With technology in the recent decades becoming more advanced, this provides room for hackers to be increasingly more sophisticated in targeting critical infrastructures essential to companies within countries. These critical infrastructures can include gas stations, water treatment plants, internet servers, and even hospital systems. Unfortunately, certain countries purposely designate hacker groups that target these critical infrastructures as a form of tactical advantage, which in turn affects civilians. More specifically, Israel and Iran are currently in an active cyberwarfare against each other dealing blow for blow. With gas stations displaying cryptic messages affecting civilian life and possibly gas prices to a hospital system being hacked where the staff how to work manually, it is clearly not just an attack on both countries’ government, it’s an attack on the people. “The Cyberwar Between Israel and Iran is Heating Up” by Dr. Adnan Abu Amer and “Iran says Sweeping Cyberattack Took Down Gas Stations Across Country” by Chantal Da Silva et al. details further into the large-scale destruction the cyberattacks by both countries are causing. [In this Case Analysis, I will argue that consequentialism shows us that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just because it affects the lives of their civilians.

            Part of wars are the belligerent countries targeting each other’s critical infrastructures that are important to them as a way to gain an advantage. Much of these critical infrastructures are included in civilian life, such as gas stations for example. Civilians need to rely on gas stations to keep their transportation running and when hacker groups target these or gas lines, it affects them as well. This concept can be supported by Michael Boylan’s “Can There Be a Just Cyber War?” Boylan’s concept extends beyond this by listing critical infrastructures like hospitals, electric grids, and air traffic control and how targeting these places can have severe consequences on civilian life and can lead to deaths. It would have devastating effects and would “stretch upon the traditional categories of just war” (Boylan 14). Analyzing the concept, attacks in a war, in this case cyber-attacks, that purposely target places like this test the morality of both countries involved. The government within countries can become drowned in anger and desperation which in turn can make them focus solely on winning the war. This can result in countries involved neglecting the lives of civilians and rather caring about tactical advantages through targeting the critical infrastructures, questioning the country’s morality. Also, this targeting can affect how civilians are able to recover from an unjust war. Not only does it immorally involve civilian deaths, but the ones living through it have to deal with its effects such as high gas prices, disabled power grids, and inability to receive hospital care. Civilians have to live with these consequences as part of the war even though they have nothing to do with it.  Presentation of Boylan works

The premise of the cyberwar between Israel and Iran consists of both countries targeting each other’s critical infrastructure, which damages the quality of life of the civilians. Although cyberattacks typically don’t involve deaths, the effects of it can be just as devastating as if there were deaths. The effects of the cyberattack extend beyond the moral values that countries should show. Ranging from disrupted power grids to non-functional hospitals, it is morally unacceptable for the two countries to be engaging in this cyberwarfare that affects civilian life because are what brings devastating effects. This is how Boylan’s concept of unjust cyberattacks is incorporated into the case. The critical infrastructures bearing these cyberattacks between Israel and Iran bring devastating effects because they have to feel the blunt of the war. As listed in the case, civilians not being able to afford massive gas price spikes and inability to board a train due to cancellations are reasons on how the unjust war extends beyond traditional categories of a just one. It tests the morality of the countries and can also be considered unjust because both countries are purposely targeting the infrastructures essential to civilian life.

The tool of consequentialism involves deciding if the consequences of an action are good or bad. Particularly, an action has good consequences if it increases the good in the world and lessens suffering, which is part of utilitarianism. In this case, Israel and Iran did wrong actions with bad consequences by doing cyberattacks that aggravated the suffering of the civilians. Their purposeful targeting of critical infrastructures that are meaningful to everyday life of civilians like gas stations and hospitals is immoral, which is why both countries have committed bad consequences and neglected the sake of “good” in the cyberwarfare. They rejected the values of utilitarianism in which they didn’t find importance in keeping civilians safe. They cared more about tactical advantages against each other. Based on this assessment, both countries in the face of cyberwarfare should have thought about targeting infrastructures that are rather less meaningful to civilians but still tactical against the government, like nuclear power plants or military bases. This as a result would lessen the suffering they are committing against civilians. Even though cyberwarfare is still considered bad, it can be argued they would be making the right action with good consequences by thinking about targeting infrastructures that are less meaningful to civilians. If they had followed this path, they would have supported the philosophy of consequentialism and Boylan’s concept by lessening suffering, valuing everyone’s happiness, and carefully targeting infrastructures.

