Could US involvement in Israel-Iran war spark cyberattacks?

U.S. companies, global supply chains and other critical infrastructure could be at risk of Iranian cyberattacks if President Trump engages the U.S. in the escalating war between Israel and Iran.
Threats of the U.S. being targeted come as cyberattacks launched by Iran on Israeli banks and other targets have reportedly spiked by 700 percent since the conflict began last week.
In the wake of the attack, the U.S.-based Food and Agriculture-Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) and the Information Technology-Information Sharing and Analysis Center (IT-ISAC) issued a joint statement urging U.S. companies to bolster their defenses against possible cyberattacks.
But as Trump considers whether and to what extent the U.S. could become involved in the ongoing war, how the country's digital landscape will be affected should remain among the White House's biggest concerns, former CIA officer and FBI special agent Tracy Walder told NewsNation, The Hill's sister network.
'I personally feel that this is the No. 1 threat,' Walder, a NewsNation national security contributor, said Thursday.
Walder says that Iran has already warned against U.S. involvement, pledging 'all-out war' were the U.S. to lend support to Israel. She believes a large part of that response would likely involve cyberattacks directed at critical sites such as water treatment plants and other key facilities.
'They've done it before, and so I don't have any reason to think they wouldn't do it again,' Walder added of Iran's history.
An Iranian track record of cyberattacks
In its warning to U.S. companies, the joint statement between the Food and Agriculture ISAC and IT ISAC said that historically, Iranian state-sponsored actors, as well as pro-Iran hacktivists and cybercriminals, have launched attacks against U.S. targets during periods of heightened conflict.
The organizations said in the wake of the recent volley of missiles launched between Israel and Iran, U.S. companies should take immediate steps to 'proactively assess' their cyber preparedness. The warning also urged companies to prepare for a range of cyberactivities, some of which could be potentially disruptive.
'Preparedness is critical to resilience,' the guidance said, adding that companies should also make themselves aware of Iranian-affiliated cyberthreats.
Walder, without direct knowledge of intelligence being provided to Trump, believes that both the administration and the U.S. intelligence community are likely actively conducting threat assessments. She predicts that part of ongoing discussions with Israel may include how cybersecurity protections would be given to the U.S. in exchange for supplying 'bunker buster' bombs.
Dating back to her time in the CIA, Walder has remained vocal about the seriousness of the cyberthreats that Iran and other foreign adversaries present. But she warns that Iran, along with China, poses the biggest concerns.
In 2016, seven Iranians were indicted for conducting cyberattacks against U.S. financial institutions, including Bank of America and Chase, between 2011 and 2013.
The FBI said at the time that the attacks cost American banks tens of millions of dollars and also compromised critical controls of a New York dam. Most of the attacks against the banks were part of a systematic campaign of distributed denial-of-service attacks, which disabled bank websites and prevented customers from accessing their accounts.
In 2022, Iranian nationals who FBI officials say were sponsored by the Iranian government were indicted for an attempted cyberattack on Boston Children's Hospital in 2021, marking the third time the hospital faced similar threats.
'Iran is highly capable in the cyber realm, and we, I think, don't want to recognize that sometimes,' Walder said, adding, 'We have no choice but to take them seriously. If we don't, that's incredibly negligent on our part, because they've done it successfully before.'
What could cyberattacks look like?
If Iran were to act, Iranian financial resources could be used for state-sponsored ransomware attacks and wiper malware attacks that could be directed at U.S. infrastructure, Axios reported.
The Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) recently reported that recent Iranian state-sponsored activity has included malicious cyberactivity against operational technology devices. The agency warned companies that certain steps, including strengthening existing passwords and implementing multi-factor authentication, should be taken to build resilience against potential threats.
Messages sent to the CISA and National Security Council on Thursday from NewsNation seeking comment were not immediately returned.
The FBI, in recent years, has issued reports warning against the threat that Iran presents, including cyberattacks, which have previously proven costly to the U.S. economy.
While U.S. critical infrastructure remains a main target, other possibilities, including America's food chain, could be in danger. Walder points to a June 5 ransomware attack on United Natural Foods, Inc., which is the primary distributor to Whole Foods, that shut down distribution to more than 30,000 North American grocery stores.
Food distribution services and other technology services are still recovering, providing a glimpse into what could happen should the U.S. be attacked in this manner. If Iran were to attack, Walder predicts it would target private companies that are associated with the country's critical needs and critical infrastructure, which would impact large populations of Americans while also exposing the country's vulnerabilities.
'In my opinion, this is what warfare looks like,' Walder told NewsNation.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Politico

19 minutes ago

• Politico

Appeals court blocks Newsom's bid to reclaim control of National Guard from Trump

