Technological transformation has remained an important vehicle in changing the character of warfare. From the longbow to nuclear deterrence, every technological advancement had implications on the nature of warfare. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as one such technological advancement that is transforming the way conflict is conceived, determined, and carried out on different levels. Algorithms, data streams, and autonomous systems can analyze information and respond more quickly than any human command structure. In this digitalized environment, quantification of dominance is moving from number of soldiers to technical expertise and from firepower to computing power.
In the ongoing war on Iran by the United States and Israel the role of algorithmic warfare is becoming clear. AI has become an important force multiplier for both the United States and Israel. Huge amounts of intelligence data, including cyber signals, drone feeds, and satellite pictures, are now analyzed by sophisticated computers in real time, transforming unprocessed data into useful insights in a matter of seconds. Precision attacks at a previously unthinkable scale are now possible because to the compression of what once needed hours of human deliberation into nearly instantaneous decision cycles. AI is now integrated directly into the operational core, changing the “kill chain” from detection to engagement at a pace that surpasses conventional human control. AI is in short, compressing the decision-making timelines and helping in real-time target selection. During the start of war on Iran, the United States has targeted more than 1000 locations within first 24 hours of the attack. This target positioning was selected with the help of Claude AI.
Iran, on the other hand, has taken a different approach based on asymmetric innovation. It is using AI to improve flexibility, and unpredictability of its operations but lacks the same technological depth as of the United States and Israel. Iran has focused on swarms of inexpensive drones, AI-assisted missile weapons, and dispersed offensive tactics. These systems are capable of autonomous navigation, real-time trajectory adjustments, and coordinated strikes that can overwhelm even the most sophisticated defensive networks. The United States has responded by deploying AI-powered countermeasures, resulting in a new reality in which human engagement becomes more strategic than tactical and non-contact warfare becoming the method of fighting. So far, there has been no direct confrontation between the soldiers of the two countries.
However, the change extends beyond actual combat. The US-Iran dynamic also emphasizes the emergence of AI-driven cyber and cognitive combat, where conflicts are waged via networks, narratives, and perceptions in addition to on the ground. Through complex information operations, AI is being used to disrupt communications, find weaknesses, and sway public opinion. The distinction between war and peace is blurred in this context because governments may project power without engaging in conventional conflict, influencing outcomes through digital supremacy rather than direct interaction.
There is a moral conundrum and ethical challenge associated with the use of AI. Further, the issue of accountability grows more complicated as AI systems play roles in determining and ranking objectives. When a machine-informed judgment has unexpected repercussions, who is at fault? The pace and scope of AI-driven combat run the risk of turning human judgment into a procedural checkpoint rather than a decision authority, even while human operators are still theoretically “in the loop.” This brings up serious issues with control, transparency, and the ethical limits of automation in conflict. Many AI models function as black boxes – even developers cannot fully explain how the system arrived at a particular output. When such systems are used to generate targeting recommendations, military personnel may find it difficult to challenge or verify the algorithm’s conclusions. This raises the risk that human oversight becomes procedural rather than substantive. In highly compressed decision environments, commanders may simply approve algorithmically generated target lists rather than conduct rigorous independent verification.
It is becoming evident that combat is becoming a rivalry of intelligence systems and technical ideas rather than just a fight of weaponry. Iran is an example of a decentralized, adaptable strategy that leverages AI to counteract traditional drawbacks, whereas the United States is a model of centralized, high-tech supremacy driven by data integration and speed. When taken as a whole, they show a more general change in international conflict, one in which results are determined by innovation rather than merely power. History has demonstrated that human decisions determine fate, not technology. However, those decisions are getting more difficult to articulate and quicker to make in the era of AI. The battlefield is becoming a place where decisions are made in milliseconds and outcomes happen at machine speed. Losing control over how battles are waged, rather than just losing a war, is the biggest risk in such a society.
Hamza Zamir Kiani is AM Admin & Coord NIPS (Nust Institute of Policy Studies), NUST Research Think Tank and MS Scholar Riphah International University.
