In “Iran Says Sweeping Cyberattack Took Down Gas Stations Across Country” by Da Silva et al. and “The Cyberwar Between Israel and Iran is Heating Up” by Dr. Adnan Abu Amer, the events of an occurring cyberwar between Iran and Israel are discussed. In 2021, Iran was a victim of a cyberattack which interfered with the civilians’ ability to buy fuel resulting in chaos, disorder and anger across the country. This incident was just one of many that have occurred over the span of more than a decade. Other attacks include attacks on Iran’s largest port, railway computer system, and their underground Natanz nuclear facility. Although no one has taken credit for the attacks, it is widely assumed by Iran and other nations that Israel was the perpetrator. As a result, Iran retaliated against Israel by attacking the systems of Israel’s water and sanitation facilities as well as an Israeli hospital. In this case analysis, I will argue that deontology shows us that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just because they are targeting and harming civilians for their self-interest which in turn is not respecting the lives of the civilians.

            In “Can There Be a Just Cyber War?”, Michael Boylan discusses the just war theory and its relation to cyber war. The just war theory justifies war based on certain rules and constraints as well as defines what is considered moral during war. The traditional just war theory had ad bellum which covered the reasons why nations may resort to war. Under ad bellum nations should only engage in war if they have a just cause. Just causes for war include if engaging in war is for the defense of the nation and for humanitarian intervention. According to ad bellum in the just war theory, states that are attacking are acting immorally because they are causing conflict. While ad bellum discusses reasons to go to war, in bello discusses how nations are allowed to act during a time of war. According to in bello, acts of war must satisfy three principles. The three principles are targeting civilians is not allowed, collaterally harming civilians is only allowed if it is proportionate to the goals of the attack and collaterally harming civilians is only allowed if it is done in the least harmful way possible. Although, the just war theory was created in regards to traditional war it can still be applied to cyber warfare. Boylan suggests that the just war theory needs to be modified to include new rules and constraints that would better apply to cyber war. In cyber war it is difficult to determine the attacker and the methods used are different than traditional war. For example, no one has taken credit for the Stuxnet attack and although there are assumptions, it is still unclear who committed the act. Additionally, in cyber war malware such as worms, viruses, and Trojan Horses are spread from almost any part of the world to a specific system in order to cause certain events to occur. The attacks between Israel and Iran are part of cyber war.

            According to the traditional just war theory, the cyber war between Israel and Iran is unjust because it violates the rules stated under in bello. The cyber-attacks between Israel and Iran harms many civilians. In most of the attacks against Iran the target were civilians. The attack on the pay system to buy fuel and the attack on the railway system disrupted the lives of civilians. One may say that the harm to civilians was minimal and thus, would be allowed collateral damage. However, when looked at a wider scope the potential damage of the attack is larger than realized. The attack on the railway system could have resulted in casualties had accidents occurred due to the attack. The inability to buy fuel may seem so harmless however, it potentially prevents essential workers such as those in the medical field or law enforcement to reach work which can again lead to the loss of lives. As previously stated by Boylan, it is difficult to determine the perpetrator of cyber-attacks. Therefore, Israel and Iran are both committing acts of cyber war all based on assumptions. In regards to ad bellum, the attacks between Israel and Iran cannot be said to have just cause due to it being national defense because both nations are not completely certain on who is the attacker. With no certain information, each time Israel and Iran attack one another they would be considered the attacking state. Thus, their actions are immoral.

            Deontology focuses on people’s reasons for doing an action when considering the morality of the action. The best action is one which has the best reasons. In deontology, Kant’s categorical imperative states that an individual should “act so that the maxim of your action can be willed by universal law” and that an individual should always respect others. In Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative one should not do unto others what was done unto them. Simply put, two wrongs don’t make a right. Iran’s cyber-attack on the systems at Hillel Yaffe Hospital and Israel’s attack on Iran’s largest ports would be considered immoral. The two cyber-attacks were done as part of retaliation in response to a cyber-attack that the two nations believed were from the other. The two attacks go against Kant’s categorical imperative. By attacking each other, the nations are not morally better than the other. Under deontology, retaliation would not be considered a good reason therefore, the attacks are not the best actions. In deontology one should act because it is the right thing to do and not because of their own self-interest. Therefore, any attacks between the two countries are immoral due to the fact that the attacks were done in order to cause chaos within the other country.

