Iran Paid Anti-Israel Protesters in America, U.S. Government Says
Plus, Andreessen and Horowitz back “The Little Tech Agenda,” and more
The director of national intelligence, Avril Haines, says the U.S. intelligence community has “observed actors tied to Iran’s government posing as activists online, seeking to encourage protests, and even providing financial support to protesters.”
Haines made the disclosure in a July 9, 2024 press release. She said it was for the purpose of “informing the public of foreign efforts to influence our democratic processes.”
“In recent weeks, Iranian government actors have sought to opportunistically take advantage of ongoing protests regarding the war in Gaza,” Haines said. “Americans who are being targeted by this Iranian campaign may not be aware that they are interacting with or receiving support from a foreign government.”
The U.S. intelligence community typically functions separately from law enforcement, but in the past, some federal prosecutors have brought cases about attempted Iranian influence on American public opinion. President Biden pardoned one such figure in 2023 as part of a deal to obtain the release of American hostages held by Iran.
Haines, a Biden appointee who was deputy national security adviser during the Obama administration, took care not to portray all anti-Israel protesters as Iranian dupes. “I want to be clear that I know Americans who participate in protests are, in good faith, expressing their views on the conflict in Gaza – this intelligence does not indicate otherwise. Moreover, the freedom to express diverse views, when done peacefully, is essential to our democracy,” she wrote, “but it is also important to warn of foreign actors who seek to exploit our debate for their own purposes.”
Haines said she’d be offering more updates on foreign influence efforts as the 2024 campaign season progresses.
Absent from the statement was any explanation about what the U.S. government is doing to try to stop the Iranian meddling. Has it tried to shut down the bank accounts or social media accounts that the Iranians are using? Has it conveyed a diplomatic message through the Embassy of Switzerland or through other channels to Iran to cut it out?
A foreign policy official who served in the Reagan, George W. Bush, and Trump administrations, Elliott Abrams, has a post up on his Council on Foreign Relations blog calling out the ineptitude of the Biden administration in Middle East diplomacy, writing, “As I have watched U.S. diplomacy since October 7, the phrase that has kept on coming back to me is Casey Stengel’s after his 1962 Mets racked up a modern record of 120 losses: ‘Can’t anybody here play this game?’”
“Isn’t it obvious that as between Iran and the world’s greatest superpower, Iran and not the United States should be afraid of escalation?” Abrams writes. “The record is clear that the Iranian leadership shies away from confrontation with the United States, so why are our diplomats expressing the greater fear of escalation?”
Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election spawned endless investigations and news articles and accusations. It’d be strange if the disclosure of Iranian activity in the U.S. in the midst of the 2024 campaign fails to arouse similar levels of concern.
The Little Tech Agenda: Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz of the Silicon Valley venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz have a post up headlined “The Little Tech Agenda.”
By “little tech” they mean startups as opposed to the Big Tech giants that have “the ability to wire the government against startup competitors.”.
“We believe bad government policies are now the #1 threat to Little Tech,” they write. “We believe American technology supremacy, and the critical role that Little Tech startups play in ensuring that supremacy, is a first class political issue on par with any other.”
One of their big complaints is about over-regulation:
Regulatory agencies have been green lit to use brute force investigations, prosecutions, intimidation, and threats to hobble new industries, such as Blockchain.
Regulatory agencies are being green lit in real time to do the same to Artificial Intelligence.
Regulatory agencies are applying direct pressure to banks to cut off disfavored startups and founders from the financial system.
Regulatory agencies are punitively blocking startups from being acquired by the same big companies the government is preferencing in so many other ways.…
There’s also a tax piece:
And, the government is currently proposing a tax on unrealized capital gains, which would absolutely kill both startups and the venture capital industry that funds them.
They see an opportunity: “Regulatory reform in important industries like health care, education, and housing, to strip incumbents of their current regulatory capture and drive higher quality at lower prices.”
Meanwhile, speaking of housing, the New York Times has a smart piece by Stephen Smith, executive director of the Center for Building in North America, explaining how regulation makes American elevators more costly than those in Europe, making housing more expensive. “A basic four-stop elevator costs about $158,000 in New York City, compared with about $36,000 in Switzerland. A six-stop model will set you back more than three times as much in Pennsylvania as in Belgium,” he writes. There’s also a union angle.
