We have arrived at a moment where the vice president of the United States is accusing Fox News contributors of carrying water for Tehran, and those same contributors are blasting a deal agreed to by the president they support, with one calling it “Hillbilly Obama foreign policy.”
After four months of a grinding, costly military conflict with Iran, the White House’s sudden pivot toward an economic and diplomatic settlement has triggered a highly public fracture within the conservative media ecosystem. For years, the loudest voices in right-wing media could be counted on for one reliable reflex: a demand for more American military aggression in the Middle East. Now the Trump-Vance administration is currently trapped in a political crisis of its own making, caught between the hard realities of international diplomacy and the unyielding demands of a right-wing media apparatus it spent a decade making more extreme.
The talk-radio hosts and MAGA-aligned commentators who spent years demanding a scorched-earth policy toward Tehran are now turning their weapons toward the vice president, openly mocking and condemning what they view as his historic capitulation.
At the center of this firestorm is JD Vance. The talk-radio hosts and MAGA-aligned commentators who spent years demanding a scorched-earth policy toward Tehran are now turning their weapons toward the vice president, openly mocking and condemning what they view as his historic capitulation. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced Monday that the U.S. had issued a “temporary 60-day general license authorizing the production, delivery, and sale of Iranian oil,” stripping decades of U.S. sanctions policy in one fell swoop. Today, the administration is struggling to explain a glaring contradiction: why a regime that warranted a full-scale military campaign four months ago now suddenly deserves massive economic incentives and frozen asset releases, even though its fundamental regional ambitions remain entirely unchanged.
“This is probably what we’re most excited about as Americans,” Vance said at a news conference Monday from the diplomatic summit in Switzerland, announcing what he billed as a “major milestone.” Iran will allow inspectors from the United Nations-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency to visit. Iran had restricted and eventually eliminated much of that inspection regime after Donald Trump withdrew in 2018 from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — the Iran nuclear deal negotiated under Barack Obama. The JCPOA was supposedly built on naïve faith in bureaucrats with clipboards. The inspections regime was portrayed as a farce. The entire agreement, conservatives argued, amounted to surrender dressed up as diplomacy. Now Vance is celebrating the return of those same inspectors as a historic breakthrough.
“I gotta be honest with you,” Vance told “Fox & Friends” on Friday, “I don’t really understand these things. I have never been particularly into diplomatic protocols.”
In an effort to bolster his foreign policy credentials and build domestic popularity, Vance’s team has enthusiastically positioned the vice president as the chief architect and public face of the new U.S.-Iran diplomatic framework.
That calculation has backfired spectacularly.
Instead of receiving a hero’s welcome for securing a diplomatic breakthrough, Vance has become a lightning rod for the right’s collective fury after Trump spent years escalating tensions before launching a military campaign that was sold to the public as necessary to stop an existential threat.
Fox News anchor Dana Perino, who is not exactly a dovish voice, implicitly acknowledged that the war had backfired and had endowed Iran with the power to close the Strait of Hormuz, “which is leverage that Iran didn’t have before hostilities.” An op-ed published Monday on FoxNews.com argued that Trump went from hero to failure in Iranian eyes after cutting a deal with Tehran. On the airwaves, conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt — a staunchly hawkish defender of the war — dismissed the announced agreement as sounding “like a bit from Monty Python,” reducing the administration’s flagship diplomatic effort to a late-night comedy sketch. CNN contributor and frequent Trump defender Batya Ungar-Sargon blasted the deal as a humiliation. Washington Examiner columnist Byron York argued that Trump failed to prepare the public for war, failed to explain what victory would look like and proceeded alongside allies pursuing different objectives. Commentary Magazine editor John Podhoretz said Trump “choked” and “chickened out” of the war.
The MAGA hawks are victims of their own success. They got the war they demanded, only for Iran’s obvious counterstroke of closing the Strait of Hormuz to prove just as damaging as national security experts had warned. Now comes the reckoning, and conservative media’s response has been to make sure little of the blowback hits Trump.
Start your day with essential news from Salon.Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.
“This is JD’s deal,” Ben Shapiro insisted. “This is the vice president’s deal. It does not have support, apparently according to Axios, from the secretary of state or the secretary of defense or the head of the CIA.” On Fox News, host Brian Kilmeade and contributor Marc Thiessen, who also serves as a Washington Post columnist, have taken to labeling the framework as “JD Vance’s deal,” ensuring that the political liability of a perceived surrender lands squarely on the vice president’s shoulders rather than the president’s. Ben Domenech, another Fox News contributor, praised Trump’s decision to launch the war before calling the recent memorandum of understanding “Hillbilly Obama foreign policy.”
Vance himself, in a moment of genuine clarity on “The Megyn Kelly Show,” recently noted that it was “kind of ironic that they’re really, really worried about stopping this thing, while they were completely gung-ho about starting [it].” The vice president also accused his critics in conservative media — specifically Fox News’ Mark Levin — of believing “Iranian propaganda,” a characterization sure to widen the growing split in MAGA world.
While Vance was praising a technical framework designed to facilitate a regional ceasefire, the president was threatening the total annihilation of his negotiating partners, completely undermining his vice president’s diplomatic messaging. On Sunday, Trump issued a series of threats on Truth Social, warning Iranian leaders that if they attempted to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, they would pay for it with their lives. “You close it, and you won’t have a country,” Trump declared. “You won’t even make it back to your f**king country.” He followed this by threatening to hit Iran “very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder” if they failed to restrain their regional proxies in Lebanon.
The frantic efforts by the White House to control the narrative, hunt for scapegoats and suppress dissent are driven by an underlying sense of political panic. A newly released CBS News poll revealed that more than three-quarters of the American public want an immediate end to the conflict, including 60% of Republicans and 56% of self-described MAGA Republicans. Furthermore, 69% of Americans stated that the military confrontation with Iran was simply not worth the immense costs borne by the United States, while 57% believed the president’s war created far more problems than it solved. Most damaging of all for a president and an administration that prides itself on the art of the deal, two out of three Americans believe the White House rushed into this agreement with Tehran not out of strategic brilliance, but simply because it was desperate to bring a failing conflict to an end.
After the New York Times published an article questioning what had actually changed after months of conflict, Trump exploded on social media. He accused the newspaper of using fake facts and even described its reporting as “treasonous.” It all exposes the fundamental weakness of a right-wing echo chamber built entirely on permanent grievance and maximalist rhetoric. For years, conservative pundits demanded a foreign policy defined by unilateral force and absolute defiance, convincing their audience that complex geopolitical rivalries could be settled through sheer bravado and military muscle. Now that the administration has run into the harsh walls of fiscal, military and diplomatic reality, it is being consumed by the very monster it helped create.
Read more
about Trump’s foreign policy
