Media365
6 min readOct 6, 2026 01:40 PM IST
First published on: Oct 6, 2026 at 01:40 PM IST
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have found a new audience for their war with Donald Trump: The American voter. The history of warfare tells us that weakening the adversary’s domestic support can be as important as defeating its armed forces on the battlefield. In a 25-page letter last week, the Guards appealed to the “honourable people” of the United States to reject Trump’s policies and consider “peaceful coexistence” with Iran. Trump, in turn, hopes that escalating military and economic pressure will force the Islamic Republic to fall in line.
Coming just weeks before the midterm elections, the letter brings Tehran directly into America’s domestic political contest. With Republicans vulnerable in November, the political consequences of the Iran war are becoming harder to separate from its military course. In Tehran, too, internal struggles between advocates of negotiation and hardliners favouring confrontation are shaping the war’s conduct. That brings us to the idea of the “October surprise” in American politics — a major event or political move that changes the national mood before the traditional voting in the first week of November.
Iran helped make the phrase part of American political language during the 1980 presidential election. The Iranian Revolution of February 1979 overthrew the Shah, a close American ally. In November, militants seized the US embassy in Tehran and took its staff hostage. The crisis haunted President Jimmy Carter’s re-election campaign. His Republican challenger, Ronald Reagan, feared that freeing the hostages before November would rescue Carter’s political fortunes. Allegations that Reagan’s team secretly worked to delay the release remain disputed. The hostages came home as Reagan took office in January 1981. Iran’s upheaval had become entangled with the struggle for power in Washington.
Today, Tehran hopes to exploit another American electoral moment. Trump insists the midterms do not determine his Iran policy. But the electoral calendar is now visibly intertwined with the military debate. In an interview last week, Trump said it was “possible” that US bombing of Iran could intensify after the November 3 elections. He has also said the war could be won “right after the election” — or perhaps before it. The military preparations reinforce the message. The unfolding deployment gives Trump more options if diplomacy fails — and gives Tehran reason to take his threats seriously.
Setting aside the Islamic Revolution’s enduring slogan, “Death to America”, the IRGC letter claims to have no quarrel with ordinary Americans. Its immediate target is Trump. It hopes public anxiety over the war and rising prices will weaken Republicans and create space for a more accommodating policy in Washington. The appeal could easily backfire as Republicans accuse Democrats of serving Tehran’s interests.
Iran is not alone in trying to exploit domestic divisions. Trump has hoped that military and economic pressure would encourage Iranians to challenge their rulers. That expectation has produced little so far. Tehran’s appeal to American voters may prove equally ineffective. Both sides nevertheless see the adversary’s home front as a battlefield.
Meanwhile, Trump has secured an important gain at Hormuz. The recovery in Gulf oil flows has accelerated. New data show Gulf crude exports averaged about 16.3 million barrels a day in September — roughly 91 per cent of pre-war levels.
This does not establish Trump’s claim of “total control”. Iran never enjoyed uncontested sovereignty over the international waterway. Its leverage lay in making passage dangerous and expensive. Tanker attacks, higher insurance costs and uncertainty forced its adversaries to spend heavily on keeping commerce moving. Nor has the energy crisis disappeared. The problem has shifted from crude supply towards logistics and refining. Refined-product exports from the Gulf recovered to only about 60 per cent of pre-war levels in September.
That distinction matters politically. More crude moving through Hormuz does not automatically mean cheaper diesel at American pumps. Crude must be transported, refined and distributed. Diesel prices have a direct effect on inflation and cost of living, a major issue in US domestic politics right now.
The G7’s decision, under Trump’s pressure, to release 100 million barrels of crude and fuel products from emergency reserves is meant to ease this pressure. But Trump’s dilemma remains. Convincing Tehran that it cannot wait him out requires a credible threat of escalation. Reassuring American voters requires avoiding an escalation that sends fuel prices soaring again. Iran’s letter seeks to exploit precisely that tension.
Tehran faces pressures of its own. Washington’s “Operation Economic Outcast” is tightening the financial noose. The US has expanded sanctions from military procurement networks to Iran’s automotive, rail, manufacturing and steel sectors. Washington has now warned foreign financial institutions that doing business with Iran could bring sanctions without prior notice.
Neither side can assume the other will crack first. The October surprise could be another military blow, a diplomatic opening, or another fuel-price shock.
For India, there is a larger lesson from the US and Iranian efforts to influence each other’s domestic politics. America’s hopes of political change in Iran and Tehran’s appeal to American voters underline an old truth: Wars are fought within societies as much as between states. Managing the home front can matter as much as gaining military ground on the battlefield.
The principle applies in peacetime too, especially to democracies such as India. Effective engagement with a turbulent world demands cohesion at home. Political differences are inevitable in a democracy. But a politics of “winner takes all” can turn those differences into debilitating domestic conflicts. That inevitably weakens the nation’s capacity to deal with mounting challenges abroad and the growing prospects for external meddling in its domestic affairs.
The writer is contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express. He is professor and director at the Motwani Jadeja Institute of American Studies, Jindal Global University, Delhi
