Introduction

            The cyberwar between Israel and Iran has turned into a persistent, covert conflict marked by the rising digital strikes on critical civilian infrastructure. Events include the October 2021 attack that turned off Iran’s subsidized fuel distribution system, forcing motorists to wait in hours-long lines at gas stations. Messages referencing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s office were left on hacked terminals, suggesting deliberate symbolic targeting. Iran’s swift response, which included attacks on Israeli hospitals, railways, and financial institutions, further made the lines unclear between military and civilian domains. These attacks on both ends have raised global alarm over the potential for cyberwarfare to inflict widespread harm without traditional kinetic violence.

            While neither country has formally claimed responsibility for many of these attacks, the sophistication and impact imply state-level orchestration. With the lack of international consensus on the rules of cyber engagement, ethical analysis becomes very important to understanding whether these actions meet the criteria of justified warfare or violate emerging norms of digital conduct. This paper evaluates the legitimacy of this cyberwar using Michael Boylan’s theory of just war and Mariarosaria Taddeo’s integration of Just War Theory with Information Ethics. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that Taddeo’s framework shows us that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just, because both nations fail to preserve the well-being of the Infosphere and violate ethical constraints on proportionality, discrimination, and moral authority.

Boylan’s Ethical Framework and Application to the Case

            Michael Boylan, in Can There Be a Just Cyber War?, raises deep concerns about applying Just War Theory (JWT) to cyberspace, where conventional ethical boundaries collapse. He critiques the applicability of traditional jus ad bellum and jus in bello principles to cyberwarfare, mainly because of the ambiguous nature of attribution, authority, proportionality, and combatant distinction in the digital realm. Boylan questions whether cyberwar can ever be “just” in the conventional sense, given how cyberattacks often do not have the physical violence, yet they can mess up economies, endanger lives, and undermine democratic institutions.

            At the heart of Boylan’s argument is the difficulty in assigning ethical responsibility when the origin and intent of a cyberattack remain unclear. The principle of legitimate authority, for instance, is strained when attacks are carried out covertly, often through third parties or state-sponsored hackers without formal declarations of war. Moreover, discrimination, a cornerstone of jus in bello, becomes almost impossible to uphold. Cyberattacks typically target systems used by both civilians and military actors, such as hospitals, railways, or fuel stations—making it extremely difficult to avoid harming non-combatants.

            Applying Boylan’s critique to the Israel-Iran cyberwar, both sides appear to fall short of conduct. Israel’s alleged cyberattacks on Iran’s fuel infrastructure and railway systems resulted in societal disruption. Although these were not physically violent, they inflicted economic harm and created panic. Iran’s attacks on Israeli hospitals like Hillel Yaffe endangered lives directly by impairing emergency services, a clear violation of non-combatant immunity. Boylan would more than likely see both sides as engaging in ethically unjustifiable behavior due to the indiscriminate nature of these attacks.

            Another central concept from Boylan is proportionality. In kinetic warfare, this principle requires that the harm caused by military action not exceed the anticipated military advantage. In cyberwar, however, the balance is skewed, effects are hard to predict, and collateral damage can be significant, especially when critical infrastructure is involved. The Iranian attack on a civilian hospital likely outweighed any strategic advantage, particularly given its potential to result in loss of life. Likewise Israels interference with fuel systems, especially near the anniversary of past protests, could be seen as an attempt to destabilize civil order, possibly triggering wider unrest.

            Boylan also warns that the psychological and social effects of cyberwarfare, including disorientation, fear, and distrust in institutions, may render it more dangerous than traditional combat in some contexts. The compromised street signs in Tehran reading “Khamenei, where is our gasoline?” illustrate how cyberwar can be used to undermine political legitimacy and create a sense of pervasive vulnerability. These symbolic acts can destabilize governments without firing a shot, but their ethical cost, particularly when they inflame civil tensions, must not be overlooked.

            From Boylan’s perspective, neither Israel nor Iran adheres to the ethical norms of JWT in their cyber conduct. The absence of clear attribution, the likelihood of disproportionate harm, and the routine violation of civilian immunity suggest that the digital conflict between the two nations cannot be ethically justified under traditional frameworks. For Boylan, unless states find ways to ensure responsible authority, minimize collateral harm, and maintain transparency and accountability, cyberwarfare cannot be deemed morally legitimate.

Taddeo’s Ethical Framework and Application to the Case

            Mariarosaria Taddeo, in An Analysis for a Just Cyber Warfare, builds a more nuanced ethical framework by integrating Just War Theory with Information Ethics, a macro-ethical theory developed by Luciano Floridi. Taddeo argues that traditional JWT alone is insufficient to evaluate cyberwar due to the unique nature of digital conflict. She proposes a new triad of principles for Just Cyber Warfare (JCW), rooted in the preservation of the Infosphere, the integrated realm of digital and physical informational systems. The principles are: CW ought to be waged only against those entities that endanger or disrupt the well-being of the Infosphere, CW ought to be waged only to preserve the Infosphere, and CW must not be waged to promote the Infosphere’s well-being.

