Recent military actions involving the United States, Israel, and Iranian targets have heightened geopolitical tensions and with that comes an elevated cyber threat landscape that organizations cannot afford to ignore. 

For years, Iranian state-aligned and affiliated cyber actors have used cyber operations as an asymmetric instrument of power and this time is no different. Reports are indicating that state-linked threat groups and affiliated activist actors are increasing activity aimed at U.S. and allied entities. And as history has repeatedly shown, cyber conflict is rarely confined to governments alone. It frequently spills into critical infrastructure, supply chains, and the broader digital ecosystem that underpins economic and national security. 

We are already seeing signs of that spillover. 

In the past week alone, we’ve seen new threats emerge against critical infrastructure. Polish authorities recently thwarted an attempted intrusion targeting a national nuclear research facility, with potential ties to Iranian actors. And in the United States, amid concerns, state election officials are urging the White House to provide more timely information about cyber risks to upcoming elections. Different sectors. Different countries. Yet, the same pattern: geopolitical instability translating into digital risk. 

In this context, one reality stands out: information-sharing is more important than ever. And Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs) and Sector Coordinating Councils (SCCs) are central to that effort. ISACs provide trusted platforms that enable peer organizations to exchange actionable intelligence in real time – indicators of compromise, tactics and techniques, observed vulnerabilities, and mitigation strategies. SCCs complement that role by aligning strategic priorities between industry and government, helping shape policy, strengthening coordination, and advancing sector-wide best practices.

Their importance becomes even more pronounced during moments of volatility. Though, when organizations and governments share indicators, tactics, and risk assessments in real time, they shorten the window of opportunity for adversaries. As tensions escalate in the Middle East, ten ISACs came together earlier this week to assess and communicate cross-sector risks tied to the conflict. The resulting joint advisory identifies prominent Iranian state-sponsored actors and their known areas of focus, non-state groups to monitor, and provides a coordinated risk analysis for critical infrastructure operators.

Just as important as its findings was its message: collective awareness is our strongest defense. This is especially critical given the recent leadership changes in the Administration, the ongoing shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security and our nation’s leading civilian defense agency - Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) –  operating at 38% staffing capacity. At the same time, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (CISA 2015), which provides the legal framework and liability protections that encourage voluntary cyber threat information sharing between the private sector and government, is currently up for renewal. The law’s protections for companies that share cyber threat indicators with the federal government are set to expire on January 30, 2026, making the continued strength of these information-sharing mechanisms especially important during a period of heightened geopolitical cyber risk.

For organizational leaders, this moment should prompt urgency. Limiting risk is not simply a matter of monitoring and improving your internal systems. It requires active participation in trusted information-sharing networks and a willingness to contribute, not just consume, threat intelligence. 

Organizations should ensure they are engaged in relevant ISACs and SCCs, sharing indicators in real time, validating response plans through joint exercises, and strengthening coordination with sector partners and government counterparts. Ultimately, it's the speed, depth, and quality of our shared information that will determine how effectively we mitigate threats and how resilient our nation remains in the face of escalating risks.

‍

Read Next

Across the Atlantic, Cyber Policy Is Running Into the Same Terminology Problem

The report covers Europe’s cybersecurity industry, investment landscape, and evolving cyber posture, but it also spends considerable time on a more basic question: what actually counts as “offensive cybersecurity” in the first place?

Before We Discuss Cyber Operations Policy, We Need a Common Language

Governments, private-sector organizations, service providers, researchers, legal experts, and other stakeholders can all play roles in understanding and responding to cyber threats. First they need a shared terminology.

UNGA Takeaways: Digital Sovereignty Without Digital Isolation

A central theme emerged across the conversation: greater digital sovereignty does not have to mean greater digital isolation.