Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is taking personal responsibility for one of the most consequential foreign policy decisions in recent memory, telling former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly that he should be blamed if the U.S. operation against Iran does not succeed.
Appearing Thursday on “We’ll Do It Live!,” Graham expressed confidence in the outcome of Operation Epic Fury but did not shy away from accountability. “Yes. If we’re not, blame me ’cause I deserve blame,” Graham said when asked whether the operation would be successful. “If we’re not successful, you can blame me because nobody has advocated to take on this Iranian regime more forcefully than me.”
The comments reflect Graham’s long-standing hawkish stance on Iran, which has drawn both support and criticism, particularly as the conflict unfolds and its consequences ripple back home. The United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury on Feb. 28, a campaign that resulted in the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dozens of senior leaders.
Graham had been laying the groundwork for such a confrontation months earlier. In January, he issued a stark warning to Iran’s leadership during an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” suggesting that President Donald Trump would take lethal action if Iranian authorities continued violent crackdowns on protesters. He also openly pushed for regime change, describing it as a historic turning point for the Middle East.
“Change is coming to Iran,” Graham said at the time. “It’ll be the biggest change in the history of the [Middle] East to get rid of this Nazi regime.”
But that aggressive posture has not gone unchallenged, even among conservatives. SiriusXM host Megyn Kelly voiced strong concerns during a January interview with Tucker Carlson, criticizing Graham’s rhetoric and the broader push toward conflict.
“What Lindsey Graham stands for is deeply disturbing to me,” Kelly said. She took particular issue with comments suggesting direct threats against Iranian leadership, urging restraint and pointing to the real-world stakes for American families. “Some of us actually have a real stake in making sure that does not happen. We do not want that,” she added, referencing the potential for younger Americans to be drawn into the conflict.
Behind the scenes, Graham reportedly worked to influence the administration’s approach, making multiple trips to Israel where he met with members of the country’s intelligence community. Those efforts were part of a broader push to encourage decisive action against Iran.
Now, as the operation continues, the costs—both financial and economic—are coming into sharper focus. The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon has requested more than $200 billion to fund the conflict, a figure that could prove difficult to pass through Congress.
At the same time, Americans are already feeling the effects at the pump. Fuel prices have surged as Iran has attempted to impede the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global energy supplies.
Administration officials have sought to frame the situation in a broader context. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said Thursday that U.S. military stockpiles had been depleted under former President Joe Biden due to support for Ukraine, raising additional questions about readiness and resources.
President Trump, for his part, has expressed optimism that the conflict will end soon, echoing a broader message from supporters who view the operation as necessary and potentially decisive.
Still, dissent within the national security community remains. Former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent resigned earlier this week, arguing that Iran did not pose an “imminent threat.”
Graham’s willingness to shoulder blame underscores the stakes of the moment. But as the debate continues, it also highlights a recurring tension in American foreign policy: even when leaders are confident in the cause, the costs and consequences of war have a way of extending far beyond the battlefield.
