Sen. Lindsey Graham made an appearance on Fox "news" this Tuesday and had no answer to either of the hosts asking him repeatedly who might fill the power vacuum in Iran if we take out their leadership.

Graham sounded a whole lot like his buddy Ted Cruz, calling for regime change, consequences be damned and constantly fearmongering about the "religious fanatics" in another country, when we all know Republicans have no such concerns for the ones in their party right here in the United States.

Here's part of the exchange with Graham from America Reports with hosts John Roberts and Gillian Turner who both sounded almost sane compared to Graham's rantings.

ROBERTS: I mean they do upset the apple cart in so many ways in the Middle East, and there are a lot of people there who believe that the reason why that that region is not more stable is because of Iran.

Saudi Arabia would like to see the theocracy gone. I know the Emirates would and many other Arab states as well.

But then there's the question of what happens if there is a power vacuum there? We saw all too well what happened in Iraq. We saw what happened in Afghanistan. The Taliban took over in literally a matter of hours.

You've got competing factions as well who would vie to take over Iran. On the one side you've got the Crown Prince Raza Pahlavi, who would like to go in as an interim leader.

On the other side of that fence you've got the NCRI, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, which used to be the MEK, which a lot of people in Iran say would be worse than the Ayatollah.

So what steps into the vacuum if the regime falls?

GRAHAM: Well, I think what will happen is the Iranian people will know freedom for the first time since 1979.

You know, people probably asked that about Hitler in the 30s. What would happen in Germany if we took him out in the mid-30s? Well, I wish we had because we know what happened when they let him stay in power.

And here's what I can say. Taking the Ayatollah's regime down is a good thing, not a bad thing, and I'm willing to risk what happens next because I know what's going to happen if they stay in power.

They're going keep trying to destroy Israel. They're going to keep fomenting terrorism and they're going to try to build a bomb and they'll use it until they're gone.

Their goal is a religious goal to destroy the Jews, to destroy Sunni Islam, to destroy us. These are fanatical religious Nazis.

I'm willing to risk them leaving. I think it will only get better, but if they stay, I know exactly what's going to happen. It will be all hell to pay.

ROBERTS: Senator, we're just trying to stretch a little bit here for what we believe is the beginning of the State Department briefing.

So let's bring in Gillian in here.

TURNER: Hi Senator. I wanted to ask you about this interesting comment from Axios to build on what you were just talking about with John.

They got some sourcing today on the president's thinking regarding his decision not to take out the Ayatollah, and a source very close to the president told them, quote, It's the Ayatollah you know versus the Ayatollah you don't know. That's kind of interesting.

GRAHAM: Yeah, I think the president has handled this very well. Taking out the Ayatollah, I understand both sides of that equation, but I don't, I do understand taking out the nuclear program is non-negotiable.

That's non-negotiable for Israel. It's non-negotiable for us.

And here's the question Would the Ayatollah use a nuclear weapon as part of his religious agenda if he had it? I think the answer is yes.

I don't think Rocket Man is going to attack America. As much as I don't like Putin, I don't think he's going to attack America, but I do think the Ayatollah is a religious figure, who has a religious view that is very dangerous for the existence of Israel and us, and he would actually use a nuclear weapon.

So let's don't overthink this. Let's take the nuclear program off the table, destroy it in perpetuity, then decide what to do next.

But I do believe if this regime fell, it would be great for the Iranian people, it would be the best chance to have peace in the Mideast and it would be history being made.

President Trump is a historical figure already. He's about to go to another level of history making.

Four presidents have promised to make sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. It will be Donald J. Trump who delivers on that promise very soon.

Well done, Mr. President.

TURNER: Well, so, pulling up a Reagan Institute study survey from the summer, they found that 84 percent of Americans want to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The rub, as you well know, is probably like 110 percent of Americans don't want to have another 20 year long or even 20 month long war in the Middle East.

GRAHAM: Yeah, we're not talking about 20 months. I'm not even sure we're talking about 20 days now.

Why do 84 percent of the people don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon? Because they believe like I do, they will use it.

These people are religious fanatics. They're not normal. They take young girls off a bus and kill them in Iran itself because they're not covered. These people are religious fanatics with a religious agenda that needs to be stopped now.

So if they get a nuclear weapon, they'll use it, and Israel is not going to even play with that possibility, nor should we.

But here's what I would say to the American people. You know, endless war has been Iran since 1979. Since 1979 they've been trying to come after us in Israel. I'd like to end that endless war.

But if you think radical Islam can be dealt with and ignore, dealt with without being dealt with, you're wrong.

You've got to stand up to these people. They mean what they say when they chant Death to Israel, they mean it. Death to America, they mean it.

So we live in a world where we have to defend ourselves. I don't think it's going to be 20 months, but here's what I do believe if we don't get it right now, we're going to pay later.

If they survive all of this, God help us all.

Where have we heard this before?