By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to election interference attempts, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on Iranian and Russian entities. These entities, linked to the IRGC and GRU respectively, allegedly sought to influence the 2024 election through disinformation campaigns and the creation of deepfakes targeting the U.S. electorate. Both Iran and Russia denied the allegations. The sanctions highlight the U.S.’s commitment to safeguarding its democratic processes from foreign interference.
Read the original article here
U.S. sanctions against Russian and Iranian entities for attempted election interference highlight a complex and concerning issue. The declared intent is to deter future interference, yet the effectiveness of these measures remains highly debatable, particularly given the perceived scale and success of past meddling. The argument that these were merely “attempted” interventions seems insufficient considering the significant impact attributed to such actions in shaping public opinion and potentially influencing election outcomes. The suggestion that previous elections were similarly influenced adds to the gravity of the situation, raising questions about the long-term impact on democratic processes.
The belief that the U.S., despite its considerable military might, is failing to recognize and respond appropriately to the ongoing threats posed by major global powers like Russia and China, is a recurring theme. The sense of being in an undeclared war is pervasive, with election interference viewed as just one facet of a larger geopolitical conflict. This framing casts the sanctions as reactive measures, insufficient to address what is considered an existential threat.
The cynicism surrounding the effectiveness of sanctions is palpable. The notion that sanctions will serve as meaningful deterrents is heavily questioned, with suggestions that they are largely symbolic and unlikely to significantly impact the behavior of sanctioned entities. Further fueling this skepticism is the observation that the U.S. itself, through the use of super PACs and dark money, contributes to the very problem it seeks to address, thus undermining the moral authority of the sanctions. The irony of the U.S. relying on its own disinformation campaigns to counter foreign efforts is noted, highlighting the hypocrisy and self-defeating nature of this response.
The overall assessment of the current political climate in the U.S. is one of deep division and paralysis. The government’s perceived inaction and inability to reach consensus on critical issues is contrasted with the perceived efficiency and decisiveness of authoritarian regimes. This perceived weakness fuels concerns about the future of American democracy and the continued erosion of trust in government institutions. The analogy to a prolonged civil war is used to portray the deep fractures within society and the inability to find common ground even in the face of external threats. The suggestion that this division is being exploited by foreign actors further emphasizes the precariousness of the situation.
The comparison to the events of 9/11 and the subsequent “war on terror” serves as a stark warning about the consequences of delayed and fragmented responses to significant threats. The argument is made that the U.S. response to 9/11, while initially unifying, ultimately led to long-term instability and unforeseen negative consequences. This is used as a cautionary tale highlighting the risks of failing to decisively address the ongoing threats of foreign interference, emphasizing the potential for long-term damage to societal cohesion and national security. The suggestion that the “terrorists won” is interpreted not as a military defeat, but as a failure to address the underlying social and political problems exacerbated by the attacks. The concern that the current situation could have similar long-term consequences underscores the urgency of addressing the ongoing challenge of foreign election interference.
In conclusion, the U.S. sanctions against Russian and Iranian entities for attempted election interference are viewed not as a solution, but as a piecemeal response to a much larger and more pervasive problem. The concerns raised highlight the need for a more comprehensive and proactive approach to address the ongoing threat of foreign interference, focusing not only on deterring future actions but also on strengthening domestic institutions and addressing the underlying societal divisions that make the country vulnerable to such manipulations. The overall tone suggests a deep-seated anxiety about the future of American democracy and the urgent need for significant changes to prevent further erosion of the country’s political stability.