ConflictClarifier

ردیاب بحران ایران-خلیج فارس ۲۰۲۶
CC
Events Archive
strikeMar 29, 2026

Hacked hospitals, hidden spyware: Iran conflict shows how digital fight is ingrained in warfare

Summary

WASHINGTON (AP) — As they fled an Iranian missile strike, some Israelis with Android phones received a text offering a link to real-time information about bomb shelters. But instead of a helpful app, the link downloaded spyware giving hackers access to the device's camera, location and all its data. The operation, attributed to Iran, showed sophisticated coordination and is just the latest tactic in a cyber conflict that pits the U.S. and Israel against Iran and its digital proxies. As Iran and its supporters seek to use their cyber capabilities to compensate for their military disadvantages, they are demonstrating how disinformation, artificial intelligence and hacking are now ingrained in modern warfare. The bogus texts received recently appeared to be timed to coincide with the missile strikes, representing a novel combination of digital and physical attacks, said Gil Messing, chief of staff at Check Point Research, a cybersecurity firm with offices in Israel and the U.S. “This was sent to people while they were running to shelters to defend themselves,” Messing said. “The fact it’s synced and at the same minute ... is a first.” The digital fight is likely to persist even if a ceasefire is reached, experts said, because it's a lot easier and cheaper than conventional conflict and because it is designed not to kill or conquer, but to spy, steal and frighten. Iran-linked groups are turning to high-volume, low-impact cyberattacks While high in volume, most of the cyberattacks linked to the war have been relatively minor when it comes to damage to economic or military networks. But they have put many U.S. and Israeli companies on the defensive, forcing them to quickly patch old security weaknesses. Investigators at the Utah-based security firm DigiCert have tracked nearly 5,800 cyberattacks so far mounted by nearly 50 different groups tied to Iran. While most of the attacks targeted U.S. or Israeli companies, DigiCert also found attacks on networks in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and other countries in the region. Many of the attacks are easily thwarted by the latest cybersecurity precautions. But they can inflict serious damage on organizations with out-of-date security and impose a demand on resources even when unsuccessful. Then there's the psychological impact on companies that may do business with the military. “There are a lot more attacks happening that aren’t being reported," said Michael Smith, DigiCert's field chief technology officer. A pro-Iranian hacking group claimed responsibility Friday for infiltrating an account of FBI Director Kash Patel, posting what appeared to be years-old photographs of him, along with a work resume and other personal documents. Many of those records appeared to be more than a decade old. It's similar to a lot of the cyberattacks linked to pro-Iran hackers: splashy and designed to boost morale among supporters, while undermining the confidence of the opponent but without much impact to the war effort. Smith said these high-volume, low-impact attacks are "a way of telling people in other countries that you can still reach out and touch them even though they’re on a different continent. That makes them more of an intimidation tactic.” Health care and data centers have been a target Iran is likely to target the weakest links in American cybersecurity: supply chains that support the economy and the war effort, as well as critical infrastructure like ports, rail stations, water plants and hospitals. Iran also is targeting data centers with both cyber and conventional weapons, showing how important the centers have become to the economy, communications and military information security. This month, hackers supporting Iran claimed responsibility for hacking Stryker, a Michigan-based medical technology company. The group known as Handala claimed the strike was in retaliation for suspected U.S. strikes that killed Iranian schoolchildren. Cybersecurity researchers at Halcyon recently published the findings of another recent cyberattack targeting a health care company. Halcyon did not reveal the name of the company but said the hackers used a tool that U.S. authorities have linked to Iran to install destructive ransomware that shut the company out of its own network. The hackers never demanded a ransom, suggesting they were motivated by destruction and chaos, not profit. Together with the attack on Stryker, “this suggests a deliberate focus on the medical sector rather than targets of opportunity," said Cynthia Kaiser, senior vice president at Halcyon. “As this conflict continues, we should expect that targeting to intensify.” Artificial intelligence is providing a boost AI can be used both to increase the volume and speed of cyberattacks as well as allow hackers to automate much of the process. But it's disinformation where AI has really demonstrated its corrosive impact on public trust. Supporters of both sides have spread bogus images of atrocities or decisive victories that never happened. One deepfake image of sunken U.S. warships has racked up more than 100 million views. Authorities in Iran have limited internet access and are working to shape the view Iranians receive of the war with propaganda and disinformation. Iranian state-run media, for instance, has begun labeling actual footage of the war as fake, sometimes substituting its own doctored images, according to research at NewsGuard, a U.S. company that tracks disinformation. Heightened concerns about the risks posed by AI and hacking prompted the State Department to open a Bureau of Emerging Threats last year focused on new technologies and how they could be used against the U.S. It joins similar efforts already underway at agencies including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the National Security Agency. AI also plays a role in defending against cyberattacks by automating and speeding the work, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently told Congress. The technology, she said, “will increasingly shape cyber operations with both cyber operators and defenders using these tools to improve their speed and effectiveness,” Gabbard said. While Russia and China are seen as greater cyberthreats, Iran has nonetheless launched several operations targeting Americans. In recent years, groups working for Tehran have infiltrated the email system of President Donald Trump’s campaign, targeted U.S. water plants and tried to breach the networks used by the military and defense contractors. They have impersonated American protesters online as a way to covertly encourage protests against Israel.

Actors involved

USIsraelIranRussiaChina

Sources

  • DAVID KLEPPER, Associated PressBy DAVID KLEPPER, Associated Press

    WASHINGTON (AP) — As they fled an Iranian missile strike, some Israelis with Android phones received a text offering a link to real-time information about bomb shelters. But instead of a helpful app, the link downloaded spyware giving hackers access to the device's camera, locati

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran