[DoctorOetker]

> I thought it was clear to everyone that this is _exactly_ what the U.S. and Israel have been doing to Iran for literally 20+ years [0] [1].

You changed my proposition to a different one by equating

US & Israeli cyber warfare, with

US & Israeli & worldwide telecom sector cyber warfare.

I ask why risk that step? worldwide telecom sector is highly networked (by profession obviously) and is probably already picking up phones and coordinating a common response, together they stand, divided they fall, none of them look forward to potential normalization of nation states charging fees unilaterally.

Its an error to confuse big problems with even bigger ones than they already face.

Telecom sector might collectively demand public payment of twice the threatened fee (however small the actual demanded fee is) plus a public statement by Iran that they publically repeal the threat just to make clear this type of precedent won't be tolerated.

[nullocator]

Or they would just pay because telecom companies do not have armies.

[DoctorOetker]

this makes no sense, you're saying that if some cable operator in some distant nation agrees to chip in to prevent such normalization worldwide, that Iran will come over to that nation to physically overpower the cable operator who doesn't have an army?