Cyberspace as a new Domain of Confrontation between the United States and Iran: Forms and Dimensions

Cyberspace has become a new strategic domain in which states’ geopolitical rivalry and strategic interests are expressed. Lots of new and classical forms of power have been prolonged in this new space. Diplomacy, economics, politics…etc, are transforming the cyberspace from a space of humans connectivity, liberty and prosperity to a space of military, intelligence and ideological confrontation. So, why is the cyberspace becoming a new strategic domain of confrontation generally and between the United States and Iran specifically, and what are the forms and the dimensions of this struggle?

Introduction :

Since its appearance in the 1960s, the web has never ceased to pose problems and increase the challenges of different kinds. For this reason, there are many writings that have tried to qualify the magnitudes and impacts of these technologies, and there are many centers of research and institutes interested in internet and connectivity issues and a growing wave of cybernetic literature. Yet in terms of interests, all these writings converge around global connectivity as a threat to global security and stability. Basing on geopolitical and strategic requirements the outcome is automatically the consideration of cyberspace as a vital domain or a space for the projection of power, a theater of operations, a means of practicing politics, and a strategic environment… etc.

In cyberspace, the entanglement between what is military and civilian is indisputable, which complicates the qualification of dangerous activities in this space and makes the accountability and attribution of the facts to the international community impossible. The attractiveness of cyber technologies is emerging because, in addition to the absence of regulatory mechanisms and international investigation, the potential of the latter is incomparable to other "weapons" and means of destruction, which justifies why states and various actors of the international system seek to develop and hold cyber capacities.

A state can achieve through cyberspace what it can never achieve via traditional means. States, in this sense, can wage information warfare or waves of cyberattacks, practice diplomatic pressure, commit espionage, data theft, and violations of intellectual property rights … etc, without the slightest trace. This allows them to avoid the accusations and imputations; which are made according to the political and ideological backgrounds and not with precise investigative capacities. Therefore, no real responsibility is attributed towards one actor or another in this space. Note that this also encourages the development of criminal and other dangerous activities dissociated from the global geopolitical and geostrategic context. 

Finally, to conclude, cyberspace has the potential to be a cruel emerging strategic tool. It occupies more and more an important place in international conflicts and marks its presence in the occupations and official discussions of International Relations. Cyberspace is currently an international security priority, which justifies the interstate race for cyberspace as a show of power. We will deal in this article with the strategic rise of cyber technologies in the doctrines of war between Iran and the United States where a cyber-war has been declared for years because of the diplomatic crises between the two countries. In addition, we will try to limit the forms and debating dimensions in order to explore the future of this cyber conflict. 

Analysis :

Cyberspace a new domain of confrontation :

According to R. Viener, cyberspace has become the issue of national security for most states. It has become a space of confrontation par excellence between states, and it has encouraged the development of asymmetric activities. US Assistant Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn stressed the importance of digital infrastructure for national defense as the equivalent of national independence saying that the US military in the 21st century simply cannot function without computer systems, which are no longer secure. This means that, according to him, cyber threats are considered as the constitutive element of an aggression, which requires the mobilization of classic and conventional means to respond to cyber-attacks targeting the interests of the country. On the other hand, B. Schneier, an expert in computer security, argues that it is vital for the United States to improve its cybersecurity strategy because of the ongoing power struggle for control and acquisition of power, which is a will that heads of state have expressed since the Bush administration. The French, as strategic allies of the United States, are aware of this, and they have expressed their desire to acquire digital weapons for years. The English and the Germans try to achieve the same goals to counter their rivals in the East.

Cyberspace for the Chinese is a major element in participating in the great power balances as it serves the nation’s higher political, economic and strategic objectives. The strategy of infiltration and espionage in cyberspace is the main element of the Chinese strategy to counter American supremacy in cyberspace. The Chinese strategy gives more importance to cyber warfare. Major General Dai Qingmin said, on August 20, 2000 in the China Military Science magazine, that “the digital environment is the battlefield and military information and information systems are the operational targets of enemies.” He added that the effort of electronic warfare and computer warfare will have to be directed against the strength and knowledge of the adversary. According to government sources, the Chinese spending on cyber warfare has become a top funding priority and a host of new units have been formed. The Chinese military organization in charge of cyber operations falls under the Third Department of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Staff Department. Despite its large-scale access restrictions, it will remain a country attached to the World Wide Web with a contribution of one billion and more Internet users. 

