Republicans have spent the better part of three years now attempting to erode the credibility of the American intelligence community, all in the name of protecting Donald Trump. But the president’s strike against Iranian general Qassem Soleimani is complicating that strategy. With no hint of irony, Trump’s allies have cited an “imminent” attack on Americans as justification for the killing—an attack that was supposedly predicted by the same intelligence sources they have labeled the “deep state” bent on Trump’s downfall. “It was an intel-based decision and it saved American lives,” White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said on Fox News Tuesday without a hint of irony. “I think that that’s what’s most important. I know a lot of people are now questioning the intel—that’s really unfortunate.”

It goes without saying that perhaps no one has questioned American intelligence more than Grisham’s boss. The president has routinely cast doubt on the conclusion that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, famously siding with Vladimir Putin over his own agencies. He revived the onslaught late last year after a whistleblower sounded alarms about his efforts to extort Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The president’s allies took up the call, with people like Sean Hannity claiming the impeachment push was “spurred by an apparent partisan deep state operative masquerading as a whistleblower.”

Now, the dispute over how to characterize the intelligence that led to Soliemani’s death is playing out on Fox in a very public way. On Monday, Fox & Friends host Ainsley Erhardt chided observers for doubting the administration’s justification for the attack, noting, “I find it so interesting that people are critical of the president’s decisions, of our intelligence community’s decisions, of our generals’ decisions.” Where Trump’s media allies once blasted the intelligence community for its secrecy, Erhardt slammed critics for demanding details about the decision-making leading up to the strike. “Everything can’t be made public,” Earhardt said Monday.

That comment earned her blowback online, where various members of the Twitterati pointed out that Fox seemed perfectly willing to accept “deep state” intelligence when it benefitted the president. More interestingly, it also inspired fellow host Tucker Carlson, who’s generally in lockstep with Trump in terms of ideology, to highlight her hypocrisy. “It seems like about 20 minutes ago, we were denouncing these very people as the ‘deep state’ and pledging never to trust them again without verification,” Carlson said on his show Monday. “But now, for some reason, we do see to trust them, implicitly and completely.”

Carlson’s stance here is in line with his criticism of Trump’s decision on Iran, and his vocal disdain for the hawks in Trump’s inner circle. “It’s hard to remember now,” he remarked, “but as recently as last week, most people didn’t consider Iran an imminent threat.” However, it also illustrates the dual mentality the administration will demand from its supporters as the Iran story spins on. Fox’s splintering over Iran has been particularly fascinating to watch—last week, Geraldo Rivera spoke out adamantly against Trump’s decision to kill Soliemani. That’s not to say it will continue. But when the stakes are higher, it seems, is when the dissonance starts to chafe.

More Great Stories from Vanity Fair

— On the eve of impeachment vote, Giuliani called up New York Times to incriminate Trump

— Melania Trump believes Greta Thunberg had POTUS attack coming

— Inside Roger Ailes’s twisted game of mind control

— Why the White House belongs to Jared Kushner now

— Kamala Harris’ next act is destroying Stephen Miller

— From the Archive: Inside Jeffrey Wigand’s epic multibillion-dollar struggle

Looking for more? Sign up for our daily Hive newsletter and never miss a story.