The episode illustrates a depressingly familiar pattern: when wars begin, sections of the right-wing media move quickly to celebrate military action and demand solidarity, while overlooking both the lessons of recent history and the civilians who end up paying the price.

Right-wing media in the US and UK moved quickly to frame Washington’s involvement in Israel’s war with Iran as both justified and successful.

On Fox News, a segment discussing the escalating conflict veered into triumphalism. Sitting between two suited commentators, the host attempted to summarise what she described as a string of US successes:

“So let’s think about what has happened. Let’s list it out. So we took out the Iranian regime leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, and then 40 of the top leaders. We degraded their military… Because they’ve decided to attack their neighbours and we’ve kind of unified them behind us.

“We’ve outed fake allies, Spain, England, right? Why should we ever help them again?… To me, this already looks like victory. And so I say, let’s declare victory very quickly.”

The labelling of England and Spain as “fake allies,” quickly circulated on social media, prompting a wave of incredulous responses.

Many commenters defended Britain’s reluctance to become entangled in another Middle Eastern war.

“Why should the UK get involved with an illegal war that the US and Israel started?” one user wrote.

Another responded more sceptically to the broadcaster’s early victory lap: “Let’s see if she’s still spouting that rhetoric in three months when the fighting is still dragging on.”

Others dismissed the segment as partisan propaganda, calling the channel a “Trump-sponsored” outlet.

The human cost already emerging from the conflict was also pointed to.

“I wonder if the Iranian schoolgirls’ families see it that way?” one user asked.

Britain’s own right-wing press echoed their American right-wing cousins, by taking aim at the Labour government.

The front page of the Mail on Sunday attacked the prime minister:

“Ex-premier’s rebuke to flailing Starmer: You should have backed US from day one, Now Blair delivers a stinging blow to PM.”

The article centres on comments by former prime minister Tony Blair, who warned Keir Starmer that Britain must visibly support Washington if it wishes to maintain the US security guarantee.

“If they are an indispensable cornerstone for your security,” Blair said of the United States, “you had better show up.”

What the article doesn’t mention is the intense criticism Blair himself received for aligning Britain so closely with Washington during the 2003 invasion of Iraq under George W. Bush. That war was widely condemned as illegal and launched on intelligence later shown to be deeply flawed. It led critics to accuse Blair of acting as America’s “poodle” and dragging the UK into a costly and disastrous conflict.

Nor do such commentaries dwell on the civilian toll now emerging from the current war. Among the most shocking reports was the bombing of a girls’ school in southern Iran that reportedly killed 165 pupils, an incident the United Nations described as a “grave assault on children.”

Washington initially denied responsibility, but the United States Central Command later said it was looking into reports of the strike, while the Israel Defence Forces said it was “not aware” of any operations in the area.

Yet in the media narratives declaring early “victory” or demanding unquestioning loyalty to Washington, such details appear largely secondary, if at all.

The episode illustrates a depressingly familiar pattern: when wars begin, sections of the right-wing media move quickly to celebrate military action and demand solidarity, while overlooking both the lessons of recent history and the civilians who end up paying the price. It used to be said that while old men sat safe at home, young men fought and died. Yet modern warfare means that it is no longer just young men who die. 

Comments are closed.