1,653 Accounts Posing as Iranians Pushed Netanyahu, Haaretz Says

A network of 1,653 X accounts posing as Iranian users amplified Benjamin Netanyahu's posts before Israel's election, Haaretz reported on November 10, describing an apparent covert influence campaign. ^[1]

The accounts presented support for Netanyahu as coming from Iranians, with some addressing Israeli voters in Hebrew. Their activity included coordinated posts and replies before they returned to discussing Iran after the election, according to Haaretz and details published by Middle East Eye. ^[1][3]

Who controlled or funded the accounts remains unknown. No connection to Netanyahu, his Likud party or another sponsor has been established, nor has any effect on votes. Netanyahu's office and Likud denied any connection in response to an earlier investigation, according to Middle East Eye. ^[1][3]

On election morning, one account writing in Persian asked for a Hebrew translation of an appeal to Israeli voters. Haaretz quoted the message: "From inside Iran! Dear people of Israel, I hope that today you will make history the right way." Another account supplied the translation eight minutes later. ^[1]

That exchange captures the campaign's apparent purpose: to turn a purported Iranian voice into a message Israeli voters could read and act on. The political value lay in the identity attached to the appeal as well as its words.

A coordinated push

Middle East Eye, summarizing Haaretz's investigation, said some accounts urged Israelis to vote for Netanyahu "on behalf of the Iranian people." It also described repeated text and tightly timed responses across the network. ^[3]

Two accounts shared 109 identical posts. On election day, network accounts responded simultaneously or within five minutes to 232 posts published by 53 accounts, according to Middle East Eye. ^[3]

Those figures describe repetition and timing, not the size of an audience. A network of 1,653 accounts is not a count of people persuaded, and repeated messages do not become independent endorsements merely because they appear under different names.

The research was based on work by Expose, a social-media monitoring company, according to Middle East Eye. ^[3]

The reported activity had a history before the election campaign. Around 1,600 accounts had previously been identified as part of an influence operation promoting Reza Pahlavi, Middle East Eye said. Of those, 185 began interacting with Netanyahu's profiles as the campaign gathered pace in July. ^[3]

Haaretz had reported on October 22 that accounts previously linked to an influence campaign against Iran's government were amplifying Netanyahu's election videos. That finding drew on analysis by the newspaper, online researchers and a private monitoring firm. ^[2]

The sequence ran from accounts previously linked to anti-Iranian-government messaging, to amplifying Netanyahu's election videos, to discussing Iran again after the vote. Haaretz reported that final change in its November 10 investigation. ^[1][2]

The election-law test

The accounts had already drawn a legal challenge before voters went to the polls. According to Middle East Eye, the Brandeis Institute and FakeReporter submitted evidence to Israel's Central Elections Committee in a petition against Netanyahu, Likud and the Prime Minister's Office. ^[3]

Committee chairman Noam Solberg rejected the petition before the election. He said the activity appeared to fall under election-advertising transparency rules and, on its face, to violate the law, but that he could not reach a definitive ruling while the operators were unidentified, Middle East Eye reported. He referred the evidence to police. ^[3]

The decision left two separate questions: whether the messages required disclosure as election advertising, and who could be held responsible for them. Solberg's assessment of an apparent transparency violation did not identify an organizer or establish that the petition's targets directed the activity. ^[3]

Covert messaging dressed as the speech of a foreign public creates a problem whoever sponsors it. A voter can assess an openly declared campaign appeal as advertising.

A staged endorsement asks that voter to give weight to an identity that may be false. The deception concerns who is speaking, even when the political preference is plain.

The evidence went to police following Solberg's referral, but the accounts' operators remain unidentified. ^[1][3]