According to the Jerusalem Post, as President Donald Trump signals a renewed push for diplomacy with Iran, a new political analysis argues that some of Fox News’ biggest personalities are still championing military action, creating a sharp contrast with the White House’s latest approach.
The commentary, published by Responsible Statecraft and written by political analyst Nolan Denaro, alleges that the conservative network spent months building public support for war with Iran and has continued to frame military force as the only effective solution despite Trump’s recent decision to restart negotiations.
According to the analysis, Fox News host Mark Levin was among the loudest voices urging a tougher response to Tehran before the conflict escalated. Levin repeatedly dismissed diplomacy and argued that only overwhelming military action could stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“If we don’t act, and by that I mean not diplomacy, but decisively, quickly, and overwhelmingly with our military against the top of the regime,” Levin said, warning that Iran would eventually “build nuclear weapons, as North Korea has.”
The article also points to retired Gen. Jack Keane, a regular Fox News contributor, who maintained that negotiations with Tehran could never succeed.
“We have said on this show multiple times, you cannot trust the Iranians. They will lie and cheat. And even if they make a deal, they will not comply with it,” Keane said during an appearance on Life, Liberty & Levin.
Denaro argues that Fox News created an environment where hosts and guests consistently reinforced one another’s calls for tougher military action, featuring prominent figures such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and commentator Marc Thiessen, both of whom advocated continued pressure on Iran.
The analysis comes at a time when Trump has taken a different tone. After cancelling planned U.S. strikes on Iran over the weekend, the president announced that fresh negotiations with Tehran would resume, saying diplomacy offered a chance to avoid further bloodshed.
Denaro contends that the network’s continued emphasis on military escalation risks leaving viewers with a picture of the conflict that no longer aligns with the administration’s evolving strategy.
The article reflects the author’s analysis and opinions, highlighting the growing debate over the media’s role in shaping public attitudes toward U.S. foreign policy and military intervention.
Related video
