Bryant Watkins
4/23/23
Case Analysis on Cyberconflict
PHIL 355E
Israel and Iran have proven to be bitter enemies and foreign adversaries for the past few decades in recent history. The Middle East has historically been plagued by never ending violence and conflict, and Iran and Israel are no exception. Dating back to the late 20th century, Israel and Iran have proven strong adversaries with their conflict rooted in antisemitism as well as Iranian nuclear aspirations in recent times. Both nations have taken up incredibly close ties with fellow adversaries and enemies of one another, further intensifying adversarial relations that have sought to undermine one another. Conflict between two nations is by no means limited to military conflict, as conflict between nations can spill into the technological field and with these two articles that is precisely the case between Israel and Iran. With the ever growing and evolving information technology field – along have come new threats to cyberinfrastructure especially infrastructure pertinent to everyday flow and operation of most civilized societies. The historic conflict between the two nations has culminated in major cyberattacks and sabotage outlined in the articles. In this Case Analysis I will argue that Consequentialism shows us that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just because of the many unknowns and lack of clear boundaries that are established like that of traditional military warfare.
In“Can there be a Just Cyber War?”,by Michael Boylan, the concept central to the entirety of his argument would be what is known as the Just War Theory. The Just War Theory serves the purpose of providing all parties involved in international conflict with what is essentially an outline of behavior deemed acceptable and agreed upon by the international community. There are multiple stipulations within this theory that Boylan specifically address and raises questions for as it pertains to cyber warfare versus traditional military warfare. Boylan outlines within his writing the various challenges, as he sees it, for determining the just nature of any sort of cyber warfare or attack. Boylan identifies what he believes to be very legitimate challenges to the Theory of Just War. The first that he identifies pertains to what is called “attribution”. Attribution can be defined as “the question of ‘who did what to whom?’”, according to Boylan. The second challenge identified deals with the critical part of Just War Theory known as Target Distinction. Such a factor entails the ensuring of distinction between civilian and military targets and personnel. In utilizing the concept of Just War Theory and the challenges posed to analyze the case presented – it is apparent that there are multiple concerns with the just nature of the Israel-Iran cyberconflict. Both Israel and Iran have reported that they have had their civilian population negatively impacted and affected by the counterpart’s cyberattack. Such a fact coincides with the issue raised by Boylan of Target Distinction. In both cases it is apparent that civilians are being targeted, whether by design or not. That is a clear challenge to the norms of traditional military conflict where civilians are not only expected by required by international law to be omitted from any sort of targeting within warfare.
The second concern of a challenge with the Just War Theory would be the question of attribution between Israel and Iran within their cyberconflict. There is generally a lack of claiming responsibility from either side of the cyberconflict following a cyberattack, that has created great uncertainty and at least a reasonable doubt as to who exactly is conducting such attacks. Without the certainty as to who exactly is responsible for the attacks then there cannot really be any just response since you are not sure if you will even be responding to the right actor. The actions taken on the behalf of both sides of this conflict give way to many to question the just nature of the conflict. Israel and Iran both have documented actions that seemingly are counterintuitive to the essence of the Just War Theory discussed by Boylan in his writing. With the numerous concerns outlined in union with the concept of Boylan’s proposed Just War Theory, it is increasingly apparent that the lack of a clear target as well as the lack identifying a clear assailant or party involved has completely undermined Boylan’s concept and given credence to those who argue that the cyberconflict between the two nations is indeed not a just war.
In using Consequentialism to assess the actions taken in the case, I believe that both sides should refrain from engaging in any form of cyber warfare, as up to this point their actions have proven extremely unethical and immoral. Consequentialism establishes the morality of one’s actions based on consequences, and the consequences of the actions on both sides has caused civilian harm or at least jeopardized the safety and well being of the general civilian population. On top of inaccurate execution of Target Distinction by both countries, there is also the lack of complete certainty of the other side’s guilt in the cyberconflict. These factors ultimately culminate in the reckless actions of both sides that show a complete disregard of the consequences of their actions. Had the Consequentialist perspective been considered, both sides would have conducted themselves in a more ethical manner by weighing the potential for such negative consequences and refraining from engaging in these reckless practices. Israel and Iran must adhere to the teachings of Consequentialism and realize the consequences that their actions have caused. The consequences of their actions have been immense suffering, especially amongst the civilian population of both Israelis and Iranians. Consequentialism would prove extremely effective in safeguarding the interests and safety of civilians of both Israel and Iran, and thus likely eventually constituting a truly just war.
