Satellite internet, once a luxury for fast streaming and remote work, is now becoming a key battlefield tool in global conflicts. Recent events in Iran and Ukraine have shown how critical these networks have become—not just for civilians but for military operations as well. These cases reveal a new domain of conflict where control over connectivity can be just as important as control over land, air, or sea.
Iran’s Internet Blackout Shows Satellites Can Be Targeted
In January 2026, Iran faced widespread protests, prompting authorities to cut off most internet access across the country. Mobile data, broadband, and international connections were largely severed. For ordinary citizens, this meant no communication with the outside world.
Satellite internet, especially SpaceX’s Starlink, became one of the few ways people could still connect. Starlink terminals allowed some communication beyond Iran’s state-controlled networks, but this lifeline did not last long. Iranian authorities reportedly used advanced radio-frequency jamming technology to block Starlink signals. Many users experienced unstable connections and severe packet loss, showing interference far beyond typical network problems.
Poland’s Radosław Sikorski says Starlink is being used by Russia in Ukraine drone strikes
Security forces also reportedly confiscated Starlink terminals during raids, cutting off remaining access. The episode revealed a striking fact: even advanced satellite networks are vulnerable when a state is determined to block them. What was once seen as a backup internet option is now firmly part of the security battlefield.
Starlink’s Role in Ukraine Highlights Private Companies’ Power
At nearly the same time, Ukraine faced a different satellite-related issue. Reports emerged that Russian forces were using Starlink terminals and internet connections on drones to carry out long-range strikes, including attacks on civilian infrastructure. Ukrainian officials worked directly with SpaceX to disable Starlink internet access on these drones once misuse was detected.
SpaceX has rules that prohibit using Starlink for weapons systems, and the company can take technical steps to prevent such use. Still, the situation highlighted a new reality: a private company could make technical decisions with immediate effects on a warzone. In Ukraine, commercial satellite networks were no longer just tools—they became strategic assets capable of influencing military outcomes.
This situation shows that commercial satellite providers are now actors in conflicts. Their decisions, policies, and technical actions can have immediate and tangible battlefield consequences, which is unprecedented in modern warfare.
Legal and Policy Gaps Expose Risks
Current international laws governing space and communications were not created for this reality. The Outer Space Treaty from 1967 emphasizes peaceful use of space but does not cover signal jamming, cyber interference, or shutting down satellite networks during conflict.
At the same time, international humanitarian law distinguishes between civilian and military targets. Yet, satellites often serve both at the same time. A Starlink terminal can help civilians communicate during a blackout and also support military operations shortly after. Existing rules do not clearly say when such systems can be considered legitimate military targets.
Even attempts to define cyber warfare are incomplete. Manuals like the Tallinn Manual highlight disagreements between states over when electronic interference counts as an attack. These guidelines are non-binding and do not create new legal standards.
Starlink Under Siege: Russia Targets Ukrainian Networks
The cases in Iran and Ukraine also expose another challenge: private companies now operate infrastructure essential to both civil life and military activities. SpaceX’s ability to block or enable access demonstrates power traditionally reserved for governments, but without the legal transparency or accountability that governs states. Export controls exist but were not designed to guide real-time decisions during conflict.
The result is a new and complex battlefield where satellite networks are both critical and vulnerable. Conflicts are increasingly about connectivity as much as territory, and private companies have become central players. These developments highlight gaps in international law and governance that leave both civilian users and military planners navigating a legal gray zone.