Since the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, the world has witnessed successive leaps in communication technology—a phenomenon some have dubbed the "Third Wave." This framework views the history of human civilization through three main waves: the First Wave, the agricultural stage, which lasted thousands of years; the Second Wave, which began with the Industrial Revolution and lasted for hundreds of years; and the Third Wave, the post-industrial era, representing the Information Age we live in today. ^([1])With the emergence of the internet, the public sphere expanded beyond traditional spaces—such as clubs, cafes, marketplaces, and the press—to encompass websites, online forums, and social media platforms. These new spaces became an extended arena for dialogue and debate within the public sphere, transcending the barriers of time and space. Within this realm, virtual societies emerged, playing influential roles in public affairs both domestically and internationally. ^([2])Despite the wide range of opportunities created by the communications revolution—and the numerous benefits achieved through shrinking distances and providing quick, easy access to information—these massive developments in information and communications technology have established new contexts for conflicts over what has become known as "cyber influence" or "cybernetics." "Cyber" is a word of Greek origin derived from the Greek kybernetes, meaning steering or remote control. According to Al-Mawrid, cybernetics is the science of control. ^([3])The term "cyber" was used for the first time in 1948 by mathematician Norbert Wiener in his book Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Meanwhile, the Glossary of Key Information Security Terms, published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the United States, defines a cyber attack as "an attack via cyberspace targeting an enterprise's use of cyberspace for the purpose of disrupting, disabling, destroying, or maliciously controlling a computing environment/infrastructure, or destroying the integrity of the data or stealing controlled information".^([4])New concepts have emerged to address these developments. For instance, Joseph Nye articulated the concept of cyber power, defining it as "the ability to use cyberspace to create advantages and influence events in other operational environments and across the instruments of power."^“([5]). Although these technological developments have yielded positive impacts across numerous domains—economic, social, cultural, and political—they have also generated negative consequences in what has become known as cyber conflict, which relies on breaching the websites and networks of governments, corporations, and institutions. In many instances, cyberattacks have led to catastrophic outcomes, disrupting the calculations of states, companies, and organizations in unforeseen ways and inflicting severe economic, security, and political losses. The risks associated with cyberattacks have escalated due to major security vulnerabilities created by advanced cyber capabilities. While most cyber threats cause conventional damage, potential cyberattacks targeting nuclear power plants or the financial system could inflict severe, uncontrollable harm—a reality that necessitates international coordination to confront and address these threats through appropriate methods and means. Cyber conflict between states and institutions has taken various forms, such as defacing or destroying websites, malware intrusions, denial-of-service (DoS) attacks, unauthorized access to erase, corrupt, or alter files, data theft, and other methods and tactics.^([6]). Several factors have contributed to the growth of such cyber threats to state interests, thereby increasing the potential for cyber warfare to emerge. These factors include: the world's growing reliance on cyberspace; the declining role of the state alongside the rising influence of multinational corporations operating in cyberspace; states' increasing dependence on electronic systems; the low cost of cyber warfare compared to conventional warfare; the utilization of cyberspace to maximize state power; and the expanding scope of risks posed by hostile actors. ^([7])The nature of cyber conflict objectives varies: conflict may be political in nature, or soft in nature—aiming to influence attitudes and ideas while conducting psychological and media warfare. It can also manifest as a competitive cyber conflict seeking to gain dominance in the technological advancement race through the theft of economic and scientific secrets, attempting to control the internet, managing information flow, and working to breach states' national security, or as a cyber conflict centered on information and intelligence. ^([8])The international arena has witnessed a wave of successive cyberattacks; 2001 alone saw more than 13,000 attacks. In 2007, Estonia suffered a massive series of cyberattacks targeting its infrastructure and the websites of the prime minister, parliament, several ministries, and banks. In August 2008, Georgia was subjected to attacks targeting the Georgian president's website, numerous ministries, and news outlets. Similarly, in 2009, South Korea and the United States of America were hit by a series of cyberattacks. ^([9])On May 12, 2017, the world witnessed what became known as the WannaCry attack. This sweeping cyberattack infected more than 230,000 devices across 99 countries, encrypting all data stored on these computers. A message written in 28 languages appeared, demanding a $300 payment from computer owners to release the encrypted files. These are merely a few examples, as cyberattacks are too numerous to count or fully document in terms of numbers and the extent of their damage; they have impacted vast parts of the world, causing significant disruptions and heavy losses. Due to the widespread nature of cyberattacks, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) launched the Global Cybersecurity Agenda (GCA). The Global Cybersecurity Agenda aims to achieve seven key strategic goals, which consist of the following: ^([10])A) Seeking to establish legislation to combat cybercrime that is universally applicable and compatible with existing national and regional legislative measures. B) Providing appropriate organizational structures and public policies on cybercrime at both the national and regional levels. C) Developing a strategy to formulate globally acceptable minimum security standards and certification schemes for hardware, software applications, and systems. D) Developing strategies to create a