In recent years, the ongoing cyberwar between Israel and Iran has been heating up, with each side accusing the other of launching attacks on their critical infrastructure. In one recent incident, Iran was blamed for a cyberattack that caused major disruptions to gas stations across multiple US states. According to NBC News, the attack targeted the payment processing systems used by these stations, resulting in long lines and frustrated customers. Meanwhile, in the Middle East, tensions between Israel and Iran have been escalating, with both sides engaging in cyberattacks against each other’s infrastructure. As reported by the Middle East Monitor, Israel has been accused of launching attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, while Iran has targeted Israeli businesses and government agencies. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just because it violates the principles of Deontology by causing harm to innocent civilians and damaging critical infrastructure.

One central concept from Boylan that is relevant to analyzing the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is the idea of the “principle of beneficence.” This principle states that we should strive to promote the well-being of others and prevent harm to them. In the case of cyberwarfare, this means that nations should take measures to protect their citizens and prevent attacks on critical infrastructure, even if this requires engaging in offensive cyber operations against other nations. Applying the principle of beneficence to the cyberwar between Israel and Iran, we can see that both nations have violated this principle in numerous ways. Israel has been accused of launching cyberattacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which could potentially cause harm to innocent civilians if these facilities were to be damaged or destroyed. Similarly, Iran has been blamed for the cyberattack on US gas stations, which caused significant disruptions and inconvenience for customers. However, we can also see that both nations may believe that their actions are justified by a commitment to the principle of beneficence. For example, Israel may argue that its attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities are necessary to prevent the development of nuclear weapons, which could pose a significant threat to the well-being of Israeli citizens. Similarly, Iran may argue that it cyberattacks in Israel is a form of self-defense, intended to protect its citizens from Israeli aggression.

To assess the actions taken in this case through the lens of deontology, we must consider whether these actions are consistent with the fundamental moral principles that underlie this ethical theory. One such principle is the idea that we should treat others as ends in themselves, rather than merely as means to our own ends. This principle implies that we should respect the autonomy and dignity of other individuals and avoid using them as mere tools to achieve our own goals. In the context of cyberwarfare, this principle suggests that nations should avoid targeting civilians or non-combatants and should focus their efforts on disabling military or strategic targets. Additionally, nations should take steps to protect their own citizens and infrastructure but should do so in a way that minimizes harm to others.

Based on this analysis, I would argue that both Israel and Iran have violated the principles of deontology in their cyberwarfare activities. Israel’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities may pose a threat to innocent civilians and are disproportionate to the potential threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. Similarly, Iran’s cyberattacks on Israel’s businesses and government agencies may harm innocent civilians and are unlikely to achieve a meaningful strategic goal.

Instead, I would argue that nations should focus on developing norms and rules for cyberwarfare that are consistent with the principles of deontology. This might include agreements to protect civilian infrastructure, to avoid targeting non-combatants, and to limit the scope and duration of cyber operations. By adhering to these principles, nations can work to prevent harm to innocent civilians and protect their own citizens and infrastructure, while also respecting the autonomy and dignity of others.

Taddeo argues that cyber norms are sets of shared expectations that govern the behavior of states and non-state actors in cyberspace. These norms help to establish a mutual understanding of what actions are permissible and impermissible in cyberspace and can promote cooperation and stability in the international system.

Applying his theory to the cyberwar between Israel and Iran, we can see that both nations have violated these norms in numerous ways. For example, Israel has been accused of engaging in offensive cyber operations against Iran’s nuclear facilities, which may violate norms against the use of force in cyberspace. Similarly, Iran has been accused of targeting Israeli businesses and government agencies, which may violate norms against the targeting of civilian infrastructure.

According to deontology, we should treat others as ends in themselves, rather than merely as means to our own ends. This principle implies that we should respect the autonomy and dignity of other individuals and avoid using them as mere tools to achieve our own goals.

            In this case, both nations believe their actions are justified by a commitment to other cyber norms. For example, Israel may argue that its attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities are consistent with norms of self-defense and preemption, which allow states to take action to prevent a perceived threat. Similarly, Iran may argue that it cyberattacks in Israel is a form of retaliation, which is permitted under the principle of reciprocity.

            To assess these actions through the lens of deontology, we must consider whether these actions are consistent with the fundamental moral principles that underlie this ethical theory. One such principle is the idea that we should treat others as ends in themselves, rather than merely as means to our own ends. This principle implies that we should respect the autonomy and dignity of other individuals and avoid using them as mere tools to achieve our own goals.

In the context of cyberwarfare, this principle suggests that nations should avoid targeting civilians or non-combatants and should focus their efforts on disabling military or strategic targets. Additionally, nations should take steps to protect their own citizens and infrastructure but should do so in a way that minimizes harm to others.

The norms to be observed are consistent with the principles of deontology. For example, considering the number of civilian assets that are involved in each state’s cyber operations, we should adopt norms that prohibit attacks on civilian infrastructure without first ensuring that such an attack does not cause significant harm to others. Similarly, regarding cyber weapons themselves, states should adopt rules that ensure any cyberweapons being employed cannot cause mass destruction or destruction of key infrastructure facilities. Lastly, in terms of state behavior in cyberspace, it would be appropriate for states to create legislation requiring better training and education to reduce accidents while maintaining anonymity while performing such activities.

Also, nations should work to build trust and cooperation in the international system to promote stability and reduce conflict risk. This might include efforts to establish channels of communication and dialogue between nations, to build capacity for cyber defense and response, and to develop mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of disputes.

The goal of these efforts should be to create a stable and secure cyberspace that promotes the well-being of all individuals and nations. By adhering to the principles of deontology and working to establish and adhere to cyber norms, nations can work together to achieve this goal and build a more peaceful and just world.

In conclusion, the cyberwar between Israel and Iran raises important ethical questions about the appropriate use of force and the development of norms in cyberspace. Through an analysis using concepts from Taddeo, we can see that both nations have violated cyber norms in several ways, and that deontological principles suggest that these actions are morally problematic.

I have argued that nations should work to establish and adhere to cyber norms consistent with the principles of deontology, to promote a stable and secure cyberspace that promotes the well-being of all individuals and nations. This will require efforts to build trust and cooperation in the international system, as well as mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of disputes.

However, there are certainly objections or alternate views to this argument. For example, some may argue that the principles of deontology are too restrictive, and that nations should have more freedom to engage in offensive cyber operations to protect their interests. Others may argue that cyber norms are too difficult to establish and enforce, and that the international system is inherently anarchic and conflict prone.

In response to these objections, it is important to note that deontological principles provide a useful framework for evaluating the morality of actions in cyberspace, and that the establishment of cyber norms is a necessary step towards promoting stability and reducing the risk of conflict. While there may be challenges in implementing and enforcing these norms, the alternative of unrestrained cyber warfare is far worse.

Overall, the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is a reminder of the importance of ethical reasoning in the development of international norms and the prevention of conflict. By working to establish and adhere to cyber norms that reflect the principles of deontology, nations can promote a more peaceful and just world in cyberspace and beyond.