Melissa Joskow / Media Matters

President Donald Trump is getting divergent views from the trusted members of his Fox News cabinet about how to respond to rising tensions between the United States and Iran -- but almost all of them support some sort of military strike on Iranian targets.

In recent months, an escalating pattern of tit-for-tat maneuvers has drawn the two nations closer to direct military confrontation. On Thursday night, in response to what the U.S. says was Iran downing an unmanned American surveillance drone in international waters, Trump reportedly ordered a retaliatory military strike on Iranian targets. He then reversed his decision while the operation was underway.

Several senior administration officials, including national security adviser and former Fox News contributor John Bolton, a longtime Iran hawk, reportedly favored a military response. But top Pentagon officials (echoing many external national security experts) reportedly warned that even a limited U.S. military strike could trigger an Iranian escalation, leading to a wider conflagration that might spiral out of control.

This reported divide among the president’s official advisers is being mirrored in the advice he is receiving through his television set. Fox’s hosts and guests are an important source of information for Trump, who watches hours of coverage each day and often tweets about segments that catch his eye, and their opinions can shape his worldview and actions.

With one key exception, pro-Trump commentators at the network have mostly been recklessly arguing that the president should strike Iran and can do so without risking an escalation.

Friday morning on Fox & Friends, the hosts differed on the wisdom of Trump calling off the strike the night before but broadly agreed that a military response was inevitable and could be achieved without risk.

Co-host Brian Kilmeade was harshly critical of Trump throughout the broadcast, slamming what he depicted as the president’s lack of action in the face of one-sided Iranian aggression.

“They blow up four tankers and we do nothing,” he argued. “When they blow up our drone that costs $130 million and we do nothing, we know it's not going to end there. So at some point, in the Middle East, no action looks like weakness, and weakness begets more attacks."

Kilmeade scoffed at the notion of engaging in additional diplomacy with Iran, saying it “makes us look so weak” to do so at this point. He also claimed, “If it was President Obama, ... every Republican would be losing their mind. So I think people have to be consistent here and be concerned about America's image and our strength.”

His co-hosts, Steve Doocy and Ainsley Earhardt, offered a much more charitable view of Trump’s reaction, effectively saying that they have faith that Trump knows what he’s doing and will respond in due time. “The president appears measured and reasonable in saying, ‘OK, you know what, before we do anything, we’re going to try to talk to them one last time,’” Doocy said.

Ainsley Earhardt & Steve Doocy agree “there *will* be a response” to Iran shooting down a US drone, and Brian Kilmeade snaps back, “there hasn't been one yet ... it's been 7 weeks.” Ainsley says “let's not rush to judgement” on Trump's decision, because he knows things we don't. pic.twitter.com/pKz96vNp2M — Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) June 21, 2019

Pete Hegseth, a co-host of the program’s weekend edition who also privately advises Trump, staked out a middle ground during a guest appearance on the show. He argued that a military response was necessary and inevitable, saying, “The reason we have international waters and international air space in the world today is the United States Navy and the United States Air Force. If we allow our drones, manned or unmanned, to be shot down and we don’t respond, that’s going to create a world where those spaces are contested. You cannot allow this to happen. This is -- you got to strike back.”

While Hegseth, unlike Kilmeade, avoided directly criticizing Trump’s response, he suggested that it would be a problem if Iran did not quickly improve its behavior and the president continued to avoid military action.

Pete Hegseth claims that working with allies to respond to Iran “only makes sense if it's part of a concerted strategy to truly get them back to the table on our terms, otherwise they're playing us, and we're not responding, and we look weak! And that's not OK.” pic.twitter.com/Jh3NjJIMKx — Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) June 21, 2019