For the Russians, the new space has become the tool for destroying a remote digital infrastructure by tampering with software with some form of attack or by promoting propaganda and disinformation online. In the mid-1990s, officers attached to the Russian General Staff were paying more attention to information warfare, exerting an overwhelming influence of specific/psychological and technical information on the decision-making system on a country, its population, and its information resource structures, which will appear more effective for the Russians at present in terms of presentation and operations.

K. Mshvidobadze told Free Europe Radio that Russia views its cyber information warfare capabilities as elements of destruction against the computer capabilities of enemies. The effectiveness and potentials of information warfare systems combined with precision weapons and non-military means of influence can disrupt a state's administration system and strike down facilities and groups of peoples’ mentality and moral spirit. In other words, their effects are comparable to the damage resulting from weapons of mass destruction. From the above, and in terms of framing the Russian representation and its frameworks for conceptualizing the new space, the information security doctrine of the Russian Federation is very antagonistic in terms of language, which further complicates efforts to maintain consensus for the establishment of peace, order and security. 

The first uses of cyberspace as a domain of war and an extension of military activities

The foundations of cyber strategies, and even the views of global digital powers towards ICT, came from a deep understanding of the operational and strategic potentials and capacities of those in conflict. Its first demonstrations appeared during the events of KOSOVO in 1999, whose information and communication systems were used for the first time as a means of disinformation and disruption of the enemy. In 2007 the Israelis also used ICTs against Syria in Operation Orchard. But, the most significant use in the history of ICT was in 2008 by the Russians against Estonia. These examples confirm the prolongation of the aggressiveness of states in cyberspace during conflicts, political crises, and when it comes to ensuring security. Strategist Colin Gray confirms the idea by the presence of interests through the interconnection between politics and the definition of cyberspace to denote the importance for a country to guide its practices [in cyberspace] which is now on part with the air, land, sea and space. The strategic importance of the network dates back to its inception as a empowerment facilitator that sees small groups or individuals successfully challenge large institutions.

The United States and Iran in cyberspace:

Americans have long been aware of this kind of degrading realities of their hegemonic powers in all areas, specifically in cyberspace through the emerging activities of “cyber dissidence or cyber asymmetry”. They have been aware of the destructive effect of these cyberattacks and of all kinds of attacks or accidents against American digital infrastructures, which weighs brutally on the American economy and commerce. In October 2012, Leon Panetta  U.S. defense secretary warned that the United States was vulnerable to a “cyber Pearl Harbor” that could derail trains, poison water supplies, and cripple power grids. This means that the United States should grant an increased importance to cyberspace by strengthening not only regulatory capacities but also defensive and offensive capacities. Which after the appearance of the STUXNET case. In 2010 and after, all the accusations counter the United States and Israel collaboration to delay the nuclear program of Teheran and disrupt an important part of his oil industries and theirs risks to destabilizing the region, the battle of the development of more cyber military capacities continues at an international level specifically counter the American and Israeli interests in the middle east. Which the detection of more and more of weaponised Virus “such as Duqu, Flame, and Gauss” confirms the goal of the allies to accumulate political, military and diplomatic advantages counter their rivals without any international responsibility.

Iran, as an anti-American state in the Middle East, seeks to strengthen cybernetic resilience when she’s always the target and the object of millions cyberattacks, yet recently in December 2020 all  its network electricity was shut down by a massive cyberattacks which the Trump administration is the first suspect. So, with the help of these allies it has taken the same path to make up for its delay in mastering technologies in all areas and be present specifically in cyberspace and join the race of cyber militarisation. Finally, after the Revolutionary Guard is accused of carrying out operations against the Saudi oil giant ARAMCO, the stock exchange of a number of American banks, cyberattacks on the Israeli insurance company and others destructively targeting American industrial infrastructure and government agencies just made Tel Aviv and Washington aware of the scale of the nightmare that an open conflict with Tehran could cause. 

