In an era where the battlefield has shifted from physical trenches to the space of the mind and beliefs of societies, cognitive warfare has emerged as the most complex and effective form of modern conflict. This invisible war, which combines psychological, cyber, and media tools to transform the intellectual structures of societies, has transcended the traditional boundaries of friend and foe and, by manipulating the perceptual system, seeks to create fundamental changes in the core beliefs of nations. Mohammad Hossein Ghorbani Zavvareh, a researcher in the field of hybrid and cognitive wars, in an interview with Habilian, analyzed the hidden dimensions of this battle. By explaining the ten components of hybrid warfare, he explains how hostile actors, using new technologies and terrorist groups as proxy tools, seek to create instability and change in security equations. Analyzing the experience of the twelve-day war as a concrete example of this multi-dimensional battle, and examining ways to strengthen national resilience against these threats, are other main point of this dialogue.
1. How does cognitive warfare use a combination of psychological, cyber, and media tools to create change in the beliefs of the target society?
Cognitive warfare is, in fact, a targeted effort to create transformative currents in the mental structures and beliefs of a society. This type of war, using cyber and media tools, tries to direct public attitudes and beliefs in a directed manner. This transformation can occur in positive or negative dimensions, but in both cases, it has deep and sometimes fundamental consequences; to the extent that a change in beliefs can lead to the transformation of cultural paradigms into security paradigms. In this context, the issue of "Hijab" can be considered as one of the examples.
2. What is the key difference between cognitive warfare and traditional psychological warfare?
Its fundamental difference with traditional psychological warfare is that cognitive warfare focuses on the skill of undermining the authority of governments by manipulating information, producing incorrect and distorted data, and ultimately disrupting the audience's perceptual system. In contrast, within the framework of classical psychological warfare or psychological operations, the analysis and distinction of three types of audiences—white, black, and grey—becomes important, and the distinction between friend, foe, and one's own society forms the basis of psychological actions.
But in cognitive warfare, we are essentially faced with an entirely grey environment that blurs the traditional boundaries between friend and foe and, by focusing on changing beliefs, gradually transforms mental paradigms and, subsequently, destabilizes social structures; a process that can ultimately lead to soft collapse or gradual subversion.
3. Among the components of hybrid-cognitive warfare, which one(s) do you consider the main pillar(s) requiring more precise attention?
The ten domains of hybrid wars with a cognitive approach and action encompass a set of diverse and intertwined spheres, each exerting its influence on the target environment in a non-linear and uncertain manner. The main goal in hybrid wars is to create an ambiguous and multi-layered space where the actor can achieve its ultimate objectives by simultaneously and intelligently utilizing these domains.
These ten domains usually include information, cyberspace, media, data manipulation, systematic or engineered migration, the cultural sphere, diplomacy, and other complementary areas. The important point is that the prioritization of these domains depends directly on the actor's strategic objective; in other words, each domain, depending on the situation, assumes a different meaning and function and may play a key role in fulfilling the cognitive mission.
Hybrid wars with a cognitive nature, due to features such as flexibility, indirectness, and gradual impact, are aimed more at changing the perception, mindset, and public understanding in a society than at achieving victory on the physical battlefield. Consequently, the lack of transparency in the components of this type of war is designed in such a way that it can simultaneously damage the target structures without providing the victim with the possibility of a clear response or direct confrontation.
4. In the twelve-day war, which patterns of hybrid-cognitive warfare were adapted from historical U.S. experiences against target countries?
During the twelve-day war of the Zionist regime against the Islamic Republic of Iran, a non-linear and multi-layered pattern can be identified, rooted in the transfer of new technologies from the United States to this regime. In this battle, three key principles within the framework of cognitive hybrid wars were employed by the Zionist regime: Granular Action, technology-centricity, and the use of robotic systems.
This regime, alongside hard military actions, simultaneously utilized the capacities of the ten domains of hybrid warfare—including aggressive diplomacy, cyberspace, media, and systematic information manipulation. Such a combined and multi-dimensional pattern is derived from strategies and proposals raised in American think tanks like RAND and Carnegie, which emphasize changing public perceptions, spreading psychological terror, and creating disruption in the cognitive cohesion of the target society.
The main objective of implementing this strategy is to induce "continuous surprise" and then plant the seeds of "public distrust" within the heart of Iranian society; a phenomenon that, if sustained, could pave the way for various forms of "soft subversion."
It is important to note that just as the Zionist regime used advanced technologies in hard warfare, in the sphere of cognitive hybrid warfare, it also tried to focus its efforts on directly influencing individuals and public mindsets. In particular, special attention was paid to the targeted exploitation of social networks and digital communication platforms. All these processes are observable, analyzable, and strategically assessable.
5. What capacity do terrorist groups have for use in proxy hybrid-cognitive wars? How do you assess their performance in the twelve-day war?
Regarding terrorist groups, it must be emphasized that the main capacity of these actors is to create chaos and instability in various territorial regions of the Islamic Republic of Iran. With the emergence of threat-creating cells by terrorist and insurgent groups, these elements are considered Proxy Actors, which the Zionist regime has tried to activate within the framework of the ten domains of cognitive hybrid wars in a non-linear and targeted manner.
The emergence of these terrorist groups is a temporary tool for creating insecurity and diverting the focus of security institutions from macro threats. However, what was observed in the twelve-day war indicated that, due to the high level of social solidarity, public trust in the armed forces, the authority of the government, and the guidance of the Supreme Leader, the operational capacity of these groups was neutralized in its infancy, and their activity lacked any measurable tangible manifestation.
However, what attracts the attention of Zionist-Western think tanks is the temporary, situational, and alternative use of these destabilizing tools in conditions of creating a "chaotic space"; a space where small, scattered actions can leave significant psychological and social effects.
Accordingly, increasing social cohesion and solidarity plays an effective role in strengthening national resilience. In particular, the active participation of people in reporting, monitoring, and identifying the activities of terrorist groups can play a strategic role in neutralizing threats at the initial stage. On the other hand, it must be noted that the actions of these groups, in the shadow of deep public hatred towards the Zionist regime, have faced failure; because public opinion sees these groups as direct representatives of the Zionist regime and has dealt with them decisively and deterrently, to the extent that it has stripped them of any possibility of action.
Source: Farhikhtegan