Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

News

Trump Throws a Cyber Jab at Iran

Trump Throws a Cyber Jab at Iran
Make us preferred on Google

The cyberattacks reported by Yahoo News on Friday and by others in recent days targeted Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and a proxy militia. Although this isn't the first time the US has used its cyberweapons against Iran — back in 2010 the US and Israel hit Tehran's covert nuclear program hard with a computer worm called Stuxnet — the decision to unleash a cyberattack while refraining from a conventional military response raises some interesting questions:

Why launch a digital strike? It sends a message — but stops short of outright war. President Donald Trump didn't want to further escalate the conflict, but he did want to respond to the triumphant downing of an unmanned US drone, as well as to the tanker attacks that his administration has blamed on Iran. While computer code is undoubtedly dangerous — knocking out a power grid could easily kill thousands of people — dropping a payload of malicious ones and zeroes isn't nearly as provocative as physically bombing the country and killing people.


What next? Expect more digital shenanigans from both sides. Iran has history of launching disruptive cyberattacks against the US and its allies (and companies), and US officials are already warning of more. As Trump runs out of parts of the Iranian economy to sanction (see Hard Numbers, below), he'll likely see cyber as an increasingly attractive option: it can hurt Iran without provoking precisely the kind of wider war that he says he wants to avoid.

What could possibly go wrong? The first worry is collateral damage. Malicious code is hard to control once it's been released "in the wild," and it can affect systems that attackers didn't intend to hit. That leads to the other problem: unintended escalation. Cyberspace is a domain of conflict with few if any real rules, and no consensus on what constitutes an appropriate response to a damaging cyberattack. Put these two risks together, and what looks like a convenient way to smack an adversary without sparking an armed conflict could accidentally spin out of control.

More For You

Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, speaks during the Anthropic Builder Summit.

Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, speaks during the Anthropic Builder Summit in Bengaluru, India, February 16, 2026.

REUTERS/Priyanshu Singh
The “prisoner's dilemma” with AI regulationIn recent days, the bosses of the top US AI companies have supported more stringent regulation of the industry. Their statements came after a viral post from an Anthropic employee who said he quit over fears that AI could “kill us all.” A strong majority of US voters want more regulation, but the [...]
Brazilian Supreme Court scandal spills into presidential race
Natalie Johnson
Lula’s lead over Bolsonaro has narrowed in recent days following a Brazilian Supreme Court scandal. Earlier this month, a police report disclosed alleged links between Justice Alexandre de Moraes and Daniel Vorcaro, the suspected ringleader of a multibillion-dollar bank fraud. Though he hasn’t been accused of any wrongdoing in the case, the crisis [...]
The enduring legacy of 9/11, with former Defense Secretary Mark Esper
This week marks 25 years since 9/11—the deadliest terror attack the world has ever seen and a defining moment in American history. The attacks transformed US politics and national security. The war on terror became the organizing principle of American foreign policy. Former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper joins Ian Bremmer on the GZERO World [...]
25 years after 9/11, how much has changed?
- YouTube
Twenty-five years after 9/11, how much has actually changed? 9/11 is one of those rare moments that divides history into a “before” and an “after.” On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer looks back at the attacks that reshaped US foreign policy, launched the war on terror, and ushered in an era of military intervention, mass surveillance, and profound [...]