Tag: mark levin
Mark Levin

Fox News Hawks: Military Strikes On Iran Will Resume 'After The Midterms'

Fox News hawks who suggested in June that President Donald Trump should “slow-walk” the Iran war to preserve the GOP’s political standing in the months leading up to the midterms and then resume combat operations after Election Day are now predicting that major U.S. strikes are imminent.

“The thing that's going to get the president's attention — I don't care whether he keeps both houses [of Congress] or doesn't, or loses both — is going to be Iran,” Fox & Friends co-host Brian KIlmeade said on his Fox News Radio show Thursday. “He wants to get this thing done before January to start his final two years, and then you’ll watch oil and gas go down, along with foreign fertilizer and especially diesel.”

If such predictions come to pass, those MAGA pundits will have encouraged what amounts to an effective hoodwinking of the electorate by a president who deliberately deprived voters, who broadly oppose the war, of critical information about his intentions to resume it.

The Iran war marked the most consequential test yet of the Fox-Trump feedback loop, with the network’s coverage and its hawkish hosts playing a critical role in encouraging the president to launch the operation in February. While the war’s supporters tried to declare the war a victory almost immediately, it quickly settled into a costly stalemate after Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, sending the prices of oil and gas soaring.

After Trump’s June signing of a memorandum of understanding with the Iranian regime that largely failed to resolve the U.S. war aims, right-wing hawks called for a new strategy of holding off on the war to limit Republican defeats in the election, then resuming combat.

Fox’s Mark Levin suggested on social media that the U.S. “consider slow walking the enemy, building up our munitions, our oil reserves, get the price of gasoline down, get through the midterms, then knock them out.” His colleague Hugh Hewitt agreed, adding that it would be “right and proper” for Trump to be “factoring in the realities of domestic politics” because GOP control of Congress “isn’t just a political goal for Republicans, it’s critical to the national security.”

Brian Kilmeade was even more direct about the strategy. “The closer it gets to the midterms, I think the less likely the president [is] to act,” he explained to his Fox & Friends co-hosts. “But after the midterms, the gloves come off.”

This line of discourse initially struck me as a way for Fox’s Iran hawks to cope with Trump backing away from the war they had demanded without criticizing him. But ultimately, the administration seems to have followed the plan the hawks laid out, keeping the war, which is deeply unpopular with the public, under wraps until after the elections.

The memorandum of understanding frayed over the summer and then expired — and Trump did not respond by ordering the resumption of combat operations. That reduced the war’s salience in the months leading up to the vote. At Fox in particular, Iran coverage cratered as the network’s commentators focused on subjects more unifying for the right.

And four months after Kilmeade predicted a return to combat “after the midterms,”, with Election Day in sight, his prophecy seems on track to be fulfilled. The Pentagon recently bolstered U.S. forces in the region and reportedly provided Trump with plans for major Iran strikes. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), who has been briefed on the plans, describes them as “insane” and likely to trigger “devastating escalation and the likely destruction of our commitment to the rule of law.”

The Iran hawks who urged Trump to tamp down on combat operations until after the midterms seem aware of what action the president intends to take.

Kilmeade’s comments on Fox last week followed similar statements on his radio show in recent weeks.

“We seem poised to go back to war after the midterm elections,” he said on October 23, later adding: “My sense, after the midterms, there's a plan in place to go back in, even though the oil has gotten up almost to pre-war levels in the Strait of Hormuz.”

“I think the president is really thinking about going back in right after November 3 and finishing it off,” Kilmeade further claimed last Monday. “This is what I hope. I want a bunch of different military plans and executions. I want the president to push on this plan to make it effective. Understand that they’re going to bomb our bases and go for the pipelines.”

Hewitt and Levin have been somewhat less specific, even as they broadly insinuate that new strikes are on the horizon. Hewitt said on Thursday that “the Iranian regime will be going away soon”; earlier in the month, he said he doesn’t “expect the president to keep the guns holstered.” Levin, meanwhile, has suggested that the increase in U.S. forces means “something is stirring” and claimed that “Iran is going to be addressed further is what I'm reading and seeing.”

Other well-connected Fox hawks have further suggested that the U.S. will soon return to combat operations against Iran.

“I do not believe President Trump will pass this problem to his successor,” senior strategic analyst Jack Keane, a retired general, said on the network last week. “He's going to finish it. Asked whether “America and Israel have a plan to go after Iran, in Iran, to finish it … [and] take that action imminently,” Keane replied, “I don't think we would wait too long to do that.”

And Sean Hannity, confronted on Thursday by a radio caller disenchanted with Republicans, told that caller: “Gas prices will drop. This war in Iran will end sooner than later. I'm telling you.”

