When Fox News anchor Bret Baier broke into another show’s discussion of political tattoo trends to announce that the United States had bombed nuclear sites in Iran, the network’s viewers were ready.

In the week leading up to the strikes, several of Fox’s conservative hosts and commentators had forcefully made a case for such an action.

The most strident – and animated – supporter of US involvement was weekend host Mark Levin, who said on Fox that President Donald Trump should “put an end to this thing” and “help Israel help us take out a nuclear site so these primitives don’t have a missile that can hit Detroit and Los Angeles”.

He also called for the “elimination” of Iran’s leadership (“It’s time to get rid of them!”) and questioned the patriotism of those who opposed Trump.

The network’s biggest star, host Sean Hannity, also made the case for US involvement – on both his television show and radio show.

Speaking about the Fordow nuclear facility, which was among those targeted, Hannity said on June 17 that “in order to prevent the mullahs from getting a nuclear weapon, this facility must be destroyed”, recommending the dropping of bunker-busting bombs – Trump’s eventual choice – as the “best option”.

During the same episode, one Hannity guest acknowledged the President was “probably watching” as he said, “We have to do it”. (A Sunday report in the New York Times noted that Trump was “closely monitoring Fox News”.)

US President Donald Trump with Fox News host Sean Hannity. Photo / Getty Images file

Fox didn’t just air commentary and reporting about the US strikes on Iran, as its television network competitors did.

It also played a key role as a portal to those making the decisions, demonstrating again the essential role it plays in the functioning and amplification of the Trump presidency.

• MAGA divided over Trump's decision to bomb Iran. Will it last?
• 'Totally obliterated': Trump claims successful attack on Iran’s nuclear sites
• US stealth bombers fly over Pacific as tension with Iran grows
• Trump says there’s a ‘substantial chance’ of talks to end Israel-Iran conflict

And, all along, the network’s pro-Trump pundits consistently supported and defended the President’s actions – and encouraged viewers to have “peace of mind” because of them.

Levin, who kept his day job at Fox after being appointed by Trump to his Homeland Security Advisory Council in April, met the President at the White House earlier in the month and reportedly argued that Iran was on the precipice of developing a nuclear weapon.

“Levin urged Trump to allow the Israeli Government to strike Iranian nuclear sites,” Politico reported at the time.

On the day of the US strikes, Hannity opened up his coverage with a recap of a conversation he had just had with Trump.

“I just spoke to the President of the United States,” he told viewers. “I have some new information and breaking details to share about tonight’s historic air campaign.”

One of those details, that the US used six bunker-buster bombs, turned out to be wrong. It was actually 14.

Mixing news reporting with his trademark commentary, Hannity praised the President’s actions as heroic and strategically savvy and concluded, without providing evidence, that Iran’s “nuclear ambitions” are “officially dead”.

“Maybe it’s a little early to go there, but this will go down in history as one of the greatest military victories,” he said.

This week the Washington Post and other outlets reported on an early government bomb damage analysis that assessed the strikes to have delayed Iran’s nuclear programme but not destroyed it.

Trump has also communicated through another Fox News personality, Lawrence B. Jones, who has told viewers about several phone calls with the President.

During an appearance on Fox the morning after the strikes, Jones shared an update on what Trump told him in a conversation the previous night, seemingly melding the President’s argument with his own. “We don’t seek regime change,” he said.

He also seemed to be making Trump’s case to Iran’s leadership to de-escalate, leading one industry website to ask: “Fox News or UN negotiator?”

Jones was back on Fox & Friends yesterday with another readout of a Trump call, this time sharing the President’s frustration with Israel’s leadership over potential cracks in the ceasefire with Iran.

Fox’s news division also provided thorough coverage of the strikes, making the network something of a one-stop shop.

Fox News anchor John Roberts joked on Tuesday that Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat-New York) didn’t actually need an official briefing on the situation from the Trump Administration, as he had requested, because he could just turn on the channel.

“He could just kind of watch us because I think our correspondents are doing a terrific job of doing it,” he said.

A few hours later, Vice-President JD Vance appeared on Baier’s news show moments after Trump announced the ceasefire on Truth Social.

Fox viewers got to watch Vance’s real-time reaction to the President’s message, because it wasn’t finalised by the time he headed to the interview, he said.

“When I left the White House, I thought that we might be able to get it across the finish line before this broadcast, and it looks like the President has been able to do that,” Vance told Baier. Vance’s staff brought him an iPhone so he could read the President’s message, Baier said later.

When asked how often Trump’s posts land right before he’s about to do an interview, Vance admitted it happens “quite a bit, actually”.

After the ceasefire announced by Trump started to sink in, Fox’s pro-Trump commentators seemed satisfied that he had listened to their televised (and untelevised) guidance. “President Trump, he has done it again,” Hannity told viewers.

On her show, Fox News host Laura Ingraham said that Trump “deserves six Nobel Peace Prizes”.

The following afternoon, after taking in the events of the past few days, host Will Cain concluded that Trump deserved to be added to Mount Rushmore.

“It is not pompom-waving nor cheerleading,” he said yesterday.

“It is not partisan at this point to say: Is this presidency not one that puts itself in company of those who have had their faces carved into mountains?”