Iran’s confrontation with the United States has entered a new political and information phase. On September 29, 2026, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) released a 25-page open letter addressed directly to the American people and urged U.S. voters to reject President Donald Trump’s policies.
The unusual appeal came weeks before the U.S. midterm elections and as military tensions between Washington and Tehran remained high. The IRGC argued that ordinary Americans and Iranians share common interests and accused the U.S. administration of misleading the public about the conflict, Iran’s nuclear program and the strategic Strait of Hormuz.
At the same time, retired U.S. Army Gen. Jack Keane has offered a sharply different assessment of Iran’s position. In recent appearances, Keane has argued that continued U.S. and Israeli military pressure could put the Iranian regime under severe strain and that Tehran could respond by escalating the conflict. On October 2, Keane discussed the possibility that further U.S. combat operations could place Iran on a path toward regime collapse.
The competing messages highlight a central feature of the current confrontation: military pressure, diplomacy and information warfare are developing at the same time.
IRGC Targets American Voters With Direct Appeal
The IRGC’s decision to address American voters directly is significant because the letter was not simply a statement aimed at the U.S. government.
According to Reuters, the 25-page document appealed to the American public and called for a change in U.S. foreign policy. It argued that Washington should reduce its support for Israel and avoid foreign wars. The IRGC also presented coexistence between Iran and the United States as possible if American policy changes.
The timing was equally important.
The letter appeared roughly five weeks before the U.S. midterm elections. IRGC spokesman Hossein Mohebbi acknowledged that Tehran did not necessarily expect the message to change the U.S. administration’s position. Instead, he said the organization hoped American voters would hear Iran’s argument and reconsider their decisions.
That makes the letter more than a conventional diplomatic communication. It is an attempt to communicate directly with a foreign electorate during a politically sensitive period.
Al Jazeera, citing the letter and Reuters reporting, said the IRGC urged Americans to “wake up” and take control away from what it described as corrupt politicians. The letter portrayed the American public and Iranian population as having shared grievances against political leaders.
What Did the IRGC Letter Say?
The IRGC’s document makes several major arguments.
First, it disputes Washington’s description of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The letter argues that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and accuses the United States of presenting the issue differently to the American public. The Iranian position conflicts with the concerns expressed by Israel and the United States over Iran’s nuclear capabilities and intentions.
Second, the IRGC argues that the United States and Israel failed to achieve their stated military objectives.
The document claims that American and Israeli strikes damaged Iranian facilities but did not accomplish their broader goals. These are claims made by the IRGC and should be understood as part of Tehran’s presentation of the conflict rather than independently established conclusions.
Third, the letter challenges U.S. claims about the Strait of Hormuz.
The waterway remains one of the most important strategic issues in the conflict because it is a major route for global energy shipments. The IRGC argues that American military efforts have not eliminated Iran’s ability to influence traffic through the strait. Reuters reported that Iranian oil exports through the waterway had recovered to almost 10 million barrels per day in September, approximately half of the pre-war volume.
Finally, the IRGC attempts to distinguish between the American public and the U.S. government.
That distinction is important to Tehran’s messaging. Rather than presenting all Americans as enemies, the letter claims that ordinary Americans and Iranians have common interests and are both affected by decisions made by political leaders.
Why the Letter Matters
The IRGC’s communication arrives during a period when military and political pressure are closely connected.
Iran is attempting to shape the narrative around the conflict. The United States and its allies are presenting their own assessments of Iran’s military capabilities, nuclear ambitions and regional strategy.
This creates a parallel information battlefield.
The IRGC’s message is aimed at American voters, while U.S. officials and analysts continue to address the American public about the security implications of the conflict.
Al Jazeera reported that Iran-linked media and online networks had previously used English-language digital content, including AI-generated videos and memes, to promote Tehran’s interpretation of the war. The open letter therefore fits into a broader effort to communicate directly with international audiences.
Calling the development an “Iran propaganda war” reflects the broader information struggle, but the specific claims contained in the letter need to be evaluated separately.
Gen. Jack Keane Warns of Further Escalation
While Tehran is trying to appeal to American voters, Gen. Jack Keane has been warning about the military consequences of the confrontation.
