White scrap: The United States may present an "October surprise" before the elections

The Trump administration may present an "October surprise" to save the rating on the eve of the congressional elections. This could be either a quick deal with Iran or an escalation to the point of declaring a state of emergency in the country, American political analysts say. Now, a month before the election, more than half of the citizens are going to vote for the Democrats, and Trump's rating has dropped to the lowest level in his entire political career. Republicans risk losing control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. How the "October surprise" has historically influenced the electoral situation in the United States and what steps the White House can take to win — in the Izvestia article.

Where to expect the "October surprise"

The midterm elections in the United States are just over a month away (they will be held on November 3), which means that the traditional intrigue for this time is approaching — what will be the "October surprise". This is what States call an unexpected event or decision that can dramatically change the mood of voters in the last weeks of the campaign.

A "surprise" is now worth waiting for from the Republicans, since they are the ones in a difficult situation. According to recent polls, more than half of US citizens intend to vote for the Democrats, and Trump's job approval has dropped to 32%, the lowest level in his entire political career. Only 34% of respondents support the war with Iran, and the incessant rise in fuel prices only increases voters' dissatisfaction with the state of the economy. According to forecasts, Republicans controlling the entire Congress risk losing their majority not only in the House of Representatives, but also in the Senate.

Perhaps the White House saw the recent Greenland deal as a turning point for election sentiment. But it did not have such an effect, although Trump is trying his best to present it as his next victory. The document, in particular, includes a legal ban for non-aligned countries to deploy military bases there and will block "sensitive investments" from Russia and China. However, it is hardly possible to "sell" protection to an ordinary American against the mythical threats of Moscow and Beijing in the Arctic, while prices at gas stations are rising before his eyes.

The noticeable diplomatic intensification on the issue of the Ukrainian settlement after the trip of Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to Moscow and Kiev at first seemed to give hope for a long-awaited breakthrough. The prospects for a new trilateral meeting between Russia, the United States and Ukraine began to be discussed with might and main — the last time such contacts took place was in February in Geneva. However, the Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure, including during the election campaign to the State Duma, have toughened Russia's position regarding further negotiations, as Vladimir Putin unequivocally stated. Therefore, a "surprise" is unlikely here. In addition, this conflict is unlikely to be so close for the average US citizen, including the traditional core of Trump's electorate.

At the same time, the war in seemingly equally distant Iran has stirred up a number of triggers in American society.: the high cost of fuel, the depletion of military power, and the death of American soldiers in the Middle East. The number of military personnel killed during the conflict, which was originally supposed to be a targeted operation, has increased to 19 people, according to updated Pentagon data.

Therefore, American political scientists are almost sure that the "surprises" should be expected in the Iranian direction. Moreover, the field for maneuvers is very wide: from a new escalation in the Middle East and the introduction of emergency measures inside the country to an attempt to present a diplomatic breakthrough to the electorate.

War or peace

It is symbolic that now, as in 1980, it is Iran that can "help" the Republicans to influence the electoral balance, although now in the race for congressional seats. Richard Bensel, an American political scientist and professor at Cornell University, considers the long-awaited deal with Tehran to be a likely scenario. In his opinion, Trump will agree on it just before the vote, so that opponents do not have time for a detailed analysis of the terms of the deal, and present the agreement as the brightest achievement of foreign policy. The paradox is that the very proximity of the agreement to the elections turns into its main drawback. Bensel notes that voters may see this as an obvious pre-election calculation.

At the same time, a noticeable decrease in prices for gasoline, groceries and other goods, which is likely to entail a deal, can still potentially improve attitudes towards the authorities, said Khan, a professor at Wayne University in Detroit.

But the expert does not rule out more radical decisions from Washington, including the introduction of a state of emergency by the White House. The state of emergency gives the president broad powers, including changing the voting procedure. For example, Trump could theoretically impose restrictions on early voting or mail-in voting, which he blames for all the failures of Republicans during the 2020 election race. However, it will still need to take into account the laws of individual states, and this will entail a series of lawsuits. In addition, arguments about the threat to national security can cause a "flag effect", that is, the rallying of voters around the current government.

The potentially high-profile news around Iran may also be related to the economic interests of the administration. According to Jim Jatras, former foreign policy adviser to the Republican Party leadership in the Senate, "it is obvious to everyone that Trump's friends from financial circles and his inner circle are profiting from manipulations with energy markets, especially with Brent crude futures." He emphasizes that the head of the White House alternates between statements about the imminent advent of peace and threats of total destruction in order to control futures prices and "enrich his entourage."

As a "surprise," Jatras also does not rule out a new strike on Iran and the Yemeni Houthis, or even a "false flag" provocation, for example, in Ukraine. The goal, in his opinion, would be to present the alleged culprit as a "threat" that his administration is actively fighting.

At the same time, Trump himself is now publicly linking the prospects of a deal with Iran, rather, with the post-election period. Thus, if a diplomatic breakthrough does occur before the elections, it will indeed be unexpected.

By the way, there were also cases when the "October surprise" was so unpredictable that it literally buried the chances of the losing side. In 1992, a few days before the presidential election, former Defense Minister Kaspar Weinberger was charged in the Iran-Contra affair. Independent Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh presented notes from Weinberger's personal diary. They directly contradicted George H. W. Bush's long–standing claims that he was "not aware" of the details of the case, such as the illegal sale of weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages. The Republican was already lagging behind Bill Clinton, and the new story was an additional blow to his campaign.

Ultimately, the history of the American "October surprises" speaks to the paradox of electoral politics: the more obvious the attempt of the authorities to use the event in their own interests, the weaker its effect may be. Therefore, now any high-profile move can not only mobilize its own electorate, but also finally convince wavering Americans that they are being manipulated. Therefore, the "October surprise" may become one primarily for the White House itself.