Cyberconflict, encompassing cyber terrorism and cyber warfare, is a domain where technology, vulnerabilities, and security flaws in digital systems are exploited as tactical weapons. These conflicts often occur between nations and can have both virtual and physical dimensions. This case analysis explores the ongoing cyber and physical conflict between Israel and Iran. This intricate and enduring struggle has involved both nations conducting major cyberattacks: Iran has targeted Israel’s water and sanitation infrastructure, while Israel has retaliated by attacking Iran’s railways, gas networks, and the port in Bandar Abbas. This cyberwarfare, despite arguments for its necessity, has had severe consequences for millions of civilians, depriving them of basic necessities like water, fuel, and sanitation services.
This case analysis will explore the ethical implications of this conflict from the perspective of virtue ethics. Virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of moral character and the pursuit of virtuous actions for their own sake. From this perspective, the cyberwar between Israel and Iran raises substantial moral concerns, as the actions of both sides appear to deviate from virtuous behavior and fail to promote the common good. Instead, the actions appear to be driven by retaliatory motives and strategic interests rather than a genuine concern for the well-being of individuals. Therefore, I will argue that, according to virtue ethics, the cyberconflict between Israel and Iran is not morally justifiable, as it fails to embody the right actions done for the right reasons.
Using Mariarosaria Taddeo’s framework, it’s important to consider the broader societal and geopolitical impacts of such cyber warfare. The ethical dimensions of this conflict extend beyond the immediate disruptions to critical infrastructure and the Infosphere; they also encompass the broader context of international relations, societal trust in technology, and the ethical responsibilities of state actors.
Societal Impact and Trust in Technology
Cyber warfare, as demonstrated in the Iran-Israel conflict, has profound implications for societal trust in technology and digital systems. When critical infrastructures like water, energy, and transportation are targeted, it not only causes immediate harm but also undermines public confidence in the reliability and security of these systems. This erosion of trust can have long-term consequences.
According to Taddeo’s information ethics, the flourishing of informational entities includes ensuring that users of digital systems can trust these systems to operate safely and securely. The cyberattacks in this conflict violate this principle by creating a climate of fear and uncertainty. This not only disrupts daily life but also potentially stifles innovation and progress in the digital realm, as fear of cyber threats becomes a significant deterrent.
Geopolitical Ramifications and Ethical Responsibilities
From a geopolitical perspective, the cyber conflict between Iran and Israel highlights the complex ethical responsibilities of state actors in the digital age. Unlike traditional warfare, cyber warfare can be conducted with a degree of anonymity and deniability, making it easier for states to engage in hostile actions without immediate repercussions. This raises ethical questions about accountability and the responsible use of cyber capabilities.
Taddeo’s framework suggests that states, as major players in the Infosphere, have an ethical obligation to use their cyber capabilities in ways that promote stability and security rather than exacerbate conflict. In the case of Iran and Israel, both nations have engaged in cyber activities that not only target each other but also potentially disrupt global systems, given the interconnected nature of digital infrastructure. This kind of behavior sets a dangerous precedent, encouraging other states or non-state actors to adopt similar tactics, which could lead to a widespread breakdown of norms in cyberspace.
Ethical Considerations in Retaliation and Proportionality
Another critical aspect of Taddeo’s information ethics is the principle of proportionality in cyber warfare. Actions taken in cyberspace should be proportionate to the threat faced and should aim to minimize harm to non-combatants. The cyber conflict between Iran and Israel, however, often involves retaliatory strikes that may not adhere to this principle. For instance, while one nation’s cyberattack may target military or strategic infrastructure, the retaliation might extend to civilian infrastructure, exacerbating the harm caused to ordinary citizens.
This lack of proportionality not only violates the ethical norms of cyber conflict but also undermines efforts towards conflict resolution. It perpetuates a cycle of escalation, where each side feels justified in intensifying their actions in response to the other. This dynamic not only causes immediate harm but also makes it more challenging to de-escalate the situation and move towards a peaceful resolution.
Ethical Leadership and the Role of International Governance
Finally, Taddeo’s information ethics framework calls for ethical leadership in the digital realm, advocating for policies and actions that promote the common good of the global Infosphere. This perspective emphasizes the importance of international governance and cooperation in establishing norms and rules for responsible state behavior in cyberspace.
The cyber conflict between Iran and Israel illustrates the urgent need for such international governance. Without clear norms and agreed-upon rules, states may continue to engage in cyber warfare with impunity, leading to further instability and insecurity. Ethical leadership involves not only refraining from harmful cyber activities but also actively participating in international efforts to create a safer and more secure cyberspace for all.
Applying Mariarosaria Taddeo’s information ethics to the Iran-Israel cyber conflict highlights numerous ethical issues. These range from the immediate effects on critical infrastructure and societal trust to broader geopolitical consequences and the necessity for international governance. The cyber warfare tactics employed by both nations violate key ethical principles. This analysis underscores the necessity for a more principled and ethical approach to cyber warfare, one that prioritizes the well-being of all entities within the global digital ecosystem over short-term strategic gains.