Keane, a retired U.S. Army general and Fox News senior strategic analyst, has repeatedly discussed the possibility of renewed military action against Iran.
In August, Keane argued that Iran faced a choice between diplomacy and military pressure. He said military action could return quickly if negotiations failed.
His more recent assessments have become particularly focused on Iran’s ability to withstand continued pressure.
On September 28, Keane discussed the conflict and upcoming talks with Iran. The report described him as arguing that the Iranian regime was under significant pressure while diplomatic discussions were being considered.
Then, on October 2, Keane discussed the possibility that additional U.S. and Israeli combat operations could place the Iranian regime on a path toward collapse. He also said Iran could respond by escalating tensions.
These statements represent Keane’s strategic assessment. They are not proof that a specific escalation is certain or imminent.
Why Keane’s Warning Is Significant
Keane’s analysis matters because it reflects one school of thought within the U.S. strategic debate.
His argument centers on sustained military pressure. In this framework, weakening Iran’s military infrastructure and limiting its ability to operate across the region could reduce Tehran’s strategic options.
However, military pressure can also create incentives for retaliation.
Iran has previously relied on missiles, drones, regional partners and control or disruption of strategic routes as elements of its broader security strategy. Any renewed exchange could therefore involve multiple theaters rather than a single battlefield.
This is why statements about “escalation” should be treated carefully.
An escalation could take many forms, including missile attacks, drone operations, attacks against military facilities, disruption of shipping, cyber operations or diplomatic breakdowns. A prediction of escalation does not establish that any particular event will happen.
Strait of Hormuz Remains a Central Flashpoint
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most important strategic elements in the current confrontation.
Iran has repeatedly emphasized its ability to influence shipping through the waterway, while the United States has sought to protect commercial vessels and maintain energy flows.
Reuters reported that Iranian oil exports through the strait had recovered significantly in September, although they remained well below pre-war levels.
The dispute over Hormuz has consequences far beyond Iran and the United States.
Any prolonged disruption could affect oil markets, shipping insurance, transportation costs and energy prices. Countries across Asia and Europe are particularly exposed because of their reliance on Gulf energy supplies.
That makes the waterway both a military pressure point and an economic one.
Iran and the United States Are Also Testing Diplomacy
Despite the harsh rhetoric, diplomatic channels have remained active.
Reuters reported on September 30 that Iran had received a U.S. response to Tehran’s latest ceasefire proposal through Qatari mediators. The proposal involved lifting a U.S. blockade on Iranian ports in exchange for Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
The development illustrates the contradictory nature of the current crisis.
Military confrontation continues, yet negotiations have not completely disappeared.
Both sides have incentives to maintain leverage while exploring potential agreements. That creates an unstable environment in which military threats and diplomatic proposals can appear almost simultaneously.
The Midterm Election Adds Another Layer
The IRGC’s decision to address U.S. voters directly also highlights the domestic political dimension of the conflict.
The November midterm elections are approaching, and Iran’s letter explicitly attempts to influence how Americans understand the war.
The Washington Post previously examined the possibility of an Iranian “October surprise,” discussing whether Tehran could attempt an action before the U.S. midterms. That was an analysis of a potential scenario, not evidence that such an operation had been planned.
The distinction is important.
Military events can affect domestic political debates, but that does not establish that any specific attack or operation is designed to influence an election.
The IRGC letter, however, makes the electoral audience explicit. Its authors are openly addressing American voters and asking them to reconsider U.S. foreign policy.
Competing Narratives About the War
The current crisis demonstrates how differently Washington and Tehran describe the same events.
Iran presents itself as resisting foreign aggression and argues that its nuclear activities are peaceful. The IRGC letter also claims that the United States and Israel have failed to accomplish their objectives.
U.S. officials and military analysts, by contrast, have emphasized Iran’s military capabilities, nuclear concerns and regional influence.
Neither side’s official messaging should automatically be treated as an independent assessment.
For readers trying to understand the conflict, the most useful approach is to separate three categories:
- Verified events, such as the publication of the IRGC letter.
- Official claims, including Tehran’s description of its nuclear program and military performance.
- Strategic assessments, such as Keane’s warnings about possible escalation or regime pressure.