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Iran Hawks Confidently Predict Trump Will Resume War After Midterm Elections

Iran Hawks Confidently Predict Trump Will Resume War After Midterm Elections

The right-wing hawks who applauded Donald Trump for launching the war with Iran earlier this year are adopting a new argument to avoid criticizing the president as he fumbles toward enacting a weaker, piecemeal version of the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal he once decried. According to their theory, the current negotiations are a sham: Trump is merely laying off the Iranian regime temporarily to forestall Republican defeat in the midterms and will resume hostilities after the November elections.

Iran’s obvious and expected counterstroke of closing the Strait of Hormuz in response to U.S. and Israeli military strikes succeeded in hamstringing the global energy and fertilizer trade, sending prices soaring. Now Iran’s regime is intact and in control of its nuclear materials and ballistic missile stockpile, and the U.S., having failed to achieve the administration’s stated war goals, is negotiating surrender terms that will leave it in a weaker geostrategic position than before the war began.

“You go back to January, shipping was moving, Iran's nuclear program had been bombed six months before and was largely destroyed,” former NATO Ambassador Kurt Volker said on Fox News last week. “We launched this war, the global economy took a big hit. Oil prices skyrocketed. Now we're winding this down but we have Iran now emboldened to exercise some kind of control over the Strait of Hormuz.”

While MAGA’s hacks are eager to praise any deal as an historic victory for Trump and downplay the implications of the memorandum of understanding he signed with Iran, the movement’s hawks recognize that these negotiations are, as The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro put it, “a disaster.”

Over the last week, the hawk faction has scrambled for a response that doesn’t risk their own MAGA audiences by directly attacking Trump. Many have turned their vitriol on Vice President JD Vance for his role in the negotiations, absolving the president of responsibility for the document that he signed and publicly describes as “a very strong deal.”

But another argument recently adopted by right-wing hawks posits that the MOU is effectively meaningless because Trump is negotiating in bad faith. In this telling, the president only agreed to the MOU in order to bring down the cost of gas and thus boost the GOP’s standing in the midterm elections — and after they pass, he will order the U.S. military to resume its attack on Iran.

This argument has some benefits for the hawks:

  1. It doesn’t require them to admit they made a mistake in supporting the war with Iran.
  2. It doesn’t require them to criticize Trump.
  3. It lets them wave away whatever emerges from the U.S.-Iran negotiations.
  4. It buys them time to once again talk the president into military action through his TV.

Fox host Mark Levin, the shrill-voiced megahawk, and network contributor Hugh Hewitt, a higher-brow Sean Hannity, got this argument going on Thursday, as The Bulwark’s Jonathan V. Last noted.

“Time for a change in strategy,” Levin, who previously described himself as “very skeptical about any deal,” posted on social media. “We should consider slow walking the enemy, building up our munitions, our oil reserves, get the price of gasoline down, get through the midterms, then knock them out. Instead of rushing to a deal, building up their oil industry, transferring billions to them, etc.”

Hewitt responded affirmatively to Levin’s post and added that he believed this was actually the president’s strategy.

“Assume that many inside the Administration, including President Trump, settled on this course weeks ago,” he wrote. “Keeping the Senate and (against all odds) the House in GOP hands isn’t just a political goal for Republicans, it’s critical to the national security,” he continued, adding, “President Trump factoring in the realities of domestic politics and their consequences is a right and proper calculation.”

Hewitt’s theory contradicts Trump’s own prior statements — for which the pundit had praised the president — insisting that he would not take domestic politics into account in negotiating with the Iranians.

“They thought they were gonna outwait me. You know, ‘We'll outwait him. He's got the midterms,’” Trump said during a May 27 Cabinet meeting . “I don't care about the midterms.”

Responding to those remarks on Fox later that day, Hewitt said: “What I appreciate is the president said he's not caring about the midterms. What that means, and I think everyone understands, is he's putting the national security ahead of gas prices.”

Hewitt brought his revised views on Trump factoring domestic politics into Iran negotiations to Fox during last Friday’s edition of Special Report.

Hewitt described the MOU as “halftime, probably the longest halftime in the history of modern war since the phony war after Germany overran Poland in the fall of 1939. There was seven months when there was no war, and then Germany invaded France.”

(Note that in Hewitt’s historical analogy, Trump is Adolf Hitler.)

“We're going to go back on the battle damage assessment and figure out how to finish the job, unless Iran actually capitulates,” he predicted. “The MOU's language is bad. I think everyone is reading into it what they want but the reality is talk to me in five months, after the election, and I think we'll be back in the battle with Iran.”

Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade, who has described the deal as “not acceptable” and repeatedly blamed it on Vance, added his voice on Tuesday morning.