global framework for monitoring, warning, and incident response to ensure cross-border coordination between new and existing initiatives. E) Developing global strategies to establish and recognize a global public digital identity system, along with the necessary organizational structures to ensure the cross-border recognition of digital credentials. F) Developing a global strategy to facilitate human and institutional capacity-building in order to enhance knowledge and skills across sectors within the aforementioned fields. G) Developing proposals for a global multi-stakeholder strategy framework to foster international cooperation, dialogue, and coordination across all the aforementioned domains. Second: Historical Background of Great Power Interventions in Other States' Elections: The concept of electoral intervention refers to any "action aimed at determining election outcomes in favor of one of the competing parties. These actions include funding specific campaign organizations, disseminating misinformation or propaganda, providing unilateral election campaign training to locals, assisting a single side in designing campaign materials, issuing public statements or threats for or against a candidate, and providing or withholding foreign aid."^([11])Based on this definition, it can be said that intervention by major powers in other states' elections has historically been the general rule in how great powers approach foreign elections. Despite the significant uproar raised in the United States regarding Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election, history attests to blatant American and Russian interventions in other nations' elections. A database compiled by Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University indicates that the United States and Russia have—throughout their histories—intervened in and influenced other countries' elections. The United States intervened 81 times between 1946 and 2000 (excluding military coups and regime-change efforts after candidates disliked by the U.S. were elected), while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened 36 times in other states' elections.  ^([12]). Reports indicate that major powers intervene in one out of every nine executive elections held in other countries, viewing such interference as a primary tool of foreign policy implementation. Scientific studies suggest that electoral intervention in favor of one of the competing parties increases its vote share by 3 percent, and in 59% of intervention cases by major powers, the side receiving assistance managed to attain power. In the 1948 Italian election—which was described as a "test of strength between communism and democracy"—the Harry Truman administration provided millions of dollars to fund the Christian Democratic Party, countering the Leftist Coalition, which was funded by the Soviet Union with $10 million. The U.S.-backed Christian Democratic Party ultimately defeated the Leftist Coalition. ^([13])Levin notes that American intervention likely played a significant role in preventing a Communist Party victory not only in 1948, but in seven subsequent Italian elections as well. ^([14])In the 1964 Chilean presidential election, which saw intense competition between prominent Marxist candidate Salvador Allende and his rival Eduardo Frei Montalva, both the Soviet Union and the United States competed in supporting the candidates. While the Soviet government provided financial support to the Chilean Communist Party ranging from $50,000 to $400,000 annually, the U.S. government provided $2.6 million to fund candidate Eduardo Frei Montalva to counter his opponent Salvador Allende, in addition to providing extra funding intended to damage Allende's reputation.^([15])The Chilean presidential election took place on September 4, 1964, resulting in a victory for Eduardo Frei Montalva of the Christian Democratic Party—the candidate supported by the United States—who secured 56.1% of the vote, while Allende, the candidate supported by the Soviet government, received 38.9%. In the 1970 election, the United States used all available means, openly, to prevent Allende's election; however, despite intense American efforts, Allende managed to win the Chilean presidency this time. Yet, according to some sources, the United States orchestrated the violent coup that brought down Allende's government and ended his life when he was killed (or committed suicide, according to some accounts) inside Chile's presidential palace in 1973. ^([16])Following the collapse of the Socialist Bloc, the United States continued to intervene in elections "to make sure that communism was dead and buried," as one American leader put it. In the 1990 Nicaraguan election, the CIA obtained reports containing sensitive information regarding corruption, which the opposition used against Daniel Ortega, who subsequently lost the election to opposition candidate Violeta Chamorro. The United States even attempted to influence Russian elections; in 1996, President Clinton approved a $10.2 billion International Monetary Fund loan to Russia tied to privatization, trade liberalization, and other measures aimed at pushing Russia toward a capitalist economy under President Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin used the loan to boost his popularity, telling voters that no one else had the ability to secure such loans, and a portion of these funds was used for social spending, including the payment of wages and pensions, shortly before the election. In the 2002 Bolivian election, the United States instructed Ambassador Manuel Rocha to warn Bolivians against voting for socialist candidate Evo Morales. Indeed, Rocha addressed Bolivians on the eve of the election, stating: "I want to remind the Bolivian electorate that if you elect those who want Bolivia to return to exporting cocaine, that will seriously jeopardize future assistance to Bolivia from the United States."^([17])According to political scientist Dov Levin, the United States intervened in elections across 47 countries: Chile, Somalia, Argentina, Italy, Israel, Japan, West Germany, the Philippines, Brazil, Indonesia, Laos, Iceland, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Greece, Guatemala, Malaysia, Nepal, San Marino, Peru, Bolivia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ghana, Thailand, Malta, Uruguay, Panama, England, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua, Romania, Albania, Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro, Cambodia, Ukraine, Russia, Slovakia, South Vietnam, Jamaica, El Salvador, Mauritius, and Grenada.^([18]).