            Taddeo’s concept of transversality, the way cyberwar blurs conventional categories such as violent/non-violent, civil/military, physical/digital, and human/artificial, is relevant to the Israel-Iran conflict. For example, Iran’s alleged attack on Hillel Yaffe Hospital involved non-physical, artificial agents (malware) targeting a civilian infrastructur yet the consequences were tangible and life-threatening. Similarly, Israel’s attack on Iran’s fuel system used software to disrupt access to a critical physical commodity, fuel, which had direct implications for public safety and order.

            Using Taddeo’s ethical lens, both sides once again appear to violate the moral criteria for Just Cyber Warfare. Iran’s attacks on civilian infrastructure like hospitals and the banking sector increase informational entropy, a degradation of the Infosphere’s integrity. By compromising systems critical to health, safety, and economic stability, these actions diminish the flourishing of informational entities (both people and systems) and thus violate the principle of preserving the Infosphere.

            Israel’s actions also raise ethical red flags. Targeting Irans fuel subsidy system and railways, particularly around politically sensitive anniversaries, can be seen not as preserving the Infosphere, but as destabilizing it for political leverage. Taddeo’s third principle explicitly prohibits such use of CW to promote geopolitical agendas. Additionally, by disrupting everyday services used by civilians, Israel’s attacks contribute to the degradation of trust in public systems and increase entropy.

            Taddeo’s framework helps evaluate cyberwar’s non-kinetic but deeply disruptive nature. Unlike Boylan, who stressed classical ethical structures, Taddeo offers a constructive alternative: ethical cyberwarfare is possible, but it requires a shift in our moral ontology from prioritizing territorial integrity and human lives alone to safeguarding informational integrity across domains. Their ontocentric and patient focused ethics recognize not just humans but all informational entities as moral patients, broadening the ethical scope to include databases, networks, and social systems.

Integrating Confucianism

            A Confucian ethical lens deepens Taddeo’s analysis by emphasizing role-based morality. In Confucian thought, ethical action arises not from strict rules but from properly filling one’s role in society, based on relational responsibilities. States, like individuals, have roles to fulfill—leaders must act as responsible stewards, protectors of peace, and nurturers of harmony. By compromising critical civilian infrastructure and inflaming tensions, both Israel and Iran abandon these moral roles. Confucianism teaches that fulfilling a role includes not only acting appropriately but also helping others fulfill their roles. As such, Israel and Iran should seek mutual de-escalation and reflection, not reciprocal harm. Their actions contradict the dao, or proper path, of statehood. Had they respected these relational ethics, both nations would have protected civilians and prioritized peace over political point-scoring.

            When applied rigorously, Taddeos framework would likely deem both Israeli and Iranian cyber actions unjust. The reciprocal nature of their attacks, intended not to restore the Infosphere but to inflict disruption, violates all three principles of Just Cyber Warfare. Moreover, neither state appears to differentiate between licit and non-licit targets, as required by her reinterpretation of the JWT principle of discrimination. Civilian systems are at stake in state-level feuds, further corrupting the Infosphere and eroding ethical responsibility.

            Taddeo’s model does more than highlight failures; it provides a roadmap for ethical conduct in cyber conflict. Both nations’ actions fail her standards, not simply because they cause harm, but because they fail to target only malicious agents, to act defensively, and to minimize informational damage. Rather than enhancing the digital environment, their warfare diminishes it, rendering their actions ethically indefensible.

Conclusion

            The Israel-Iran cyberwar shows one of the most high profile cases of cyber conflict, showing the complexity and destructiveness of digital hostilities. Through the eyes of Michael Boylan’s ethical theory, we see that both nations fail to uphold the principles of legitimate authority, proportionality, and discrimination, making their cyberwarfare ethically unjustifiable. Boylans framework highlights the practical and epistemic limits of traditional JWT in cyberspace, particularly regarding attribution and the targeting of civilians.

Mariarosaria Taddeo’s approach offers a more flexible yet demanding ethical tool by merging Just War Theory with Information Ethics. Her emphasis on preserving the Infosphere, minimizing entropy, and restricting warfare to defensive actions provides a forward-thinking framework suitable for evaluating cyber conflict. Under her criteria, neither Israel nor Iran behaves ethically, as both disrupt civilian systems, escalate tensions, and fail to respect the rights of informational entities.

            One might argue that cyberwarfare, unlike kinetic war, often avoids direct fatalities and could be considered a more humane alternative. However, as shown, the long-term reprocussions of economic destabilization, loss of public trust, and compromised healthcare can be just as devastating. Others might argue that retaliation is necessary to uphold deterrence. However, ethical warfare must go beyond strategy and consider justice and the flourishing of global informational ecosystems.

Conclusion

            From a Confucian standpoint, ethical leadership requires fulfilling the roles we inhabit, whether as individuals or nations. That includes acting with moral clarity, helping others do the same, and sustaining relationships that prioritize collective well-being. Israel and Iran, by targeting civilians and escalating digital hostilities, violate their roles as responsible regional actors. Confucianism would call not for domination, but for virtuous conduct—helping one’s adversary return to the path (dao) rather than pushing them further off course. The Israel-Iran cyber conflict shows the urgent need for new ethical frameworks and international norms to govern digital hostilities. Taddeo’s model provides a compelling foundation, and Confucianism complements it by reminding us that the just path is not walked alone but together, in relationship and reflection.