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.

Misleading information about the nature of climate change is further complicating and delaying action to fight the environmental issue, according to a new research report.

A sprawling report, released this month from the International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE), found “powerful actors” like governments, political parties, and corporations are often behind the intentional spreading of inaccurate or misleading narratives about climate science.

“The result is a decline in public trust, diminished policy coordination, and a feedback loop between scientific denialism and political inaction,” the coalition of researchers wrote in the 127-page report.

Actors often have an economic or political interest in spreading the misinformation, with frequent groups including the fossil fuel industry, members of the Republican party, lobbies and some nation-states or governments. But it can also include unlikely groups like learning institutions.

Researchers noted denial has long threatened the flow of climate science information, but attempts to discredit or delegitimize climate science have started dominating the anti-climate science campaigns.

“When the evidence produced by climate science is disregarded, circumvented or undermined, public trust suffers,” the report stated.

Scientific consensus on climate change is also frequently misrepresented in the media, further complicating the information ecosystem, IPIE said. The report noted social media has become “key public carriers of information about climate change.”

Misinformation about severe weather patterns has persisted for years, with conspiracy theories and falsehoods often resurfacing during major weather events like hurricanes or tornadoes. Much of this dialogue takes place on social media, where unvetted or false information can spread to mass amounts of users in seconds.

These theories and false information often spark emotional responses, giving actors a chance to set the narrative, disinformation experts previously told The Hill.

Researchers outlined four main policy recommendations to curb the flow of misinformation and its impact on climate action. The suggestions included legislation ensuring standardized carbon reporting and labelling, litigation to ensure standards are enforced and the education of policymakers and the public.

IPIE is an independent and global science consortium of researchers focused on the world’s information environment. The report analyzed 300 publications between 2015 and 2025.

To measure the integrity of information, researchers evaluated publications based on markers of accuracy, consistency, reliability and transparency.