Trump Accuses Iran of Driving Up Oil Prices Before Midterms: 'Evil Regime' Must Never Get a Nuclear Weapon

President Donald Trump accused Iran on Thursday of deliberately trying to drive up the price of oil ahead of the November 3 midterm elections, claiming Tehran is manufacturing phony attacks on shipping and mine scares in the Strait of Hormuz to engineer a price spike. In a sharply worded Truth Social post, the president called Iran "an Evil Regime," asserted that far more oil is actually moving through the strait than before the conflict began, and closed with a familiar red line: Iran can never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.

The accusation landed on a day when oil markets were already in turmoil. Brent crude futures pushed above $111 a barrel, West Texas Intermediate neared $98.50, and overnight strikes sent crude spiking more than 3 percent, rattling equity markets and dragging the Nasdaq down more than 2 percent. The UK Maritime Trade Operations agency has logged more than two dozen attacks on ships in October — a record — while the September inflation report showed gasoline prices up 34 percent from a year ago.

The post is one of the most direct confrontations between the president and Tehran since the start of the conflict, and it comes less than two weeks before an election in which energy prices are shaping up to be one of the most politically sensitive issues in the country.

What Trump Actually Posted on Truth Social

Trump's post, published Thursday, October 22, framed the alleged price manipulation as a deliberate Iranian operation timed to the midterm election:

> "Iran is doing everything they can to drive up the price of Oil prior to the U.S. Midterm Election. They are even making up fake hits, mines, and everything else, because more Oil is coming through the Hormuz Strait now than it did even prior to the beginning of the Conflict."

The president accused Tehran of continuing to kill protesters — a claim he presented as fact in the post, though the figures he cited have not been independently verified — and closed the message with his long-standing demand on Iran's nuclear program:

> "It is truly an Evil Regime, and I can only hope the American Public, and the World, understands how EVIL they are! IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON, AND THEY WILL NEVER A NUCLEAR WEAPON! President DONALD J. TRUMP."

In the same post, Trump claimed that "75,000 protestors lie dead in less than seven months" and wrote that it was "shocking how the World, and the Dumocrat Party, seem not to care" — spelling "Democrat" as "Dumocrat," a jab he has used before.

The Truth Social message did not include any images or tanker-traffic figures. It offered no dates, vessel names, or data sources for its claims about Hormuz shipping volumes.

Iran's Ship-Attack Claims: What Tehran Said Happened

The trigger for Trump's post appears to have been a dramatic set of claims issued by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy on Thursday. According to reports from ProfiloPolitics and Unbiased Headlines, the IRGC Navy said that four vessels involved in what it described as illegal ship-to-ship oil transfers in the northern Persian Gulf were struck simultaneously on Wednesday and caught fire after being tracked by its forces.

The IRGC went further, saying three additional vessels collided with naval mines west of the Strait of Hormuz, caught fire, and were left disabled. It warned the United States military that continued provocations could bring a wider response against American regional bases, and it accused US forces of encouraging ships to cross mined routes and of involvement with the oil transfers — claims Iran framed as the reason its navy acted.

Iran did not identify the ships, their owners, or the American company it alleged the oil was being transferred for, and it released no immediate details of casualties or oil spills.

What Independent Monitors Say — and What Is Unverified

Here is where the two narratives sharply diverge, and it is important to separate what has been independently confirmed from what has not.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations agency, the principal independent tracker of attacks on commercial shipping in the region, issued no new incident reports corresponding to Iran's claims. According to ProfiloPolitics' reporting, none of the seven alleged incidents has been independently confirmed.

A US Central Command spokesperson, speaking to Al Jazeera, rejected Iran's mine claims as incorrect and said American forces have cleared international shipping lanes of mines — while asserting that Iran, not the United States, is the party using missiles and drones in the region.

The broader October record is genuinely striking even without the IRGC's latest claims: UKMTO has recorded more than two dozen attacks on ships this month, a record for a single month, and has noted that a majority of the vessels attacked were not themselves reporting incidents — meaning the true number may be higher. That record figure, reported by Unbiased Headlines, provides real context for why shipping insurers and oil traders are jittery. But it does not settle which of the IRGC's specific seven claims are accurate, and no independent body has verified them.

Trump's claim that "more Oil is coming through the Hormuz Strait now than it did even prior to the beginning of the Conflict" likewise has no published data source attached to it. The post cites no tanker counts, no transit figures, and no agency or satellite assessment. What can be said as a matter of record is that the Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world's most critical oil transit chokepoints, and that markets are pricing real risk into crude — whatever the exact transit numbers are on any given day. (That characterization of the strait's importance is general context, not a claim about current volumes.)