Deregulation has bipartisan roots going back to President Carter, Stephen Breyer, Edward Kennedy, and airline deregulation.
Sure, Andreessen and Horowitz are promoting policies that would help them and their venture capital firm make more money. Yet they make a strong case on the merits, as does Smith and as did Carter and Kennedy, that excessive regulation hurts consumers, contributes to inflation, and slows growth, while reduced regulation promotes competition, innovation, and growth while giving consumers lower costs and better choices.
Donald Trump talks about this at almost every campaign rally, recounting how he goes into meetings with business executives and asks them which is worse, the taxes or the regulations, and the near-unanimous answer is the regulations.
Federal Election Commission records analyzed by The Editors show that Andreessen and Horowitz are putting significant money behind their message. Together, the two have contributed a total of $44 million—not so “little”—in the 2023-2024 election cycle to a superpac called Fairshake. To the extent it’s getting any attention it’s being described as a “crypto industry superpac.” It’s hard to parse how much is just narrowly self-interested cryptocurrency political spending and how much is the broader startup/opportunity/growth/deregulation agenda. To the extent that it’s the second one, and the money is going to both Republicans and Democrats, it’s an interesting and encouraging political development.
France readies a 90 percent tax rate: After a bloc that included a far-left faction emerged victorious in France’s elections, a French rabbi, Moshe Sebbag, told The Times of Israel that “it seems France has no future for Jews,” and said he advises young French Jews to leave for Israel.
He wasn’t kidding. And it’s not just the anti-Israel and the antisemitism. The leftists have proposed a new top tax rate of 90 percent on income over $440,000 a year, up from 45 percent. As the Committee to Unleash Prosperity put it in its newsletter item flagging the proposal, “So much for liberté.”
At a 90 percent marginal tax rate, France won’t have much of a future not just for Jews, but for anyone other than government employees and welfare recipients.
NYU settles: NYU and the students who were suing the university over antisemitism have reached a settlement, according to a joint announcement today. The settlement is confidential but the terms that were announced are pretty favorable to the Jewish students, including hiring a new Title VI coordinator and incorporating the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. The students were represented by Kasowitz Benson Torres, LLP, which has similar cases going against several other universities, including Harvard.
Brown settles: Brown University, meanwhile, has also announced a settlement with the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. This settlement puts a lot of emphasis on policies, procedures, and record-keeping, so whether or how it will have any concrete effect on the campus is not clear.
Krugman on effort versus results: The July 7 issue of The Editors began this way:
The most significant moment of President Biden’s interview with ABC News came toward the end. It went like this:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And if you stay in and Trump is elected and everything you're warning about comes to pass, how will you feel in January?
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I’ll feel as long as I gave it my all and I did the good as job as I know I can do, that's what this is about.
It was an exchange that transcends the political news of the moment, about whether Biden will stay in or leave the presidential race. It points to a bigger issue. Biden, when he talks about “I gave it my all,” is talking about effort, inputs, and intentions. Stephanopoulos, when he talks about “Trump is elected,” is talking about results and outcomes….
Paul Krugman’s column in today’s July 9 New York Times includes this passage:
The crucial moment, as I see it, was when Biden was asked how he’d feel if Trump won the election and replied, “As long as I gave it my all and I did the good as job as I know I can do, that’s what this is about.”
No, it’s not. I have huge admiration for Biden, but this isn’t a game where you get points for giving it your all and still get to feel good if that turns out not to be enough.
Krugman and I don’t see eye-to-eye that frequently, but this one made me smile.
Optimism from Oklahoma City: The New York Times has brief interviews with a bunch of mayors, including David Holt of Oklahoma City, who is a Republican:
What gives you hope about the United States?
“I actually don’t think we’re a polarized country.” He added, “There’s like 70 percent in the middle who just want to work together to get things done, and they’re registered Republicans, Democrats and independents.”
Thank you: At The Editors, we’re pro-growth, we’re against 90 percent tax rates, we don’t take any money from Iran, and we’re the antidote to negativity bias. If you appreciate what we’re doing, please become a paying subscriber today. Thanks to those of you who already have.
You can also help by spreading the word about The Editors to a friend, family member, or colleague who might enjoy it.