In An Analysis For A Just Cyber Warfare by Taddeo, there is a central concept that is established by Taddeo in her outlining of the challenges posed to just warfare by cyber warfare. The central concept mentioned is what she coined as Transversality – an aspect of cyber warfare. The writing explains this concept as, “CW (cyber warfare) cut[ting] across any qualifying couple such as ‘violent-non violent’, ‘civil-military’, ‘human agents-artificial agents’. This aspect is quite different from traditional warfare, which is violent, conducted by militaries and mainly by human agents” (Taddeo, Pg. 210).
In utilizing this concept to analyze the case presented, it is very apparent that transversality of the cyberconflict between Israel and Iran has undoubtably casted an enormous cloud of uncertainty amongst the ethical nature or lack thereof from their respective actions in the cyberconflict sphere. Objectively speaking, whether intended target or not civilians in Israel and Iran have been directly impacted negatively by the cyberconflict that, in Just War Theory, should only pertain to military personnel targets. The actions on the behalf of both Iran and Israel have had varying impact across the qualifying couples of, as “violent-non violent”, “civil-military”, “human agents-artificial agents”. Much like Taddeo alludes to in his piece, though there is no blood shed within the scope of these cyberattacks in Israel and Iran – there is still immense evidence of harm caused by the attacks even though they are not physical. The actions in this cyberconflict by both Israel and Iran have been non-violent, but they have affected both military and civilian targets, as well as involving both human and artificial agents. The foray into all three couples has completely muddled the ability for one to properly assess the just nature of this cyberconflict between Israel and Iran.
In utilizing Consequentialism to assess the actions taken on the part of Israel and Iran, it appears as though their actions have proven counter to the teachings of Consequentialism and thus unethical. Given the lack of consideration for the extensive transversality behind their actions in cyberconflict, the consequences for their actions were not properly taken into account. Their actions led to the involvement of innocent civilians as opposed to exclusively military personnel and targets. The Just War Theory is very deeply rooted in the belief of always omitting the general civilian population from harm or attack, this extends to the world of informational technology resources as a weapon as well. The inclusion of civilians is a clear violation of such a concrete historical principle in international conflict. The uncertainty of what actors are actually behind the cyberattacks against a nation is also a key contributor to the transversality of cyber warfare that lends itself to unethical and immoral actions in violation of consequentialist perspective thinking.
Had the Consequentialist perspective been established during the decision-making process of the involved actors of Israel and Iran’s cyberconflict, then the unpredictable transversality of cyber warfare would have been a strong deterrent for them. The involved actors would have properly weighed the consequences of their actions as being far too dangerously detrimental to innocent civilians and by-standers and thus refrained from engaging in the cyber warfare let alone potentially escalating it. There may be some effectiveness in conducting some of these attacks to further weaken their adversary, but Consequentialism observes that those attacks are only as effective and morally just as the consequences it produces.
While they may have very well viewed their actions as being just and defensive in nature, it ultimately was not and according to the teachings of consequentialism those consequences are to be the most important takeaway from action taken whether for good or bad intentions. Israel and Iran both fail to honor both the philosophic teachings of Consequentialism as well as the key agreed upon framework for warfare across the international community known as the Just War Theory. I firmly believe that Israel and Iran should have upheld the ethical morals that accompany Consequentialism, with such an ethical philosophy at play I strongly believe that much if not all of the civilian harm caused could have been avoided in an extremely effective manner all while still causing intended harm to an adversary’s ability to harm your nation. Israel and Iran should refrain from cyber warfare until there is better consideration for the consequences that follow such actions, thus reverting to means of traditional warfare if anything. I find the actions of Israel and Iran as being unethical and immoral, meaning that the cyber warfare between the two factions is not a just war. In consideration of potential legitimate opposing views, however, there is a very much plausible case to make for Deontology in this case. Some could legitimately argue that the intentions behind their actions is most important and that their intentions entail protection of their sovereignty, territorial integrity, as well as national security. To some degree it is subjective as to what one is willing to sacrifice. Those on the Deontological side of the spectrum will likely view any and all consequences as being worth the just intention while others such as myself will side with Consequentialist perspective that provides far more weight for the consequences and ultimately find them to not be worth the potential civilian harm. Ultimately, I believe Consequentialist perspective would avoid many of the ethical and moral concerns with their cyberconflict and provide a blueprint for how to engage in a truly just war and adhere to the Just War Theory.