For True Peace, Ceasefires Must Address Digital Warfare, Too

President Donald Trump’s announcement of the Israel-Iran ceasefire declared that each side will “remain PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL,” marking a precarious cessation to a short but furious war shaped largely by conventional military combat. During the conflict, Israeli and Iranian forces exchanged large-scale, state-on-state physical strikes targeting military installations, nuclear facilities, and each other's critical infrastructure.

But while such battles have historically been fought with ballistic missiles, defense systems, and occasional bunker bombs, today’s conflicts are increasingly digitalized, defined by cyber attacks on critical infrastructure, autonomous drones launched inside enemy lines, and transnational spyware breaching sovereignty. As war goes digital, peace deals must urgently catch up.

From Gaza and Israel to Russia and Ukraine, any meaningful ceasefire must confront state sponsored hacking, internet shutdowns, and an inflammatory barrage of digital disinformation — in addition to the traditional elements of war. Without addressing these digitally enabled operations, peace deals risk falling short.

Iran is the latest example of this emerging risk. Perhaps understandably, the existential fears of future nuclear enrichment have shrouded the digital elements of the current war — but with that comes a threat to sustainable peace.

A ceasefire that ignores the digital front allows the conflict to simmer below the surface — risking future full-scale war down the line.

For 13 days in June, there was a near-total internet blackout across Iran, throwing over 90 million people into digital darkness. The sudden collapse of 97% of Iran’s internet traffic should have been expected.

Internet shutdowns have become a modern weapon of war. In 2024, armed conflict was the leading cause of government-imposed shutdowns. Across 11 countries at war, 103 shutdowns were carried out by warring parties as a tactic of war.

Six of those shutdowns occurred in Gaza, including in areas where the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) were concentrating their military operations. Documented from October 2023, the shutdowns coincided with a new wave of intense bombing, during which the Israelis switched off the internet, plunging Palestinians into near-total digital darkness.

This blunt weapon of control also deepened civilian harm in the Israeli-Iranian conflict, sowing confusion and panic for citizens who were unable to connect to emergency services, loved ones, or the latest news.

While Iran itself may have shut off the internet in order to limit the impact of Israeli cyber attacks, it was also intended to prevent its own population from gaining access to Western platforms like WhatsApp and Instagram, keeping the citizenry cut off from itself and the world.

Any prospect of sustainable peace between the parties requires that the Iranian population remain connected. Access to information in times of both war and peace is a human right under international law, and its protection provides a solid foundation for a preamble in any future agreement.

While war thrives in the shadows of a shutdown, there can be no peace without connectivity. Without the internet, populations are cut off from their basic human rights — rights that are in turn the foundation for peace. Peace is also essential for the full realization of human rights, and without the internet to enjoy or experience those rights, peace will always be beyond reach.

And yet, there is not one ceasefire agreement to date that has included language prohibiting attacks on the internet, throttling of connectivity or taking civilian populations offline. The closest we have is a 2022 agreement between Ethiopia and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front to “expedite and coordinate the restoration of essential services in the Tigray region within agreed timeframes.”

In the case of Iran, it was a US tech firm that supposedly rescued the Iranian people from complete blackout. Elon Musk activated Starlink for the thousands of terminals that were already in the country, highlighting the growing (and concerning) role of Western tech firms in conflict zones. Musk’s Starlink played a similarly active role in Ukraine, where not only civilians but also the Ukrainian military has relied upon US technology to operate.

Beyond shutdowns, offensive cyber attacks are a significant element of every major conflict this year. Cyber war is on the rise even though the international public doesn’t see its immediate impact on their hand held screens. This is particularly true in the war between Iran and Israel, which together house some of the world’s most skilled hackers and cyber mercenaries.

During the conflict, Predatory Sparrow, perhaps the most aggressive pro-Israel hacker group in the war between Iran and Israel, conducted cyber attacks against a national Iranian bank, Bank Sepah, and hacked the Nobitex exchange, claiming responsibility for a $90m heist on the Iranian cryptocurrency exchange.

The attacks go both ways in a spiralling duel between unseen players. One cybersecurity firm published that there has been a 700% increase in attacks by Iranian state actors and pro-Iranian hacker groups against Israel compared to the same time last year — with government websites, financial institutions, telecommunications companies, and critical infrastructure all under attack.

And the attacks bleed cross conflicts too, with pro-Palestinian hackers targetting Israel following its attack on Iran. According to reports, the Handala group hacked terabytes of data from petroleum conglomerates, drone makers, ISPs and construction firms with threatening messages: “You ignored every warning. You thought distance and steel would protect you. But now, the fire you sparked is coming for you.”

And yet, these types of fundamental cyber attacks taking place during an armed conflict don't rate a mention in the surrender, ceasefire, or peace demands of any of the parties. That’s surprising given that a cyber conflict could well spill over to the US and beyond — even when the bombs stop. Notably, US cyber and security agencies are urging that Americans stay on high alert.

Neither Iran, Israel, or America are new to this. Israel’s cyber operations against Iran, most notably the Stuxnet attacks on the Natanz uranium enrichment plant from 2010, demonstrate the long tail of attacks against Iran. And also what is at stake.

Could an Iranian cyberattack be launched against US critical infrastructure, resulting in a further push to the US’s physical engagement on Iranian soil?

While the international community has not yet seen a case where a digital attack has resulted in a meaningful physical response from the attacked party, it is only a click and conflict away.

The Iran-Israel war is increasingly defined by disinformation, including viral content generated by AI, such as text messages to thousands of Israelis warning that fuel supplies will be halted at gas stations for 24 hours and fake news of a potential terrorist attack at a regional shelter. Such online antics incite violence, threaten genocide, and fuel war. Encouragingly, we have seen social media agreements between warring parties, such as in Nigeria,to restrain inflammatory content, but this has to be just the start. In so many conflicts, it will be difficult to fully secure peace unless the parties agree to constrain their inflammatory social media attacks.

When the stakes are as high as they are today, there is an urgent need to update laws, norms, and agreements to match the totality of today’s digital hostilities. With a ceasefire in Iran, and others potentially still on the table from Ukraine to Gaza, we need to invest in ceasefires that don't just address the physical and ignore the digital.

Such a contemporary agreement will include new language for responsible behavior in cyberspace, prohibitions on internet shutdowns, restraint on cyber attacks and AI-enabled systems that threaten citizens, and more. It will require the active participation of digital third-parties, from cyber proxies to Silicon Valley tech companies, in the negotiations, and will enable digitally empowered monitors to identify any breaches of an established agreement.

There are over a hundred armed conflicts occurring globally today, most of which the world knows nothing of, and none of which are immune to the impacts of technology. Iran, Gaza, Israel, Ukraine, Kashmir are just the most current and visible expressions of this trend.

With ceasefires back on the international agenda, including in the war between Israel and Hamas, the existing legal and normative frameworks that govern armed conflict must meet the moment. The parties, negotiators, mediators, the monitoring commissions, and the international community may end the traditional war, but the expanding digital conflict will be left to continue unabated.