“The closer it gets to the midterms, I think the less likely the president [is] to act,” he explained. “But after the midterms, the gloves come off.”

The upshot, however, is that the hawks’ escalation plans are unlikely to succeed and have huge potential downsides — while Iranian officials now know they can easily close the Strait of Hormuz, shut down a huge chunk of the global energy trade, and punish American consumers.

Their idea to attack Iran was foolhardy, the president’s belief he could pull off a strategic victory was ill-conceived, and now we are all dealing with the consequences.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

From Murdoch To Bannon, Right-Wing Media Blast Trump's Terrible Iran 'Deal'

From Murdoch To Bannon, Right-Wing Media Blast Trump's Terrible Iran 'Deal'

Right-wing media figures and outlets, including many that have been all-in on President Donald Trump’s war on Iran, are in open revolt against his proposed memorandum of understanding that seeks to deescalate the conflict.

On June 15, the United States and Iran agreed to a framework to bring the war to an end. The reported details reflect Iran’s relatively strong negotiating position, due largely to its ability to maintain and potentially extend its closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The New York Times reports:

The terms of the preliminary agreement between the United States and Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping and outline a $300 billon plan for Iran’s reconstruction, but push talks about its nuclear program into future negotiations, according to details described by a senior U.S. official on Wednesday.

The agreement has led to a palpable sense of betrayal from the White House’s hawkish media allies, who as recently as last week looked to be on the verge of persuading Trump to end the fragile ceasefire that’s been in place since April and restart the war.

Instead, the administration appears to be acknowledging the reality that this ill-conceived, unprovoked war of aggression — which the United States launched in coordination with Israel on February 28 — has been a failure on its own terms. It has also been a humanitarian catastrophe for people in Iran and Lebanon, which Israel has invaded and seeks to occupy. The global economic ramifications have been dire as well, with energy costs skyrocketing and food shortages looming — consequences the hawks apparently want to bomb their way out of.

The backlash to the deal from conservative pundits and outlets, especially those within Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, has been swift and harsh. The day the agreement was announced, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board wrote of the proposal: “Trump Stages an Iran Retreat.” The same day, the New York Post published an editorial that glumly concluded the MOU “seems to leave things right back where they were before the bombs started dropping.” A day later, the Post was even more critical, writing: “Trump’s Iran deal gives the Islamic Republic big wins upfront — and America nothing.”

Outside of primetime, the story was largely the same at Fox News, where Iran hawks have struggled to swallow the bitter pill of defeat. A day before the agreement was announced, Fox News host and Iran-warmonger Mark Levin said he was “very skeptical about any deal.” The next day, Fox contributor Marc Thiessen, who has reportedly advised Trump on the war, detailed his objections to ending the conflict at all, in part because “the Iranian regime, thanks to all those military strikes, is on its back and a deal, even a good deal, helps them get up.”

On June 16, Fox & Friends host Lawrence Jones channeled the pro-war crowd’s displeasure with the MOU, saying: “I don't think it serves our audience by sugar coating it — there is some real dissent when it comes to this deal right now.”

The same day, Fox contributor Ben Domenech lamented: “This doesn't feel like a victory.”

“I do not think that this is a deal ultimately that achieves the high goals that the president set," Domenech said. Those supposedly lofty goals have in fact been notably fungible and contradictory since the outset of the war.

On June 17, Fox & Friends continued to throw cold water on the deal. Jones said that Iran getting financial help for reconstruction was “a problem,” even if “it won't be American money.”

Jones’ co-host, Brian Kilmeade, tried to draw a red line on a reported possible future point of negotiation that would allow Iran to dilute — rather than surrender — its enriched uranium, calling it “not acceptable.” He also called into question Trump’s decision to appoint Vice President JD Vance as a top negotiator, saying that maybe he “wasn't the right person to bring this conflict to an end.” Kilmeade was one of many in right-wing media who sought to absolve Trump by hanging what they think is a terrible deal on Vance.

A guest from conservative think tank the Hudson Institute said the “memorandum of understanding is worse than not having it.”

The critical coverage continued into Fox’s dayside programming, where anchor Dana Perino implicitly acknowledged that the war had backfired and endowed Iran with the power to close the Strait of Hormuz, “which is leverage that Iran didn’t have before hostilities.”

Perino’s guest, former NATO ambassador Kurt Volker, concurred. “You go back to January, shipping was moving, Iran's nuclear program had been bombed six months before and was largely destroyed,” Volker said. “We launched this war, the global economy took a big hit. Oil prices skyrocketed. Now we're winding this down but we have Iran now emboldened to exercise some kind of control over the Strait of Hormuz.”