            Similar to Boylan, in “An Analysis for a Just Cyber Warfare” Mariarosaria Taddeo also suggests that the just war theory is insufficient when determining if cyber war is just. According to Taddeo, the just war theory can still be applied to cyber warfare however, it requires an ethical framework to address the differences of cyber warfare compared to traditional war. Taddeo introduces information ethics as the ethical framework to use. In information ethics the infosphere encompasses everything, physical and not physical. Every entity can be morally evaluated. In the infosphere, the morality of an action depends on the effects it will have on the recipient and on the infosphere.  There are four principles concerning information ethics that everyone must abide by. Entropy should not be caused in the infosphere, it must be prevented and removed, and informational entities as well as the infosphere should be promoted by preserving cultivating, enhancing and enriching their properties. With the principles of information ethics considered, three principles of a just cyber war can be concluded. The first principle states cyber war may occur only against entities that endanger the infosphere. The second principle states cyber war can be waged to preserve the well-being of the infosphere. The last principle states cyber war cannot be waged to promote the well-being of the infosphere. In other words, cyber war can only be as part of a defensive move and can only be used on those who attack or intend to attack.

            Based on Taddeo’s principles of a just cyber war, the cyber war between Israel and Iran would still be considered unjust. Again, the perpetrator for attacks on both nations are unknown and only assumed. Thus, the entity that endangers the infosphere is unknown. Therefore, both countries would be violating the first principle of a just cyber war. The cyber war between Israel and Iran does in fact follow the other two principles as the war is meant to preserve the well-being of the infosphere. According to information ethics, an entity can lose their rights if they disrupt the infosphere and is then subject to removal by the other entities. Although both Iran and Israel disrupted the infosphere, we must also consider each individual citizen living in each country as their own entities. Therefore, only the two nations are subject to removal while the citizens are not. All cyber-attacks that have affected civilians are unjust. The only attack that may be considered just using the principles of a just cyber war is the attack on Iran’s nuclear-enrichment program as it did not harm civilians and only setback Iran’s nuclear program. Overall, the cyber war between Israel and Iran is unjust.

            In Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative, every individual must respect others no matter what they have done or intend to do. Everyone is owed respect. Not only does Israel and Iran not respect each other by committing cyber-attacks against the other but they also do not respect their citizens and the citizens of the other country. Both countries have targeted the civilians of the other in order to cause chaos and disorder within the other country. The two nations did not consider the wider implications of their actions. It is the citizens that must deal with the consequences of the attacks. The civilians are the ones who are the most affected. By committing such acts, the two countries are disregarding the lives of the civilians. The two countries are using the civilians to achieve their goals. They are not giving them the respect that they are owed. Additionally, by committing acts of retaliation both countries are not giving each other the opportunity to own up to their actions and receive proper punishment. Both countries are also not giving the other country the respect that they are owed.

            Although the just war theory is outdated, it can still be applied to the cyber war between Israel and Iran. The cyber war between Israel and Iran violates both the rules of the just war theory and the principles of a just cyber war by engaging in acts of war without a just cause and specifically targeting and harming civilians. Furthermore, since no one has taken credit for the attacks, it cannot be said that the two nations acted against the right entity. The cyber war has resulted in cyber-attacks and attacks in retaliation. Under deontology, the two countries acted immorally because they did not act for the right reasons and their disregard for civilians is an act of disrespect which goes against the categorical imperative. It is true that it is possible for both nations to have good reasons behind their actions that we are unaware of. Without any new or additional information, we can only assume the reasons of both countries for the attacks. For now, it seems as though the reasons are for their self-interest and to retaliate which are not morally right according to deontology.