Is the cyberwar between Israel and Iran a just war?
In the articles “The cyber war between Israel and Iran is heating up” and “Iran says sweeping cyberattack took down gas stations across the country” the authors describe the current cyber war between Israel and Iran and the impact the constant attacks are having on everyone involved. The cyber-attacks are not occurring as last resort or in order to prevent harm from happening but rather affecting the citizens’ daily lives and are used as retaliation. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that the contractarian ethical theory shows us that cyberwars when regulated are just. Cyberwars and their attacks when used as a last resort or to protect a nation or state are just based on the contractarian theory since more people are benefitted the use of cyberwar as a defense mechanism. In the case of the cyber war between Israel and Iran, due to their unnecessary and excessive attacks as retaliation, they would not be considered just.
In the text “Can There Be a Just Cyber War,” Michael Boylan explains the central concepts regarding how war techniques have changed due to advances in technology and the issues that are arising in determining whether or not cyber ware attacks are just and if so, how will they be determined. Boylan describes the shift in the way wars and attacks have been justified and the issue that cyber-attacks are now bringing. He looks at the issue behind what types of cyber action are sufficient enough to justify a response and what type of response. An issue that Boylan discusses in the text, is the lack of accountability for cyber-attacks and the impact that those attacks can have on nations, especially since major infrastructures that allow countries to run are connected to the internet and can be targeted.
Based on the contractarian theory, it would be ethical and justifiable for nations to engage in cyber-attacks during a cyber war in a responsive and preventative way. The contractarian theory claims that for an action to be ethical and justifiable, everyone would need to be better off with the social contract in place compared to if it were not in place together. The contractarian perspective views actions and decisions as ethical, as long as everyone who has agreed to the social contract will benefit and be better off in life regardless of where or who they may end up in life. Most nations agree to the social contract of having militaries and the agreement of having wars. Everyone is safe and benefits from having some type of military to protect them against other nations and attacks. Boyland brings up the issue of cyber-attacks being sponsored by nation-states against other nations and whether those actions are means enough to enter a cyber war. Based on this ethical theory all nations would benefit more from being able to defend themselves against other nations’ cyber-attacks by retaliating with their own cyber-attacks, creating a cyber-war. This would be considered ethical based on this theory because any individual in any nation would benefit more from being able to defend themselves rather than the consequences that would result if they did not.
Cyber-attacks as a preventative measure would also be considered ethical based on this theory. Boylan uses the Stuxnet attack against Iran as an example in his text. While it cannot be verified, a nation created this attack in order to spy and ultimately take control of Iran’s nuclear fuel enrichment program centrifuges and cause them to spin themselves to failure. The intended reason for this attack was to prevent or delay Iran from creating nuclear weapons and the possible damage they could do. This action would be considered just because if there was no social contract allowing nations to use cyber-attacks to defend and prevent attacks, then in this situation Iran could have created nuclear weapons and used them to attack and possibly kill many people. This cyber-attack was used as a preventative measure and regardless of where someone is, more people are safe by that attack being deployed than if nothing at all was done.
In the text “An Analysis for a Just Cyber Warfare,” Mariarosario Taddeo explains the central concepts behind the ethical issue behind transferring traditional war ethics over to cyber warfare. She explains the concepts behind “war as a last resort” and better than harm” and how they have been applied to military or state attacks and in justifying war. Taddeo brings up the issues that arise when trying to simply apply the same ethical theories to cyber-attacks and cyber-war. While there is some overlap between the two, Taddeo brings attention to the gray areas in the cyber world that do not easily fit into the previously established concepts. She also brings up two sets of moral principles that assist in determining the justification for cyber-attacks. One of the sets is a list of principles to help regulate cyber warfare which is: 1. CW ought to be waged only against those entities that endanger or disrupt the well-being of the Infosphere, 2. CW ought to be waged to preserve the well-being of the Infosphere., and 3. CW ought not to be waged to promote the well-being of the Infosphere.
Based on the contractarian theory, it would be most ethical to follow the “war as last resort” and “more good than harm” when considering cyber-attacks and cyber warfare. Most people do not want to go to war, so leaving war as a last resort allows everyone regardless of their position to benefit from not being subject to participate and receive the consequences of war declared whenever. War tends to cause harm to all parties involved, so agreeing to use war as a last resort would benefit everyone involved. For “more good than harm” can be seen as the ethical decision and not the most ethical decision based on the situation from a contractarian theory. In the case of the Stuxnet attack, releasing a worm, collecting data, and destroying computers were all done with the intention to stop or delay Iran’s plan in developing nuclear weapons. In this case, more people would be helped and protected by the intervention of the worm. And from a contractarian perspective, allowing for interventions in these situations means overall millions of people will be at less of a risk if nations or states just started creating nuclear weapons without others trying to intervene and stop them.
Based on the contractarian theory, everyone involved should benefit more from having social contracts than not having them at all which would make following the list of principles to help regulate cyber warfare the most ethical decision. Cyber-attacks and the decision to engage in a cyber war bring on many challenges that we have not had to deal with before. The principles on how to regulate cyber warfare benefit everyone by providing some type of structure and helping nations all around better protect themselves and know when to act. The following principles: 1. CW ought to be waged only against those entities that endanger or disrupt the well-being of the Infosphere, 2. CW ought to be waged to preserve the well-being of the Infosphere., and 3. CW ought not to be waged to promote the well-being of the Infosphere is in a sense a blend of “war as a last resort” and “more good than harm” for cyber warfare. Based on contractarianism, by implementing these principles, everyone will benefit more from the regulations and avoid unnecessary harm or wars of any type.
In conclusion, based on the contractarian theory, for an action to be considered ethical or just, all those involved in the social agreement must benefit more from having it in place than from it not being in place. Cyberwar is very similar to traditional war in that it is used as a means to defend a nation or state. Cyberware and cyberattacks are ethical and just when regulations like the ones Taddeo discussed limit them. Cyber-attacks should be used as a last resort defense and should only be used when their outcome will benefit more people rather than constantly deploying these attacks as Israel and Iran have. Everyone will benefit from being able to use cyber-attacks as a means of protection as a last resort. Also, everyone will benefit by justifying the deployment of cyber-attacks in order to prevent severe harm from occurring. By having this social contract, everyone will be able to deploy some type of cyber protection in case they need to protect their citizens or prevent harm.