Iran and Israel have been in conflict for years and because they are both near each other, there is a continuous fight for territory. The cyber-attacks on one another are becoming more prominent now and it is ruining civilian lives. Iran and Israeli are both afraid of what the other could do, but they continue to fight for the upper hand. They both do not want confrontation, but they will not sit by and let the other attack them. Israel’s attacks are stronger than Iran’s and can cause more damage, but Israel fears that Iran can paralyze their economy and technological capabilities. If one or the other wanted all-out combat they would have been at all-out war right now. In this case analysis, I will argue that consequentialism shows us that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is just because if Iran does not push it too far then Israel will not, and vice versa.

            In “Can There Be Just a Cyber War?” Michael Boylan talks about how people are justified if they are engaged in cyber conflicts. The just war theory is about providing somebody or a nation-state the justification to be involved in a war. He talks about how far someone can go when creating a cyber incident and if a cyber incident can be done by an individual or a whole nation to be seen as an act of war. Cyber warfare should be applied in the just war theory because it can cause serious loss and it relates to Iran’s cyber war with Israel. They are both on edge around each other’s technical advancements so they continue to attack one another without any confrontation. The cyberwar between Israel and Iran is getting worse day by day, neither side has accepted responsibility for any recent attacks. These attacks have been happening for more than a decade, but in the past two years, civilians have been targeted on both sides. After the coronavirus pandemic outbreak came into play, Iranians attacked the systems at six water and sanitation facilities in Israel. This was because computer facilities at Iran’s largest port were subjected to an Israeli cyberattack. Iran’s response to this was to target the systems at a hospital in Israel. The attack on the hospital showed Iran that Israel is unprepared for those types of attacks on their people. In this case, they are just going back and forward to see who can hurt the other. This is a form of consequentialism because one country thinks they are doing what is best for their country and the other feels the same way. Iran and Israel are pushing for better technological means, but they are making it hard on civilians.  Consequentialism is when one does things for the greater good. One death can equal saving hundreds if it means doing the right or wrong thing. The lack of confrontation shows that neither country want a war, but they are both trying to prove their points to one another. Life comes with many consequences and war is a big consequence that can risk thousands of lives.  If Iran and Israel came into terms with one another they would not need to fight for power. Everyone has their disagreements, but finding a common ground would help fix and save lives. Putting civilians in needless danger should not be on the list of making their country a better place. Politics ruin what could be because the power struggle runs deep in every country. Greed is can provide growth, but it can also be a country’s downfall if they are not careful. The outcome of this cyber war is just because they are not making moves to hold a physical war. To keep it that way both countries should stay in the middle grounds of cyber war and not do anything reckless. Who over confronts the other must have a good reason to or the consequences will be severe.

            In “An Analysis of Just Cyber Warfare” Mariarosario Taddeo talks about the differences and similarities between conventional war and cyber warfare. Cyber warfare is when information is utilized against an enemy in an offensive or defensive order to defeat adversaries.  Conventional war is physical violence versus cyber war which is non-physical. Both types need the military to fight them, but the outcome for each one is different. Cyber warfare utilizes military technology that is made to manage and communicate information. In conventional war, there are physical aspects used in battle. People around the world have started to adapt to the advancements in technology. Technology has made life easier for people across the globe right now. Even though technological advancement has brought about many good things in its time, it has also brought in many consequences for its actions with it. Taddeo stated that a cyber war can be considered a just war. If the means to beat the enemy is effective in trying to prevent the problem without causing any extensive damage, then it can be just. Israeli attacks against Iranian targets are more deadly, but Israel fears that Iranian attacks could paralyze its economy and technical capabilities. Israel is highly vulnerable to cyberattacks, but there is evidence that there have been over 245,000 cyberattacks and cyber-enabled crimes since 2019. Cyberattacks can be deadly if they can lead to drinking water being contaminated, or target operations systems in sensitive areas such as missiles or other weapons. Cyber warfare can have the same reaction as conventional warfare since it can start non-violent and then escalate. Neither side wants this cyberwar to escalate to an all-out confrontation, but Iran is not going to sit and do nothing in the face of Israeli attacks. At this moment, Israel has superiority over Iran in this cyberwar. Iran is learning, improving its capabilities, and is ready to respond to Israeli attacks. Israel and Iran are learning from each other the consequences of cyberwar by seeing who can do worse than the other. The consequences of both countries are ones they have to identify and figure out if they want real confrontation with one another or not. Iran’s president has confirmed that sweeping cyberattacks had disrupted gas stations across the country, this has affected many civilian lives.  The president then blamed the action on people who are angry and wanted to create disorder and disruption. He believed anti-Iranian forces may have been behind the incident, showing that some risks and consequences come with cyberwar, affecting many people with these attacks which are not good for the economy or the people of their country. The greater good is always good, but it is not always good if the finger is pointed elsewhere randomly. Both countries need to control their action or this cyber war will become more dangerous for their country and their people. No matter the action everything has its consequence, so the less risk the less consequence with more risk there are more consequences.

            I stand on that Iran and Israel are in a just cyberwar. They both are throwing shots at each other, but one is not closing in for the kill. They are taking the risks into play and seeing who will step over the line. This has been going on for decades and by now they would have crossed the line with one another, but they had not yet, or if not ever. They are considering the consequences for their country and their people. Consequentialism is about the greater good and for them to be thinking of that for the many years they have had this war it is all, but a just cyberwar. There is no way to tell who started it first and there is no way to tell who is going to end it, but if they are thinking rationally, they would know not to do anything to endanger their country and civilians.