Did I miss something? Was this terror? Were people injured or killed and hence fearful?

Politically motivated sabotage seems like a more accurate description with the footnote that computers were used (cyber!). But I guess people have been using "terrorist" to mean anything the government doesn't like. So it's fair to keep using it for a foreign government that also may not be liked itself. I'm sure some consider opposition to the Iranian regime just and noble, which I guess I do on some level suitably restrained. Much as I do for opposition to my own government. Would Ghandi be a terrorist under the modern definition for his campaigns of civil disobedience sabotaging the system?