will be essential to that endeavor.
Our allies in Israel have shown amazing capability when it comes to collapsing the murderous regime in Iran. America is most appreciative.
However, there will be a day soon that the Iranian people will be in charge of their own fate, not the murderous ayatollah’s regime.
In…
— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) March 9, 2026
Source: @LindseyGrahamSC/X.com
For background, Graham’s statement comes after Axios published this article, which says:
Israel’s strikes on 30 Iranian fuel depots Saturday went far beyond what the U.S. expected when Israel notified it in advance, sparking the first significant disagreement between the allies since the war began eight days ago, according to a U.S. official, Israeli official and a source with knowledge.
Now, whenever the United States and Israel — or any two allies — are publicly disagreeing, there’s always the possibility that it’s partly a show. Sometimes governments signal disagreement publicly while coordinating privately. But this situation suggests otherwise. There may be a legitimate difference of opinion. Maybe a little tail wagging the dog here?
On its own, Lindsey Graham publicly rebuking Israel is notable. He’s a major, longtime supporter of Israel and a major supporter of regime change in Iran. He is not exactly shy about using the military. And he’s saying: guys, what are we doing here?
The reporting says the United States is worried this could backfire strategically. And those concerns highlight the stakes of the war.
My reaction from the beginning — when the possibility of war with Iran started circulating — has been that there are two very firm camps making overly simplistic arguments.
On one hand you have the pacifists who say war is never the answer, that there is never any place for war. That’s not a serious moral or political position.
On the other hand you have hardcore ideological neocon types — who say the United States has a moral duty to spread liberal democracy everywhere on earth. That’s also a very ideological view.
If you get rid of those two extremes, then there are the people in the middle where reasonable minds can disagree over the wisdom of the Iran campaign. That’s certainly where President Trump is. That’s certainly where I am and where I think most people are.
In the lead-up to the Iran war, when it became clear it was going to happen, I was asking people who were in the know — grand strategy types, diplomats — what do you think about this? Should we go to war in Iran? Should we not go to war in Iran?
And the most persuasive answer I heard was: Well, if we can do it quickly and successfully, then it would be good to change out the regime. But if we can’t, we shouldn’t.
So, I’ve said from the beginning, if I were on the National Security Council (NSC) — not that anyone invited me — but if I had been on the NSC, I would have made all the arguments I could against the Iran strike. Not based on any particular moral argument. I think there’s legal justification to go into Iran. Again, the government had more knowledge than I did when they launched the strike, but if they had asked me, based only on publicly available knowledge I would have said: Look, I don’t know that the threat from Iran is as grave as people are suggesting or as imminent. Also, I’m not confident that we can efficiently and effectively swap out the regime in Iran to get a more Western-friendly regime.
So because of those practical, prudential, pragmatic matters, I don’t know that it’s the right idea. But if you could convince me otherwise on those two points, then I would say, yes, it’s probably a good idea.
And these are the stakes here.
President Trump is taking a much more realistic view. This comes right out of his National Security Strategy that was released last November. President Trump clearly believes that he’s the guy to do it — that he can do it. He has great confidence in himself and in his foreign policy and in the people he’s empowered to efficiently get rid of the Iranian regime and build up a more pro-Western regime.
Similar to what he did in Venezuela. An operation free of global fallout, that will rebuff our enemies like China and Russia, and that will make America great again — that will help us on the world stage and give us a chance, after decades of decline in the American empire, to be great again.
He thinks he’s the guy who can do it. And maybe he is. He’s got a pretty good record so far.
The distinction between him and, say, George W. Bush when it comes to foreign policy would be: Bush wasn’t that good at it, and I am good at it.
But in order for that to work, things need to go perfectly. And that’s a really, really tall order in the best circumstances.
And in order for that to work, we need to not turn the Iranian people against us. We need to keep public sentiment against the Islamic regime and at least tolerating us, if not openly supportive of the United States, grateful for our mission.
And we need to make sure the country doesn’t become completely destabilized. Which means sometimes we need to rein in Israel — just like we would have to rein in any other ally if they got a little out of control.
That’s the point Lindsey Graham is making. That’s the point it seems the White House is making with the leak to Axios.
Those are the stakes.
As I’ve had to explain to friends who are deeply skeptical of the war in Iran — the quasi-isolationists — if this works, it will be the greatest foreign policy achievement of any president since the end of the Cold War. Take the Cold War off the table, and it may rank among the most significant foreign policy victories of the last eighty years.
But if this goes south, Trump’s legacy will look a lot like George W. Bush’s.
Those are the stakes.
Stakes so high that even Lindsey Graham is publicly signaling caution — urging Israel to rein it in. That alone tells you everything about how high they are.
Continue reading this exclusive article and join the conversation, plus watch free videos on DW+
Already a member?
