Reshaping The Future Of War With Malware
As tensions rage beneath the Middle East cauldron, the expanded employment of cyber operations is preventing the region from boiling over.
US Cyber Command's covert cyber operation against Iran, in response to the September attacks on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, underscores the inclination of states to use cyber operations instead of armed force and points to broader strategic implications in the region.
Conventional wisdom would suggest that scaled-up capabilities, growing competition, and the proliferation of malware across cyberspace presents a legitimate risk of escalation in state conflict, transcending the cyber domain toward the kinetic. However, recent history has shown that states have more often availed themselves of their offensive cyber arsenals to achieve surprisingly de-escalatory effects, according to the Atlantic Council think-tank.
Offensive cyber operations sit low on the escalation ladder, the figurative scale ranging from diplomatic engagement to all-out nuclear war, and provide states with means of signaling adversaries without using force, and potentially even deescalating tense or provocative situations.
Through this lens, there is a case to be made for the responsible diffusion of malware as a tool of diplomacy and statecraft to de-escalate regional conflict.
Cyber operations have served this exact de-escalatory purpose throughout recent tensions in the Persian Gulf.
When a US Navy Carrier Strike Group was sent to the Persian Gulf in May an Iranian threat to US assets was detected in the area, Washington signaled that it was prepared to meet potential Iranian aggression with airstrikes.
US President tweeted that the United States was “locked & loaded,” alluding to a kinetic response option, but instead, the US deployed malware to neutralise the Iranian threat, while demonstrating that Tehran’s provocations would not go unchecked.
The decision to prioritise cyber response options underscores Washington’s desire to cool things down and reassert its control by utilizing short-of-war tactics. A similar strategy is playing out on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. While remaining largely out of the fray, Israel is closely monitoring tensions in the Persian Gulf. Israel, like the United States, remains chiefly concerned with breaking Tehran’s spreading influence and power in the region, but does not want to bear the risk of doing so alone.
Israel’s Ministry of Defense recently reported to hav eased export control rules on certain malwareto allow Israeli companies to more quickly obtain exemptions for marketing to more countries than previously possible. Under the newly relaxed regulations, not only has the approval process been shortened to as few as four months, but also the Defense Ministry has indicated that the group of allowable buyers has expanded. Indications that Israeli spyware, software that enables users to surreptitiously reap information from another user’s hard drive, and other forms of malware are destined for purchase by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have raised eyebrows amongst rights advocacy groups.
While these human rights concerns over these malware exports are justifiable, the de-escalatory and even ethical role of offensive cyber operations cannot be ignored.
While kinetic options could escalate conflict and draw the ire of the international community, cyber operations can provide de-escalatory alternatives under challenging operational circumstances. Concerns over potential misuse of cyber tools to quash internal dissent and suppress democratic values are legitimate and should be taken seriously. So, too, should the ethical case for the responsible utilisation of these tools.
The de-escalatory and diplomatic effects offensive cyber operations can bring to bear make them legitimate tools of statecraft in navigating regional conflict.
You Might Also Read:
Shockwave - A Global Transformation In Warfare:
