Military Science and Tactics

Military Science and Tactics

Identification and evaluation of internal and external factor evaluation for countering cognitive warfare in the Iranian Army Air DefenseForce

Document Type : Research/Original/Regular Article

Authors
1 Assistant Professor, AJA Command and Staff University, Tehran, Iran.
2 PhD student in Defense Management, Command and Staff University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Cognitive warfare is emerging as a critical domain in future conflicts. With rapid advancements in aerospace technologies, intelligent drones, and precision-guided munitions, adversaries increasingly employ cognitive warfare tactics to manipulate decision-making processes and degrade air defense systems. This study aims to develop effective military strategies for the Iranian Air Defense Force to counter cognitive warfare threats.
Methodology: This applied research employed a sequential mixed-methods design. In the qualitative phase, a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) was conducted through semi-structured interviews with purposefully selected air defense experts (based on accessibility, relevant publications, and willingness to participate). Data were thematically analyzed using MAXQDA software. In the quantitative phase, strategic priorities were derived from the SWOT matrix and validated via a questionnaire administered to a randomly selected sample of air defense experts.
Findings :The Internal-External (IE) matrix positioned the Iranian Air Defense Force in the defensive quadrant. The External Factor Evaluation (EFE) matrix yielded a total weighted score of 2.388 (below the benchmark of 2.5), indicating limited ability to capitalize on opportunities and mitigate external threats. The Internal Factor Evaluation (IFE) similarly reflected moderate internal capabilities.
Conclusion: The Iranian Air Defense Force currently adopts a defensive strategic posture against cognitive warfare. Given its proximity to the matrix center, transition to an offensive posture is both necessary and feasible. Priority strategies should focus on enhancing resilience to cognitive manipulation, developing proactive information/cognitive operations, and integrating human–machine decision systems to shift from reactive defense to strategic cognitive dominance.
Keywords
Subjects

 
·         Backes, M. , & Swarzenberg, J. (2022). Cognitive warfare and the OODA loop. Journal of Information Warfare, 21(3), 45–62.
·         Claverie, B. , & du Cluzel, F. (2024). Cognitive warfare: A conceptual analysis of the NATO ACT cognitive warfare exploratory concept. Frontiers in Big Data, 7, Article 1452129.
·         Cordesman & Lin, 2023؛ NATO, 2024
·         David, F. R. (2001). Strategic management: Concepts and cases (8th ed.). Prentice Hall.
·         David, F. R. (1986). The strategic planning matrix—A quantitative approach. Long Range Planning, 19(2), 102–107.
·         Freilich, C. D. , Cohen, M. S. , & Siboni, G. (2024). Israel and the cyber threat: How the Startup Nation became a global cyber power. Oxford University Press.
·         Friedman, B. A. (2018). On cognitive warfare. Marine Corps University Press.
·         Giordano, J. , & RAND Corporation. (2022). The weaponization of neuroscience: Implications for cognitive warfare. RAND Corporation.
·         Israeli Air Force (IAF). (2023). Cyber-psychological operations in air defense systems
·         International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). (2024). The military balance 2024. Routledge
·         Landis, J. R. , & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
·         MAXQDA. (2024). MAXQDA 2024: The art of data analysis [Software]. VERBI Software. https: //www. maxqda. com
·         NATO. (2024). NATO’s cognitive warfare concept: 2024 update. NATO Allied Command Transformation.
·         NATO Science and Technology Organization. (2024). Human–machine teaming for NATO’s future air defence missions (STO-TR-AVT-342)
·         NATO, Cognitive Warfare Report, 2021.
·         NATO, Strategic Foresight Analysis, 2020.
·         NATO Allied Command. Strategic Studies Institute, U. S. Army War College. https: //ssi. armywarcollege. edu/cognitive-warfare
·         Ostyuk, N. , & U. S. Army War College. (2023). Cognitive warfare: A new domain of conflict
·         OpenAI. (2025). AI and cognitive security: Threat assessment. OpenAI Research.
·         Pew Research Center. (2024). Social media and military families. Pew Research Center
·         Royal Air Force (RAF). (2024). AI-driven cognitive resilience in command chains. Ministry of Defence, United Kingdom. https: //www. raf. mod. uk/ai-cognitive-resilience
·         RAND Corporation, The Emerging Risk of Cognitive Warfare, 2023
·         Strauss, A. , & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
·         Strauss, A. , & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage.
·         Sharma, A. , & Singh, R. (2020). Cognitive warfare: The weaponization of cyberspace. Journal of Information Warfare, 19(3), 1–14.
·         Siboni, G. , & Kreps, S. (2024). Cognitive operations in the Middle East: The Israel-Iran shadow war. Institute for National Security Studies (INSS).
·         Transformation. (2021). Cognitive warfare: The future of cognitive dominance. NATO. https: //www. act. nato. int/cognitive-warfare
·         U. S. Air Force. (2022). Defending the cognitive domain: Resilience protocols for radar operators (Doctrine Note AFDP 3-99). Department of the Air Force.
·         Wei, Li, and Jing Zhang. 2024. “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Education in China. ” Journal of Educational Technology 45 (3): 112–30.
·         Ward, L. (2021). Weaponized social media: The new battlespace of cognitive warfare. NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence.
·         McCuen, J. J. (2008). Hybrid wars. Military Review, 88(2), 107–113.
·         NATO Allied Command Transformation. (2021, January). Cognitive warfare: The future of cognitive dominance. NATO Innovation Challenge
·         Bugayova, N. , & Stepanenko, K. (2025, June 30). A primer on Russia’s cognitive warfare. Institute for the Study of War.
·         U. S. Department of Defense. (2024a, January 11). National defense industrial strategy. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.
·         Kofman, M. (Host). (2024b, March 18). Fortifications, manpower, and munitions in Ukraine’s daunting year ahead. In The War on the Rocks Podcast. War on the Rocks.