Adriel Domfeh
11/19/22

Is the Cyberwar between Israel and Iran a just war? The cyber war between Israel and
Iran is getting heated. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians found themselves unable to fill the fuel
tanks in their vehicles due to a computer glitch in a major supply network. It was discovered later
that it was due to a cyberattack. Although Iran and Israel have many enemies, few can launch
large-scale, accurate, and effective attacks on either country, except for themselves. These forms
of attacks have been happening for more than a decade, but in the past two years, civilian targets
in both countries have been hurt. Shortly after the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, Iranians
attacked the systems at six water and sanitation facilities in Israel. They quickly found out where
the damage was and repaired it. Unknown attackers targeted the Iranian Railways computer
system in a way similar to the attack on the petrol network causing thousands of trains to be
canceled. Iran responded to this attack by targeting the systems at Hillel Yaffe Hospital in
Hadera. This was a more serious attack. It forced the hospital staff to work manually, with the
intention of jeopardizing Israeli lives. The attack on the petrol supply network is believed to have
been a response to the hospital attack and appeared to be just the beginning of a long conflict. It
is true that human lives are generally not lost in cyber warfare. Israel uses strong safety
measures. However, the Iranian attacks are becoming more sophisticated, like the attack on the
electricity network and internet servers, which caused serious damage to the banking sector. It is
true that Israeli attacks against Iranian targets may be more deadly, but Israel fears that Iranian
attacks could paralyze its economy and technical capabilities. The banks, hospitals, and
commercial institutions could all be negatively impacted. While neither country wants this
cyberwar to drastically escalate. Iran is not going to sit and do anything about Israeli attacks. It
has teams of hackers who respond against them. Now, Israel is dominating Iran in this cyber war.
However, Iranians are learning, improving their capabilities, and are ready to fight back. In this
case analysis, I will argue that the consequentialist tool for moral reasoning shows us that the
cyber war between Israel and Iran is just because both countries only fought back with
cyberattacks and nothing more.
One major concept of Boylan is that the traditional just war paradigm needs to be
expanded to account for the anomalies created by this new mechanism of warfare. Boyland is
saying that the traditional categories of a just war shall not be abandoned rather they should be
expanded to include the new dynamics of warfare. The new dynamics of warfare include the
recognition of cyber warfare. Regarding cyber new rules must be drawn up for warfare. As
mentioned in the article rules governing anything only work when the participating parties agree
to the rules and the mechanisms for enforcement. Using this concept to analyze the case it is
evident that with an expansion to account for the anomaly, the war remains just. The
consequentialist tool for moral reasoning shows us that the expansion of the anomalies created
by this new mechanism of warfare is good. Consequentialism focuses on the consequences of the
actions people take. For a consequentialist, an action is right if the consequences of that action
were good, and wrong if the consequences of that action were bad. According to
consequentialism because the expansion could still keep the war just it is a good decision. The
traditional categories of a just war not being abandoned was also a good decision as well
according to consequentialism. Using my selected ethical tool to assess the actions taken in the
case, as understood through my analysis, the right thing is already being done because even with
the expansion of the traditional war the war remains just.
One major concept of Taddeo is that cyber warfare is just as deadly as traditional warfare.
The level of violence may escalate from non-violent to more violent forms. Cyber warfare in
many ways avoids bloodshed. However, cyber warfare should be feared as much as traditional
warfare because it can be highly violent and destructive. This is dangerous to both the military
forces and civil society. For this reason, declaring cyber warfare requires strict ethical regulation
to guarantee its fairness. An analysis of cyber warfare’s ethical issues is needed for a solution
and a step toward to achieving the goal of a just war. Using this concept to analyze the case, it is
evident that the war between Iran and Israel is a Just war because it is cyber warfare between
both sides. It would be unfair if one country had to fight traditionally and the other fought with
cyber warfare but because both are fighting with cyber warfare it is Just. Another major concept
of Taddeo is the principle of ‘war as last resort’. This means war should only occur if peaceful
alternatives to resolve the conflict are no longer an option. This principle rests on the assumption
that war is a violent phenomenon and as such, it must be avoided until it remains the only
reasonable form of defense. When it comes to cyber warfare, this principle is shaken because
Cyberwar could be bloodless and may not involve any form of physical violence at all. In these
circumstances, the use of the principle of war as last resort becomes less urgent. The attack
would only affect the informational aspect of the other state as well as the economy. The attack
could also lead to the resolution of the tension and prevent the possibility of a traditional war. If
the state decides not to launch the cyber-attack it will be probably forced to engage in a bloody
war in the future. Using the consequentialist tool for moral reasoning, as understood through this
analysis, it is evident that this advancement in war is for the greater good. The consequence of
cyber warfare avoiding bloodshed is a good consequence. War only occurs if peaceful
alternatives to resolve the conflict are no longer an option. This is a good consequence because
even if there is war it will be a cyber war, not a traditional war. I also believe this is the right
thing to do based on the analysis.
In conclusion, the consequentialist tool for moral reasoning shows us that the cyber war
between Israel and Iran is just because both countries only fought back with cyberattacks and
nothing more. The major concept of Boylan is that the traditional just war paradigm needs to be
expanded to account for the anomalies created by this new mechanism of warfare. Bayland’s
concept that the traditional categories of a just war shall not be abandoned rather it should be
expanded to include the new dynamics of warfare is good according to consequentialism. Using
this concept to analyze the case it is evident that with an expansion to account for the anomaly,
the war remains just. According to consequentialism because the expansion could keep the war
just it is a good decision. The traditional categories of a just war not being abandoned was also a
good decision as well according to consequentialism. In summary using my selected ethical tool
to assess the actions taken in the case, as understood through my analysis, the right thing is
already being done because even with the expansion of the traditional war, the war remains just.
The major concept of Taddeo is that cyber warfare is just as deadly as traditional warfare. Using
this concept to analyze the case, it is evident that the war between Iran and Israel is a Just war
because it is cyber warfare between both sides. It would be unfair if one country had to fight
traditionally and the other fought with cyber warfare but because both are fighting with cyber
warfare it is Just. Another major concept of Taddeo is the principle of ‘war as last resort’, which
meant war should only occur if peaceful alternatives to resolve the conflict are no longer an
option. ar. Using the consequentialist tool for moral reasoning, as understood through this