Oil Markets in Turmoil: Brent Above $111

The financial backdrop makes the politics of the post easy to understand. On the day of the post, Brent crude futures for December delivery rose 2.3 percent to push past $111 a barrel, while West Texas Intermediate December futures gained 1.4 percent to trade near $98.50, according to a Stocktwits market report.

The selloff spread beyond energy. The SPDR S&P 500 ETF slipped more than 1 percent, the Nasdaq-100 tracking Invesco QQQ Trust dropped more than 2 percent, and semiconductor shares were hit particularly hard — the Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bull 3X Shares (SOXL) fell to a six-month low, down more than 16 percent in midday trading. CoinDesk's live coverage noted Bitcoin sliding toward $81,500 as part of the broader risk-off move, and put the overnight crude spike at more than 3 percent after strikes rattled markets.

Wells Fargo analysts pointed to additional, unrelated pressure on the technology selloff — comments from Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang about limited capital for neocloud providers were adding to credit-availability worries. But energy was the day's dominant story, and the president's post poured political gasoline on it.

The September inflation report adds further weight: gasoline was up 34 percent from a year earlier, per Unbiased Headlines' reporting. That is the number voters feel at the pump, and it is the number campaigns on both sides will be pointing to over the next twelve days.

The Midterm Election Angle

The timing is not subtle, and Trump made no effort to be subtle about it. "Prior to the U.S. Midterm Election" is the stated motive in the post's first sentence.

The November 3 midterms are less than two weeks away, and prediction markets suggest the president's party is facing a difficult night. CoinDesk's market coverage put the odds of a Democratic sweep of both houses of Congress at 67 percent on Polymarket — "contract highs," in the site's phrasing. A Fox Business report earlier in the week documented Democrats openly planning investigative probes aimed at Elon Musk and the administration if they take the House.

For the White House, the political logic of the Iran post is twofold. First, it externalizes the blame for high gasoline prices: if voters are angry at the pump, the president is telling them the culprit is Tehran, not his policies. Second, it casts the opposition party as indifferent — "shocking how the World, and the Dumocrat Party, seem not to care" — folding the energy story into the campaign's broader argument that Democrats are soft on Iran.

Opinion is split on the merits of both claims, and those are opinions, not settled facts.

Supporters of the president's view argue — their view — that Iran has a documented history of threatening Hormuz shipping and manufacturing incidents for leverage, and that the timing of Tehran's claims, days before an election, is suspicious. Critics argue — their view — that the president's own confrontation with Iran, including the strikes he has publicly boasted about, is what has militarized the shipping lanes and inflated the risk premium in the first place, and that blaming Tehran for market reactions to his own escalation is misdirection.

What is established: prices are up, shipping is under pressure, and the election is twelve days away. Everything else in that paragraph is interpretation.

"Knocked the Hell Out of Them": Trump's Broader Iran Posture

The Truth Social post did not arrive in isolation. Around the same time, in remarks reported by ANI and carried by Daily Prabhat, Trump defended his aggressive posture toward the Iranian regime in notably blunt terms.

"I'm doing what should have been done by other presidents... We can't let Iran have a nuclear weapon," the president said, according to the ANI report, arguing that stringent action against Iran was long overdue and had the backing of many Americans, whom he described as "great patriots."

"This should have been done a long time ago by other Presidents. We've knocked the hell out of them, and we may go a little further," he added — signaling that Washington could intensify its pressure campaign if necessary. (The "may go a little further" remark is his, as reported; what that would concretely mean was not specified.)

The remarks also reiterated what Trump has said for years: Iran "cannot be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons," a position that has been the through-line of his Iran policy across both terms. The post's all-caps closing — "IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON, AND THEY WILL NEVER A NUCLEAR WEAPON!" — is the social-media version of the same red line.

Earlier This Week: The Ukraine-and-Diesel Comments

One element of the reaction to Thursday's post was distinctly awkward for the White House, and it is worth reporting because it shaped the day's commentary. According to indy100, Trump had earlier in the week claimed that Ukrainian strikes on refineries in Moscow were driving up fuel costs and had floated the idea of importing Russian diesel to ease the pressure at the pump.

Commentators were quick to spot the tension. "OH SO IT IS IRAN and not Ukraine huh?" one wrote. "I thought it was Ukraine's fault?" said another. A third asked simply: "Iran? I thought this was Ukraine's fault."

