Singhal on Iran and midterms War costs and voter choices

Oct 2

In DD India's complete interview, former diplomat Sushil Kumar Singhal says the U.S. and Iran are simultaneously preparing for conflict and discussing diplomacy. Asked about November 3 midterms, he says Trump faces low approval and possible loss of Congress and even Senate control, qualifying that outcomes remain in the future. The anchor cites conditional military threats and challenges Trump's claim of an immediate Europe-wide reserve release. Singhal calls early victory claims a pressure tactic whose novelty has worn off. He argues that pressure on Iran has failed because Washington is unwilling to bear a ground campaign's human cost and Iran has long prepared for distant attacks. He recalls Pezeshkian's Qatar-mediated New York proposal and Trump's rejection, interpreting U.S. demands as opening Hormuz and surrendering stockpiles without concessions. On elections, Singhal argues prices, oil costs and an unpopular war strain Trump's base and congressional candidates. He predicts Democratic consolidation and Republican division. The anchor raises dissatisfaction with Iran's domestic repression and possible abstention among Arab, Muslim and young voters; Singhal accepts the possibility but assesses the numbers as limited and says voters may still choose the lesser evil. The close leaves the actual vote and its foreign-policy meaning unresolved. These are attributed assessments, not verified polling estimates or established election results.

In DD India's interview, Sushil Kumar Singhal assesses prolonged war, fuel costs and affordability as pressure on Trump, his base and Republican congressional candidates. He cites possible loss of Congress or Senate control but leaves outcomes uncertain, and predicts Democratic consolidation and Republican division. Challenged about dissatisfaction with Iran's domestic repression and possible abstention among Arab, Muslim and young voters, he accepts the possibility but judges the numbers limited and says voters may choose the lesser evil. The actual vote and its foreign-policy significance remain open. This is attributed public analysis, not an election outcome or measured new poll.