Iran Urges Americans to Vote Against Trump in Midterms
Left 33%
Center 33%
Right 33%
1 left · 1 center · 1 right
What happened
On Tuesday, Gen. Hossein Mohebbi, spokesperson for Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), released a 25-page "letter to the American people" seven months into a war with the United States and weeks before the Nov. 3 midterm elections. He urged Americans to vote against President Donald Trump and his allies in Congress, take to the streets in protest, and accept an offer of "peaceful coexistence" to change U.S. policy toward Tehran. Mohebbi said the war would end only if Washington admitted defeat and withdrew, accused the United States of using Iran's nuclear program as a ruse to "plunder Iran's wealth" and turn Iran "back into a colony," and blamed Trump's support of Israel for the conflict. The letter called Trump an "inveterate liar" and "insanely avaricious" man whose policies were driving the U.S. economy toward collapse, and it asserted there was not "a single verifiable instance where the IRGC has committed an act of violence against civilians."
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 3 articles
2 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 2 of 3
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Gen. Hossein Mohebbi
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 3
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: on-record letter
- Credits another outlet 0 of 3
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 3
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 30, 10:26 UTC by NewsNation, naming its source. First document 2 hours later, from Daily Wire (on-record letter).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Left-leaning coverage omits the IRGC's attacks on Trump and the factual counters that right-leaning coverage includes, leaving only a midterm vote ask tied to an offer of "peaceful coexistence." Those counters, including disputes over Hormuz traffic and IRGC violence, never appear in The Hill. Right-leaning coverage is more complete: it treats the letter as an election-season attack and answers Iran's claim that the Strait of Hormuz is closed. The New York Post does not report the coexistence offer at all.
Iran is invited in one version and accused in the other. Left-leaning coverage says Iran "called on" Americans to vote against Trump. Right-leaning coverage labels the same document a "propaganda letter."
Who among U.S. voters was meant to receive the letter, and by what channel besides a Tehran news conference?
Bottom line
The Hill gives the IRGC letter as a midterm ask for "peaceful coexistence." The New York Post gives the same letter as propaganda and is the only side that puts a daily oil-flow figure against Iran's Hormuz claim.
The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
- The Iranian regime stands accused of killing between 7,000 and 30,000 protesters in January
- The IAEA alleged Tehran was enriching uranium beyond what is needed for a power plant
The Left View
The Hill presents the letter as a call for Americans to "rally against Trump" so Washington will change its policy toward Tehran and accept Iran's offer of "peaceful coexistence." That coverage treats the document chiefly as a political and diplomatic message aimed at ending the conflict through the U.S. ballot box, without labeling it propaganda or cataloguing counter-evidence to Mohebbi's claims.
The Right View
The New York Post calls the document a "propaganda letter" from a group that has "repeatedly tried to sway" the Nov. 3 elections. It frames Mohebbi's charges — that Trump hid the "peaceful nature" of Iran's nuclear program, that the IRGC has not committed violence against civilians, that the Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed, and that the U.S. economy is imploding — as false, citing International Atomic Energy Agency allegations of uranium enrichment beyond power-plant needs, the IRGC's U.S. terrorist designation, accusations that the regime killed 7,000 to 30,000 protesters in January, Kpler data that more than 7 million barrels a day still transit the strait (about 72 percent of prewar levels), and Iran's rial falling to historic lows under U.S. sanctions.
Our Take (balanced)
The left-leaning account's strongest argument is that the letter is an explicit bid to end the war by political means — asking voters to change policy and accept "peaceful coexistence" — and can be reported as that appeal without added labeling. The right-leaning account's strongest argument is that the same text comes from a U.S.-designated terrorist force at war with America, is timed to influence a U.S. election, and repeats claims that conflict with IAEA findings, oil-transit data, and reports of mass killings of protesters. The central unresolved tension is whether the letter is better understood as a noteworthy wartime political appeal or as hostile propaganda whose factual assertions are independently contradicted.
4 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.