The Post-Election Enemy Without

The U.S. government is focusing foreign governments' attempts to spread unrest after the election. Should it be?

Kremlin emitting influence rays | Getty

With the presidential election just a week away, it seems the national security state’s Wheel of Fear has landed squarely on foreign interference. That obsession, however, will not be limited to election day.

The FBI and the rest of the “foreign malign influence” industry have decided that the greatest moment of danger is the post-election period. Anticipating a chaotic count and widespread protest, they warn of a Russian and Iranian blitzkrieg that will sow discord about the results. The federal agencies have gone so far as declassifying a high-level intelligence report titled, “Foreign Threats to US Elections After Voting Ends in 2024” (emphasis mine). 

The report is peppered with words like “could,” “may” and “might,” and the specifics it does include are not exactly hair-raising. Here’s one such example, the Russia and Iran watchers cite:

“In May and June, Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) encouraged a US person via social media, including by offering to send money for travel, to attend a pro-Palestinian protest in Washington, DC.”

The claim is wrong on several counts. First, it frames American public opinion on the Gaza war as shaped by Iran as opposed to Israel and our own policies. 

Second, it confuses use of the dominant channel of actual public communication — social media — with a threat. It is not remarkable that the Iranians contacted this individual via social media. But citing it certainly builds some governmental position that there needs to be more controls on these platforms.

Third, this is what the U.S. spy agencies are so worried about? A single guy being offered money to go to a protest? 

The foreign influence frenzy creates the false impression that political division in this country is not organic. The American divide today is deeply influenced by policies and events of our own making and not what the Kremlin or Tehran wants to do to stir up the pot. As the feds decry conspiracies, they are feeding the creation of another one: that Putin or the Ayatollahs have influence. 

The U.S. government in recent days has released a stream of ominous reports about countries like Iran and Russia. The reports have generated a blizzard of regurgitation in the major media, hand-wringing warnings alleging threats to democracy, despite there being no evidence that foreign influence operations have swung an election in the past (or even influenced public opinion in any appreciable way).

To compensate for this lack of data that might justify the current frenzy, the intelligence agencies have also subtly shifted their rhetoric from making Americans think x or y to the charge that Russia, Iran, etc. are "amplifying” certain themes in the public debate. It is a vague modifier that defies measurement. “Amplify” appears in the intelligence report I mentioned before as well as other government press releases. Just last week, the intelligence community released its latest in an ongoing series of election security warnings with an ominous countdown in the title, “15 Days Until Election 2024.” It’s like that old TV series, “24”. Or the Department of Homeland Security’s color-coded threat levels, but for the social media age.

Screenshot from the TV series “24”

Foreign influence hawks assume election interference works because why else would governments undertake these costly operations. That’s an understandable question, but one which overlooks how irrationally powerful actors behave all the time. Just last week, the billionaire owners of the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post decided the newspapers would not endorse Kamala Harris for president. Jeff Bezos’ move resulted in the loss of over 200,000 digital subscribers, staff resignations and general public opprobrium against billionaire censorship. Quite a steep price to pay for an endorsement that would have changed all but a dozen readers’ minds, if that. But for nation states, like billionaires, the prospect of control is tempting.

That was also the case with the Iranian intelligence officer who provided me with the hacked copy of the J.D. Vance candidate vetting dossier that I went on to publish earlier this month. Iran’s goal, the intelligence community has suggested, is to hurt the Trump campaign. While my story certainly generated a lot of coverage, I haven’t seen any indication that it changed a single voter’s mind about Vance. As conservatives were quick to point out to me on X, they believed the dossier, which did not contain anything salacious, actually made J.D. Vance seems cool. That’s not the word I would use, but in my view, his past criticisms of Trump suggested a more intelligent politician than I had previously imagined. As with Bezos, the costs to Iran seem comparatively steep: an entire news cycle about Iran’s hatred of American democracy, as well as further enmity by a Republican Party whose nominee could well be commander-in-chief next year.

Of course, the national security agencies will be there next year as well. They will be in a position to say they told us so if foreign influence becomes an issue. And if it doesn’t, they will be able to say that their warnings “thwarted” or “deterred” the bad guys. It’s a win-win for them, the bonus round being that they get to argue that this whole social media thing is too anarchic and of course needs their help to regulate. In that sense, I’m more concerned about our own government’s influence.

— Edited by William M. Arkin