<div id="readability-page-1"><img width="1536" height="1024" src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://invezz-wp-media.lon1.digitaloceanspaces.com/2026/03/Jamie-Dimon.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://invezz-wp-media.lon1.digitaloceanspaces.com/2026/03/Jamie-Dimon.png"/>Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, backed the US-Israel strikes on Iran as a necessary move against long-running threats, but he didn't sugarcoat the fallout for Wall Street.He warned that banks should expect cyberattacks and terrorist incidents as retaliation ramps up.Speaking at an CNBC interview on Monday, Dimon said the military action was overdue to curb Iran's destabilizing role in the region.But his sharper warning was for financial firms: &#34;The odds of cyberattacks and terrorist incidents are now meaningfully higher, and banks are squarely in the crosshairs.&#34;It's a rare public prediction from one of the Street's steadiest voices, and it carries extra weight given JPMorgan's global scale.<h2>Dimon's full argument</h2>Dimon framed the strikes as a pragmatic response to decades of Iranian aggression: proxy militias, nuclear ambitions, and regional proxy wars that have cost lives and destabilized markets.&#34;This had to happen eventually,&#34; he said, arguing it could pave the way for longer-term stability if the campaign stays focused.The real edge came in his risk assessment.He didn't treat cyber and terror threats as hypotheticals. Instead, he called them probable blowback, pointing to Iran's history of asymmetric retaliation through hackers and militants.&#34;They can't match us militarily, so they'll hit where it hurts, our networks, our operations, our customers,&#34; Dimon told the audience.This isn't abstract. JPMorgan has faced major cyber incidents before, including a 2014 breach that exposed millions of accounts.Dimon knows the playbook because his firm lives it: with 80 million customers and trillions in daily transactions, it's a high-profile target for state-sponsored actors looking to sow chaos.Also Read: Is your portfolio exposed to Iran war? Here’s what data shows<h2>Why investors should care</h2>Banks aren't just passive victims of geopolitics as disruption hits the bottom line directly.A successful cyberattack can freeze payments, leak data, or halt trading for hours or days, costing millions per incident.Terror threats add physical security expenses at branches and offices, plus insurance spikes.For investors, it's a binary outcome. If the campaign wraps quickly with minimal retaliation, Dimon's warning stays theoretical, just prudent CEO talk.But if Iran opts for prolonged asymmetric warfare, banks face higher operating costs that flow straight to earnings.JPMorgan's own filings already disclose cyber risk as a top threat, and shares dipped 1.2% Monday on broader sector pressure.Dimon's view aligns with what security firms have warned privately: Iran's cyber units have targeted US financial infrastructure before, and escalation gives them motive and cover.The bigger worry isn't one-off hacks, it's sustained pressure that forces banks to divert resources from growth to defense.Dimon isn't ringing the apocalypse bell.He is telling banks to prepare for the fight he sees coming, because in his world, the most dangerous risk is the one you didn't game out in advance.The post Jamie Dimon says banks may be targets after Iran strikes: is he right? appeared first on Invezz</div>

JPM-D

FNCL

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, supports US-Israel strikes on Iran, citing the need to address long-standing threats. He warns that banks should prepare for increased cyberattacks and terrorist incidents as retaliation escalates. Dimon emphasizes that financial firms are likely targets due to their critical role in the economy, and a successful cyberattack could have severe financial implications. He advises banks to brace for potential disruptions that could impact their operations and earnings, highlighting the importance of proactive risk management in the face of geopolitical tensions.