Virtue ethics emphasizes acting rightly in the appropriate context. However, in the case of the cyber conflict between Iran and Israel, both nations are acting contrary to the ethical principle of preventing harm. Both should consider whether their actions are morally justified. To demonstrate more virtuous behavior, they could focus on strengthening their cyber defenses instead of engaging in ongoing cyberattacks. The virtue of justice, in particular, could guide them toward better conduct and potentially help de-escalate the conflict. However, it is challenging to end a conflict, even in cyberspace, without causing significant harm.
Drawing on Michael Boylan’s journal article “Can There Be a Just Cyber War?”, I aim to illustrate why the conflict between Israel and Iran is not just due to its lack of morally valid reasons. Central to Boylan’s analysis is Just War Theory, which offers a framework for evaluating the justification of wars. The theory encompasses key principles, including the need for a just cause, lawful declaration by a legitimate authority, and conduct with good intentions. Essentially, Just War Theory defines war as “an aggressive act by one state against the territory or sovereignty of another state for the purposes of gaining land, resources, or strategic advantage, in accordance with internationally recognized rules and constraints governing such actions both ad bellum and in bello” (Boylan, 2013).
Boylan highlights that actions such as temporarily shutting down a company for theft are considered a crime domestically; however, if a foreign nation engages in such acts against another country, it can be deemed an act of war. Although wars are often viewed as unjust, there are cases where they may be considered necessary. Nonetheless, the necessity of war does not inherently make it just, especially when considering the potentially severe and widespread consequences.
Applying Just War Theory to the Israel-Iran cyberwar, we must evaluate whether the conflict meets the criteria for a just war. The first principle, that war must have a just cause, is problematic in this case. The ongoing conflict, characterized by years of cyberattacks and hostilities, lacks a clear and justifiable cause. It appears driven more by mutual antagonism and strategic interests than by legitimate defense needs. The primary issues, including disputes over nuclear power and religious differences, do not align with the Just War Theory’s requirement for a just cause. Additionally, the principle of good intentions is not upheld, as the actions of both nations seem aimed at causing harm rather than achieving a just and peaceful resolution.
Moreover, the Just War Theory also emphasizes that war must be conducted with lawful authority and adhere to international rules. In the cyber domain, the notion of lawful authority is often blurred, and the international legal framework governing cyber warfare is still developing. The lack of clear, lawful declarations of war and adherence to established norms further undermines the justification of this conflict.
In addition to Just War Theory, virtue ethics provides a valuable perspective on the ethical dimensions of the cyberwar between Israel and Iran. Virtue ethics emphasizes the character and intentions behind actions, focusing on doing the right thing in the right situation. From this viewpoint, the ongoing cyberwar is neither the right course of action nor morally justifiable. The virtue of justice, which entails acting lawfully and fairly, is notably absent in the conduct of both nations. A more virtuous approach would involve refraining from cyberwarfare altogether and seeking peaceful, diplomatic resolutions.
Furthermore, the lack of virtues such as wisdom, compassion, and temperance is evident in the conduct of both nations. Wisdom requires thoughtful consideration of the long-term consequences of actions, while compassion and temperance involve understanding and mitigating harm to all affected parties. Both Israel and Iran’s cyber operations reflect a disregard for these virtues, prioritizing strategic gains over ethical considerations.
While some argue that war might be just under certain circumstances, it is frequently an inherently unjust endeavor. The Israel-Iran cyberwar fails to meet the criteria of a just war and lacks the virtues necessary for morally sound conduct, making it an ethically problematic conflict. This analysis underscores the need for both nations to reassess their actions in light of ethical theories and seek more principled and humane approaches to resolving their differences.
Overall, there are compelling reasons why the ongoing cyberwarfare between Iran and Israel is not just. In this analysis, I utilized virtue ethics to argue that the conflict is unjust. The primary reason for this conclusion is that the war is not conducted in a morally sound manner and does not seem to be pursued for justifiable reasons.
One common argument for the justification of war is that it becomes necessary when conflicts cannot be avoided, and that unethical actions might be required to end the war. Additionally, some argue that failing to engage in war could potentially lead to even worse outcomes. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that war is inherently problematic, and there are always alternative methods for resolving conflicts that do not involve violence.
From the perspective of virtue ethics, the principles of justice, wisdom, and compassion are lacking in the conduct of this cyberwar. Virtue ethics emphasizes that actions should align with virtuous character and ethical intent, which is not evident in the ongoing hostilities. Furthermore, the notion of a “just war” is itself problematic, as the very nature of war tends to involve actions and consequences that are inherently unjust. Therefore, all forms of war, including cyberwarfare, ultimately fail to meet ethical standards of justice and moral conduct.