Problems that arise in the face of cyberwarfare concerns the morality of the ones involved and whether their actions or right or wrong. Typically, when someone makes decisions, they have to think a lot of times of the consequences of which path they choose and whether they are making the right decision. Sometimes it is for the sake of others, like leaders for example, where they have to make decisions that benefits everyone. Taddeo’s concept in “An Analysis of Just Cyber Warfare” supports these ideas by discussing the principle of choosing actions that do “more good than harm.” Before declaring war, a state should consider based on morals, the universal goods against the universal evils as a result of the actions they choose (Taddeo 6). In the case of war, civilians are the ones states/countries should consider first before acting. They need to decide whether the actions they plan to make would harm civilian lives. Actions that value the lives of civilians would be universally good while ones that neglect these values would be universally evil. 

Throughout the cyberwar, Israel and Iran targeting each other’s critical infrastructures as a means of gaining the upper hand. For both of them to remain tactical, they have increasingly attacked critical infrastructures more meaningful to civilians. At first, Israel targeted gas stations in order to create an inconvenience to Iran, which the country initially thought it was a glitch in their supply network. Soon the cyberattacks against each other have become more large-scale and devastating to civilians, ranging from Israel targeting train systems to Iran disabling hospital functionality. Taddeo’s concept plays a factor in the case because both countries actions have increasingly become more harmful rather than good. The case also involves Taddeo’s mention of decision-making in the concept, in which Israel and Iran clearly show that they had no consideration for their actions have universal good for civilians before firing cyberattacks at each other. 

Consequentialism is factored into the case based on Israel and Iran’s choosing cyberattacks on critical infrastructures. They committed wrong actions by attacking infrastructures important to civilians and because of that, it raised bad consequences that they had to deal with. In the face of Taddeo’s concept, they neglected its ideas by not morally considering civilians before attacking the infrastructures. The cyberwarfare by Israel and Iran got more intrusive through each attack on civilian’s daily lives. This increased the amount of suffering dealt to them and decreased the amount of good they had on the world. Both countries failed to find importance in civilian lives before they started cyberwarfare, as their lives are important towards the values of utilitarianism. Assessing the case, Israel and Iran should have considered the consequences of their decision-making going into the cyberwarfare and whether the actions would have done more harm than good. This as a result would have appealed to the idea of consequentialism and Taddeo’s concept by dealing less harm to the civilians, keeping their happiness, and considering their lives important to each country.

In conclusion, Israel and Iran’s unjust cyberwarfare has had devastating effects on civilians by targeting critical infrastructures valued to them. The effects stretch beyond a just war to the point of immorality by making civilians feel the consequences of disrupted power grids and gas stations. They neglected considering their lives first before committing these cyberattacks against each other.Their attacks consist of wrong actions resulting in increased suffering and less importance of the civilians, which violates the tool of consequentialism. The countries could have better handled the cyberwarfare by considering infrastructures less meaningful to civilians and the consequences of their actions before they attacked each other. Although, the civilians could still feel some sort of consequences no matter what infrastructures are cyberattacked, it’s important for the countries to consider the least suffering and valuing their importance. This would have appealed to consequentialism and possibly have led to the cyberwarfare being more just. 

Works Cited

Amer, D. A. (2021, November 8). The Cyberwar Between Israel and Iran is Heating Up. Middle East Monitor. Retrieved April 7, 2023, from https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20211108-the-cyberwar-between-israel-and-iran-is-heating-up/

Boylan, Michael. (2013, September). “Can There Be a Just Cyber War?” Retrieved April 7, 2023.

Taddeo, Mariarosario. (2012, January). An Analysis for a Just Cyber Warfare. ResearchGate. Retrieved April 7, 2023.

Chantal da Silva et al. (2021, October 27). Iran Says Sweeping Cyberattack Took Down Gas Stations Across Country. NBCNews.com. Retrieved April 7, 2023, from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/cyberattack-blamed-iran-gas-stations-hit-major-disruptions-rcna3806