Keeping those categories separate makes it easier to understand what is known and what remains uncertain.
What Could Happen Next?
Several developments could shape the next phase of the crisis.
The first is diplomacy.
If Washington and Tehran can reach a durable ceasefire arrangement, tensions around the Strait of Hormuz and regional military operations could decrease.
The second is renewed military confrontation.
If negotiations fail, both sides could return to military pressure. Keane’s recent comments indicate that some U.S. strategic analysts are preparing for that possibility.
The third is continued information warfare.
Iran has already demonstrated its willingness to communicate directly with American voters. The United States and its allies are likely to continue presenting their own accounts of Iran’s military capabilities and intentions.
The fourth is economic pressure.
Energy shipments through the Strait of Hormuz remain particularly important. Any significant disruption could produce consequences for global markets.
Is an Immediate Escalation Confirmed?
No specific future escalation should be treated as confirmed solely because of the IRGC letter or Gen. Keane’s warning.
The IRGC document is a political and strategic communication designed to influence public opinion. Keane’s comments are strategic analysis and warnings about possible outcomes.
The available reporting does establish that tensions remain serious and that military and diplomatic activity are continuing. Reuters reported ongoing hostilities, while also reporting that Tehran and Washington continued communicating through intermediaries.
That combination makes the situation fluid.
The next major development could come through diplomacy, military action, economic pressure or a combination of all three.
Final Takeaway
The latest Iran-U.S. confrontation is no longer limited to missiles, military operations and negotiations.
It is also a battle over public opinion.
The IRGC’s 25-page open letter represents an unusually direct attempt to reach American voters before the midterm elections. Tehran is presenting the conflict through a narrative centered on U.S. foreign policy, Israel, the nuclear issue and the Strait of Hormuz.
Gen. Jack Keane, meanwhile, has warned that continued military pressure could dramatically affect Iran’s position and that Tehran could respond by escalating the conflict. His October 2 comments specifically discussed the possibility of further U.S. and Israeli combat operations placing additional pressure on the Iranian regime.
For now, however, escalation remains a possibility rather than a confirmed future event.
What is clear is that the confrontation has entered a highly complex stage where military pressure, diplomacy, energy security and political messaging are all connected.
The coming weeks will show whether Washington and Tehran move toward another negotiated arrangement or whether the current confrontation produces another round of military escalation.
FAQs
What did the IRGC’s open letter to Americans say?
The IRGC released a 25-page letter addressed to the American people. It urged U.S. voters to reject President Trump’s policies, criticized American support for Israel and foreign wars, and argued that Iran and the United States could coexist if U.S. policy changed.
Why did the IRGC address U.S. voters?
The letter was released ahead of the U.S. midterm elections. IRGC spokesman Hossein Mohebbi said the organization hoped American voters would hear Tehran’s message and reconsider their decisions.
Who is Gen. Jack Keane?
Jack Keane is a retired U.S. Army general and a Fox News senior strategic analyst. He has been commenting extensively on U.S. strategy toward Iran and the possibility of renewed military action.
Did Gen. Keane confirm that an attack on Iran is imminent?
No. Keane has warned about possible escalation and discussed potential U.S. and Israeli combat operations, but those comments are strategic assessments rather than confirmation that a specific attack will occur.
Why is the Strait of Hormuz important?
The Strait of Hormuz is a major energy-shipping route. Its security affects international oil supplies, shipping and energy markets. Reuters reported that Iranian oil exports through the waterway had recovered to almost 10 million barrels per day in September, still around half the pre-war level.
Is Iran’s open letter part of an information war?
The letter can be understood as part of Iran’s effort to communicate its version of the conflict directly to foreign audiences. Reuters and Al Jazeera reported that Iran has also used other English-language digital messaging to reach international audiences.
Are the claims in the IRGC letter independently verified?
Not all of them. The existence and contents of the letter are documented, but claims about military success, nuclear intentions and responsibility for the conflict represent competing positions and require independent verification.
What happens next in the Iran-U.S. conflict?
The immediate direction remains uncertain. Diplomatic contacts have continued alongside military tensions. Reuters reported on September 30 that Iran had received a U.S. response to its latest ceasefire proposal through Qatari mediators.
About the Author