The frustration extends beyond Murdoch media. On June 16, The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro, another major supporter of the war, expressed his own skepticism. “We'll wait to see the MOU,” Shapiro said. “I will say that the early returns do not look wildly promising at this point.”

Former Fox News host Eric Bolling, now at Real America’s Voice, was even more blunt in an appearance on former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s podcast. “In this deal, the biggest loser is the United States and India,” Bolling said, referencing high energy prices in both countries. He added: “In essence, I think we lost the most here.”

As is always the case with Trump, his position could shift, and then shift again, and then shift again, all over the course of a single day. Trump has a history of breaking contracts, and the MOU and subsequent negotiations could fall apart at any minute, not least of all because Israel may attempt to draw the United States back into open war. For now, right-wing media hawks seem desperate to blow up the deal and get back to the war they’ve wanted for decades.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Facing Iran Fiasco, MAGA Media Figures Choose Propaganda Over Independence

Facing Iran Fiasco, MAGA Media Figures Choose Propaganda Over Independence

The right-wing media’s debate over the reported memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran provides a test of whether, ten years after President Donald Trump first took power, his supporters are still capable of independent thought. Some of the biggest names in MAGA propaganda are failing it.

The framework agreement Trump and Vice President JD Vance reportedly signed virtually on Sunday appears to leave the U.S. in a worse geostrategic position than before they launched the war with Iran in February — but the full terms of the U.S. surrender are unclear because the actual text of the memorandum has yet to be released. Trump said Monday that the American people won’t be able to see the “very powerful document” that he’s already signed on their behalf until “sometime after Friday,” when a formal signing event is scheduled. Vance, meanwhile, has been on a media tour purporting to describe in detail the contents of the agreement that he signed, which he claims is “about a page and a half” long and a “very general” document.

If you have two functioning neurons to rub together, this seems very suspicious. Why is Vance going on Fox News host Sean Hannity’s show to talk up the MOU — while complaining that the U.S. press is adopting “talking points and propaganda” from the Iranian regime “that has no support in the text of the agreement that we've actually negotiated” — rather than simply putting out the document so the public can see it? Are the terms supposed to be so good for the U.S. that we’re worried about embarrassing Iran?

The lack of disclosure is raising concerns among some of MAGA’s hawks, who supported launching the war and prefer to see further escalation rather than an agreement that ends the conflict.

“I have asked for days, why can’t we, the people, see the damn MOU?” Fox host Mark Levin posted to social media on Sunday night. “Not through people briefed by an anonymous person. Honestly, I’ve never seen anything like this. If it is a great outcome for peace, then release it.”

“Alright, so, we still don’t have much information at this point,” Ben Shapiro complained Monday at the beginning of his podcast on the reported agreement. “No text to the MOU. Could have been released — I mean, it’s been signed. We know that because that’s been announced by the administration.”

“We still have a lot of questions,” Shapiro continued. “So here’s the thing: Just release it, then we can talk about things we know. Because that’s the really cool thing about written agreements. They’re filled with words, and those words, we can all read them and they mean things, and then we can understand what they mean, and then we can discuss them publicly. Either that or we don’t have any choice but to speculate.”

And Substacker Erick Erickson noted on Tuesday that “the administration has been conspicuously slow to publish” the text of the agreement, adding: “When a deal is good, you release the text. When you guard it, you are managing a story rather than reporting a victory.”

But plenty of big MAGA players are willing to help the administration manage the story by shilling for the MOU without showing much interest in why Trump won’t just release the text of the agreement they are cheering for.

Hannity interviewed Vance Monday night and had the vice president walk him through the purported ins and outs of the unreleased agreement. The host did raise the issue of the document text, though he presented it as an opportunity for Vance to rebut a critical talking point rather than an actual issue.

“A lot of people are questioning why not release the memorandum of understanding,” Hannity said. “You said it will happen this week.”

But when Vance responded by citing vague “sequencing” concerns and saying that Trump wants to keep it secret until the Friday signing, Hannity swallowed that without further comment.

“Trust in Trump” was MAGA shill Benny Johnson’s take on Sunday, acknowledging that he didn’t know the details of the agreement but nonetheless celebrating it as “historic,” “the deal that we all wanted,” an Iranian “surrender” and a “massive W” for the president.

And Fox host Jesse Watters, a similarly credulous buffoon, seemed to reel off the administration’s talking points while scoffing at the “fake news” and “Iranian spin.”

“The details of the deal, they'll be released after Friday. Everybody will be able to read it,” he said, apparently incurious about why the text wouldn’t be available sooner.

Trump has spent years culling his propagandists through scandal, corruption, crimes, and insurrection. What remains at the highest levels of right-wing media are the purest hacks.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Trending

World