The contradiction is a matter of public record: two different culprits named for the same fuel-price problem within the same week. Whether the administration will reconcile the two explanations — or simply let the Iran version dominate the final campaign stretch — remains to be seen. (That last sentence is the author's analysis, not a reported statement.)

What Happens Next

Several developments will determine where this story goes in the coming days.

First, whether independent monitors confirm any of the IRGC's seven ship claims. If UKMTO or commercial satellite imagery verifies strikes, the story shifts from a messaging war to a genuine escalation at sea. If the claims remain unverified, Trump's "fake hits" framing gains traction — and Iran's credibility takes another hit.

Second, the trajectory of oil prices. Markets have already priced in a significant risk premium; if Hormuz transits continue normally and the IRGC's claims dissolve, crude could retrace. If there are real disruptions — or if the president's "may go a little further" hint materializes into action — $111 Brent could look like a floor rather than a ceiling.

Third, the political calendar. With twelve days to the midterms and gasoline up 34 percent year over year, energy prices will feature in virtually every closing argument. Trump's post is an attempt to get ahead of that story rather than be defined by it. Whether voters accept Tehran as the explanation for their gas bills is the question the election will answer.

FAQs

What did Trump say about Iran and oil prices?

In a Thursday, October 22 Truth Social post, President Trump wrote: "Iran is doing everything they can to drive up the price of Oil prior to the U.S. Midterm Election. They are even making up fake hits, mines, and everything else, because more Oil is coming through the Hormuz Strait now than it did even prior to the beginning of the Conflict." He called Iran "an Evil Regime" and insisted it can never have a nuclear weapon.

Did the post include any evidence or data?

No. The post offered no tanker counts, transit figures, dates, or named sources for its claims about Hormuz shipping volumes or for its assertion that Iran's ship-attack claims are fabricated. It was a text-only post.

What did Iran's navy claim?

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy claimed four vessels conducting ship-to-ship oil transfers in the northern Persian Gulf were struck and set ablaze, and that three more ships hit naval mines west of the Strait of Hormuz. None of the seven incidents has been independently confirmed, and the UK Maritime Trade Operations agency issued no corresponding incident reports.

What did US Central Command say?

A CENTCOM spokesperson told Al Jazeera that Iran's mine claims were incorrect, said US forces had cleared international shipping lanes of mines, and asserted that Iran — not the United States — is the party using missiles and drones in the region.

How did oil markets react?

On the day of the post, Brent crude December futures rose 2.3 percent to above $111 a barrel and WTI December futures gained 1.4 percent to about $98.50. Overnight strikes had earlier sent crude up more than 3 percent. Broader markets sold off, with the Nasdaq down over 2 percent.

Why are the midterms relevant to this story?

The November 3 midterm elections are less than two weeks away, and Trump explicitly framed Iran's alleged actions as an attempt to drive up oil prices "prior to the U.S. Midterm Election." Gasoline prices are up 34 percent year over year, making energy costs a highly sensitive campaign issue. Prediction markets currently price a Democratic sweep of both houses at 67 percent.

What did Trump say about further action against Iran?

In remarks reported by ANI around the same time, Trump said: "We've knocked the hell out of them, and we may go a little further," while insisting that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is overdue work that "should have been done by other presidents." He did not specify what further action would involve.

Has Trump blamed anyone else for fuel prices recently?

Yes. Earlier in the same week, according to indy100, Trump attributed rising fuel costs to Ukrainian strikes on Moscow refineries and floated importing Russian diesel to ease prices — a different explanation that commentators contrasted with Thursday's Iran accusation.

Related Articles

• Trump Slams NYC Horse Carriage Ban

• Trump Slams LeBron James Over National Anthem Conduct

• Trump Defends Ramaswamy Attack Ad Against Amy Acton

• Trump Tells Data Center Builders to Pay Communities a "Dividend"

Sources: indy100 (published 2026-10-23T08:15:45Z), Unbiased Headlines (Oct 22, 2026, 1:13 PM EDT), ProfiloPolitics, Stocktwits market report (Oct 22, 2026), CoinDesk live coverage (Oct 22, 2026), Daily Prabhat/ANI (Oct 23, 2026). Trump's Truth Social post quoted from outlets' verbatim reporting; post-ID not captured (no direct Truth Social profile read available). Claims by Trump and by Iran are reported as claims; independent verification status is noted where outlets established it. Analysis and motive assessments are the author's interpretation, clearly separated from reported facts.