The attacks were seen as indirect aftershocks against the attacks on the Iranian Digital Infrastructure and their shipping interests in the Hormuz strait and affirmed Iran's existence and presence in cyberspace. Then, according to this logic, the discontent and the drama of the diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States and its allies find their expression and extension in cyberspace by sending these political messages as a new form of dissuading an adversary. As we granted in the first paragraphs, the importance and the strategic preeminence of cyberspace allows an adversary with less power to carry out activities aiming at balancing a situation in the International Relations. For example, the attacks of Iran aim, according to the experts, for the re-discussion and the reopening of its nuclear deal or the negotiation of the sanctions against the Iranian economy.

On the other hand, Russia, which is the major player in the information war at the world level, considers information warfare as a spearhead in its international diplomatic strategy. Russia has strengthened its global presence mainly thanks to its activities on the cyber network. Iran too adopted this paradigm, and guaranteed its place among the American cyber enemies, or sources of danger, by the official security institutions of the United States during the elections of 2020. This danger, as explained by these American institutions, includes Russia, China and Iran that resort to covert and overt measures "to influence the vote and the preferences of voters, to change American policies," to increase discord "in the country" and to undermine the confidence of the American people in our democratic process. "

Forms and dimensions of Iran and United states cyberrivalery:

Faced with the hegemonic and cybernetic power of the United States, ICTs provide inferior actors with the necessary capacities to inflict considerable damage on a powerful adversary. According to the Russians, the Iranians are aware of the potentials of information warfare and its psychological ability to humiliate a public person or to mobilize people against a policy or a decision ... etc. In 2008, the Iranians suffered because of the collaboration between TWITTER and the American Ministry of Foreign Affairs to mobilize the people against the Iranian political regime. So, the most prominent form during the cyber war between the Americans and the Iranians despite the presence of several types of money and sensitive data theft attacks is the form of informational warfare, which fits into the Iranian anti-American doctrine. In form, information warfare differs from other cyberspace activities such as cyberattacks against a country's vital infrastructure and material interests. Yet, social media was used as a direct instrument of influence to change and neutralize public opinion regarding a decision or policy against the Iranian regime and pushing the American elites to collaborate not to resist.

The second form is media warfare, which is a complement to information warfare. It fits into the general framework of an information influence strategy against an adversary. Iran did not only rely on social networks to amplify or humiliate opponents and supporting his goals, it also used the official media instruments. This virtual war uses social networks and electronic news sites, which disseminate only the kind of information they want. 

Finally, the study concludes with one of the most dangerous and disastrous activities of all. The cyber attacks on vital infrastructure in the United States. For years, Iranians have been accused of committing cyberattacks against American interests. The degree and impacts of these attacks are not the equivalent of Russian or Chinese neither the American cyberattacks in terms of damage, yet they reflect a certain level development that the Iranians have accumulated in recent years. For this, because of the absence of the equivalence technological capacities, they devote their effort against non-vital financial and economic institutions compared to the Russians and Chinese and North Koreans who regularly target institutions of high strategic importance.

In terms of the dimensions of diplomatic friction and rivalry between Iran and United States, we predict that the indirect war will never take a dramatic path despite the precision of the American harassment. It seems that the location and gravity of the Iranian cyberattacks against the United States will never get past a certain level of seriousness against vital institutions, yet Iran's attempts are only aimed at pushing these negotiations forward and moving the situation in favor of their country’s causes and interests. Other issues that could increasingly poison Iran's diplomatic relations with the United States and the European Union are the nuclear deal and the ongoing economic sanctions. In this sense, information and computer warfare is only one part of the permanent antagonistic doctrine of Iran against the West.

Recommendations :

States should not only develop strategies of struggle and confrontation in cyberspace, yet cooperative work will also have its benefits.

Cyberpowers should encourage their rivals to improve their behaviors in cyberspace through affinity, not antagonism.

The United and Iran should settle diplomatic disputes before they escalate over cyberattacks.

The United States and Iran should be aware of the interests of emerging non-state actors and limit their powers to undermine diplomatic relations between states.

Iran and the United States should consolidate their relations through specific conventions and frameworks of agreements in the cyber domain as in other domains.

Kezzoute Mhammed is a Nonresident fellow at the CGSRS | Centre for Geopolitics & Security in Realism Studies. He may be contacted at kezzoute.m@cgsrs.org 

Follow The CGSRS | Centre for Geopolitics & Security in Realism Studies on Facebook and Twitter (@CGSRS_UK)