Steve Bannon has launched an unprecedented assault on Fox News following a private lunch with President Donald Trump, suggesting the network may be secretly working as an agent of foreign interests in their coverage of the Israel-Iran conflict.
According to the Daily Mail, Bannon called for a thorough investigation into Fox News under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) while dismissing the network's influence, claiming their audience consists mainly of "geriatrics" over 70 years old.
The escalation comes after Bannon, Trump's former chief White House strategist, met with the president for lunch on Thursday ahead of U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. During this meeting, Bannon reportedly argued against American involvement in Israel's conflict with Iran.
Bannon took direct aim at the Murdoch family, suggesting they prioritize foreign interests over American ones. His comments reflect growing tensions between Trump-aligned conservatives and mainstream media outlets over coverage of Middle East policy. The former presidential advisor called for an investigation into whether Fox News should register as a foreign agent under FARA regulations.
On his War Room show Monday, Bannon intensified his criticism, stating, "I think we need to see if they represent a foreign government as an agent." He questioned the network's motives, asking "What are they pushing on the American people? Where'd this information come from?"
While acknowledging Iran should not obtain nuclear weapons, Bannon insisted there were alternatives to military action, declaring "there are many paths to do that" that don't involve "kinetic warfare." His statements came as he attempted to distance himself from the network's hawkish stance on Middle East intervention.
Despite Bannon's vocal opposition, Trump proceeded with significant military strikes against Iran, deploying six 30,000-pound "bunker buster" bombs and 30 Tomahawk missiles to destroy nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan. The president characterized the operation as a "spectacular military success."
In an address to the nation, Trump claimed Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities had been "completely and totally obliterated." He also issued stern warnings about potential future strikes if peace was not achieved, showing his resolve to take military action despite counsel from close allies like Bannon.
Bannon had earlier predicted on his podcast that such military action could trigger "World War III," stating "anyone that's telling you that the Third World War is not here absolutely does not understand the development and evolution of kinetic energy."
Following the U.S. attack, Iran launched retaliatory strikes targeting the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, America's largest military installation in the Middle East. However, Trump claimed no Americans were harmed due to advance warning allowing for evacuation.
The president took to Truth Social to taunt Iran's "very weak response" while simultaneously calling for peace in the region. He urged both Iran and Israel to work toward "Peace and Harmony in the Region," suggesting a potential diplomatic resolution.
World leaders quickly condemned Iran's retaliatory strikes and expressed support for Qatar, which has not ruled out its own response to Iranian aggression. The international community remains watchful as regional tensions continue to simmer.
In a surprising turn of events, Steve Bannon's warnings about escalating conflict have been overshadowed by diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East. His unprecedented attack on Fox News has highlighted growing divisions within conservative media over foreign policy approaches.
The ceasefire agreement announced by President Trump marks a potential end to what he called "the 12-day war," though neither Iran nor Israel has officially confirmed the deal. This development comes after two weeks of intense military exchanges between the nations.
As attention turns to implementing the ceasefire, Bannon's accusations against Fox News underscore broader debates about media independence and foreign influence in American foreign policy. The impact of these discussions on future U.S. military decisions remains to be seen.