A federal appeals court has indefinitely blocked an effort by California Gov. Gavin Newsom to reclaim control of the National Guard troops President Donald Trump deployed to Los Angeles following unrest related to immigration enforcement. The three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that Trump appeared to have acted within his authority when he took control of 4,000 California National Guard troops under a law that has never been invoked without the consent of a state governor. Despite a debate over the level of violence accompanying the protests, the judges — two appointed by Trump and one by President Joe Biden — concluded that the law gives Trump enormous latitude to determine that the protests and related violence were interfering with execution of federal law. The judges said there are limits to the president's ability to call up the Guard, but there was enough evidence of civil unrest and danger to federal officials to justify Trump's actions. The ruling indefinitely sets aside a decision by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who last week issued a temporary restraining order against Trump's deployment of the Guard. Breyer is scheduled to hold another hearing in the case on Friday to consider Newsom's request for a longer-term block of both the Guard deployment and Trump's subsequent deployment of 700 Marines. The three judges on the panel were Trump appointees Mark Bennett and Eric Miller and Biden appointee Jennifer Sung. All three appeared skeptical of Newsom's position during oral arguments on Tuesday. Their Thursday night order was issued on a 'per curiam' basis, which means no judge was identified as the author of the opinion. Newsom, a Democrat, could ask a larger, 11-judge panel of the appeals court to take up the issue or seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. Despite ultimately ruling for Trump, all three judges flatly rejected his administration's claim that the courts had no role in reviewing his call-up of the military to Los Angeles. Had Trump's call-up been 'obviously absurd or made in bad faith,' they said, courts would clearly have a role in assessing it. However, the appeals court said a line of legal precedents dating to the early 19th century indicated that the court's review of Trump's decision should be 'especially deferential' and that the president's orders should be upheld if they reflect 'a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a 'range of honest judgment.'' Newsom and his attorneys argued that Trump's involvement of the National Guard was likely to fuel more anger from protesters and inflame an already tense situation on the streets of L.A. But the appeals judges said those concerns were too remote to entitle the state to an order reversing Trump's action. 'California's concerns about escalation and interference with local law enforcement, at present, are too speculative. We do not know whether future protests will grow due to the deployment of the National Guard,' the court wrote. 'And we do not know what emergencies may occur in California while the National Guard is deployed.' There are signs that the protests and altercations with authorities have actually diminished in the days since the deployment. After imposing a curfew in downtown L.A last week, Mayor Karen Bass eased the curfew Monday and lifted it on Tuesday. The 9th Circuit judges also concluded that a technical aspect of the law — a requirement that Trump issue his order to call up the Guard 'through' Newsom — was not violated, even though the order was delivered to Newsom's subordinate. Even if it were a violation, they added, it wouldn't justify Breyer's ruling to rescind the order altogether. The appeals court panel had put a temporary hold on Breyer's ruling shortly after he issued it — an administrative measure to give the panel time to hear arguments. The decision Thursday grants the Trump administration's request to keep the hold in place as litigation proceeds. While it's not a final ruling on the legality of Trump's deployment order, by the time those issues are resolved by another panel of the appeals court, the Guard deployment could be over and the dispute could be moot.

Bloomberg

20 minutes ago

• Bloomberg

Oil Could Spike to $90 If Strait of Hormuz Shut, Citigroup Says

Brent crude could jump to around $90 a barrel if the Strait of Hormuz is closed, according to Citigroup Inc., which added that a prolonged halt to shipping through the crucial waterway would be unlikely. 'Any closure of the Strait could lead to a sharp price spike,' analysts including Anthony Yuen and Eric Lee wrote in a note, citing the bank's current bullish case scenario. 'But we think the duration should be short, as all efforts would focus on a reopening, so that it should not be a multi-month closure.'

Yahoo

24 minutes ago

• Yahoo

White House Rips Reporter For 'Disgraceful' Shot At President Trump

White House Rips Reporter For 'Disgraceful' Shot At President Trump originally appeared on The Spun. The White House made it clear this week that any criticism towards President Donald Trump and his personal life won't be tolerated. During an episode of "The Contrarian" podcast with Jennifer Rubin, former CNN correspondent Jim Acosta commented on the ICE raids taking place in California. That eventually led to him taking a jab at Trump's late first wife, Ivana. Before marrying Trump in 1977, Ivana lived in Canada. Originally, she spent her days in Czechoslovakia. She passed away on July 14, 2022. Though it seems incredibly wrong, Acosta felt comfortable dissing Ivana while on "The Contrarian" podcast. "Where are the ICE raids at the Trump properties? Could somebody call ICE on the Trump golf course in Virginia? You're telling me there's nobody in there that is undocumented or has some kind of squirreliness going on with their paperwork. Give me a break," Acosta said. "How many immigrants has he married? He's got one buried at his golf course in New Jersey! Isn't she buried by the first hole or the second tee or something like that? Immigrants always doing the jobs that Americans don't want to do!" White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wasted no time responding to Acosta's comments. "Jim Acosta is a disgraceful human being," Leavitt told Fox News Digital. Trump has not yet said anything about Acosta's remarks. Earlier this year, he referred to the ex-CNN host as a "major loser" during a social media rant. "Wow, really good news," Trump wrote. "Jim Acosta, one of the worst and most dishonest reporters in journalistic history, a major sleazebag, has been relegated by CNN Fake News to the Midnight hour, 'Death Valley,' because of extraordinarily LOW RATINGS (and no talent!) Word is that he wants to QUIT, and that would be even better. Jim is a major loser who will fail no matter where he ends up. Good luck Jim!" It wouldn't shock us to see Trump call out Acosta in the coming House Rips Reporter For 'Disgraceful' Shot At President Trump first appeared on The Spun on Jun 18, 2025 This story was originally reported by The Spun on Jun 18, 2025, where it first appeared.