[1] See for example: Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave, William Morrow and Company Inc.,New York 1980.

Also see: Samuel P. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, University of Oklahoma Press, 1991.

[2]  Ibtisam Ali Hussein, "Opportunities and Constraints of Conflicting Parties in the 'Cyber Public Sphere'," Theoretical Approaches in International Politics Analysis (Supplement to International Politics Journal, Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, Cairo, Issue 208, April 2017), p. 11. [3]  Ahmed Ubeis Nema Al-Fatlawi, Cyberattacks: Concept and International Responsibility Arising From Them in Light of Contemporary International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Babylon, 2015, p. 5.

 [4]    Richard Kissel, “Glossary of Key Information Security Terms”, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S Department of Commerce “^{,  Revision, 2, May 2013, p.57}.

[5]  Khaled Hanafi Ali, "Issues of Intersecting Cyber and Traditional Conflicts," Theoretical Approaches in International Politics Analysis (Supplement to International Politics Journal, Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, Cairo, Issue 208, April 2017), p. 3. [6]   Nouran Shafiq, "Forms and Sources of Cyber Threats," Theoretical Approaches in International Politics Analysis (Supplement to International Politics Journal, Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, Cairo, Issue 208, April 2017), p. 7. [7]   Adel Abdel Razek, "Patterns of 'Cyber Warfare' and Their Implications for Global Security," International Politics Journal, Issue 208, April 2017, p. 32. [8]  Ibid., p. 34. [9]   Nouran Shafiq, op. cit. [10]  International Telecommunication Union and World Federation of Scientists, In Search of Cyber Peace, 2011, p. 97.

[11] Dov. H. Levin, When the Great Power Gets a Vote: The Effects of Great Power Electoral Interventions on Election Results, International Studies Quarterly, Volume 60, Issue 2, 1 June 2016, p. 14.

[12] Nina Agrawal, 0p.Cit.

[13]Kaeten Mistry , Re-thinking American intervention in the 1948 Italian election: Beyond a success-failure dichotomy , https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232937435

[14] Nina Agrawal, The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries, Los Angeles Times, December 21, 2016.

[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention.

[16] Ibid.

[17] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jul/15/usa.duncancampbell.

[18] http://alwaght.com/ar/News/104069/%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AE.