A vicious cyberwar is fought between Israel and Iran, the price paid by innocent civilians. The article published on NBC news in October of 2021 Iran says sweeping cyberattack took down gas stations across the country by Chantal Da Silva, Kevin Collier and Reuters and following article published in the Middle East Monitor in November of 2021 The cyberwar between Israel and Iran is heating up” by Dr. Adnan Abu Amer detail the back and forth cyberattacks waged by the two nations against each other. Despite being “cyber-attacks” the effects of each strike are felt well beyond cyberspace. Noncombatant civilians suffer collateral damage to each attack. Targets of cyber-attacks include access to transportation, access to water, sanitation and gasoline. (Da Silva et al, 2021, p.1) Hospitals and banking institutions were also targeted, endangering and severely impacting Israeli and Iranian lives. (Amer, 2021, p.2-3) In this case analysis, I will argue that consequentialism shows us that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not a just war because it is fought without or with little attribution, the attacks targets innocent civilians and the attacks do more harm than good.
In his work for the Journal of Applied Ethics and Philosophy, “Can there be a Just Cyber War?” Michael Boylon distinguishes the critical differences between cyber warfare and conventional warfare. Boylon also raises concerns and issues that arise when “including cyber warfare as part of the traditional just war paradigm.” (Boylon, 2013, pg. 10 par. 1) Lastly, Boylon also offers up insight on what a “just cyber war” could look like. Boylon points out that it is hard to fit cyber warfare into the just war model because of problems with attribution and target distinction. (Boylon, 2013, pg. 14) This problem of attribution is complicated because first one would have to identify whether or not the attack is widespread enough to be considered warfare. Boylon argues that “the difference between sabotage and cyber warfare is a matter of degree.” (Boylon, 2013, pg.11 par. 1) Cyber warfare also distinguishes itself from conventional warfare because it can be difficult to determine if an attack is an act of war between two sovereign nations, crime, or a terrorist attack. (Boylon, 2013, pg. 14) With cyber warfare it is difficult to determine who the soldiers are in war and from where they strike. “When the battlefield is really fiber optic cable, phone lines, and cell phone relay stations, the place of interest is largely inscrutable.” (Boylon, 2013, pg.14 par. 3) Not only is it hard to identify soldiers, the tools that are used to wage cyber warfare are often one-sided in advantage. Modern cyber warfare lacks the fairness of conventional warfare. (Boylon, 2013, pg.12) To remedy these issues, Boylon offers some suggestions. First, Boylon suggests that a just war must “take into account a cost/benefit assessment of outcomes.” (Boylan, 2013, pg.13 par. 1) Because cyber warfare can extend beyond the cyberspace and affect civilians, a just cyber warfare must take into account its overall widespread reach. The second suggestion that Boylon makes is that a just cyberwar must avoid escalation into conventional warfare. (Boylan, 2013, pg.15 par.5) Both Israel and Iran use clandestine operations to wage their cyberattacks, utilizing anonymity and subterfuge to conduct their strikes. “Neither side has accepted responsibility for recent attacks.” (Amer, 2021, pg. 2) Because of this lack of attribution and target distinction, they are fighting unjustly according to the just war model. Israel and Iran also do not take into consideration the effects of their attacks on civilian populations. (Amer, 2021, pg.3) Instead demonstrating the opposite of consideration by attacking resources that affect civilian day to day life. Each attack also escalates in back and forth destruction. When Israel attacked Iranian Railways cancelling thousands or trains, Iran responded with an attack on the systems at Hillel Yaffe Hospital which “forced the hospital staff to work manually, which could have jeopardized Israeli lives.” (Amer, 2021, pg. 3 par.4) With Boylon’s model’s arguments taken into consideration, the actions of both Israel and Iran fit into the criteria of an unjust war. The cyberwar is also unethical in the consequentialist perspective for the same reason it is unethical when compared to the just war model: because Israel and Iran failed to take into account the cost/benefits of their actions resulting in the unethical suffering of noncombatant civilians. Because consequentialist view focuses on the consequences, the justifications for a just war are similar to that of the utilitarian approach in the belief that a just war should minimize unnecessary damage. By targeting civilians and escalating in retaliatory tit-for-tat attacks, Israel and Iran are waging a costly war.
Mariarosaria Taddeo’s paper “An analysis for a just cyber-warfare” builds upon the notions brought up by Boylon. Taddeo begins her paper by arguing that the just war theory is not enough. “Just war theory is necessary but not sufficient instrument for the ethical analysis of CW.” (Taddeo, 2012, pg. 1 par.4) The first reason why cyber warfare is does not fit into the just war model according to Taddeo is because of “its informational nature and transversality.” (Taddeo, 2012, pg. 2 par 3) The argument that Taddeo builds heavily emphasizes the difference between traditional warfare and cyber warfare. Cyber Warfare according to Taddeo blurs the lines between violent and nonviolent, physical and nonphysical, civilian and military, and human and artificial. (Taddeo, 2012, pg. 3) Core principles in determining a just war are also at odds when prescribed to cyber warfare. Taddeo argues that because CW does not necessarily always incur physical violence, “the use of the principle of war as last resort become less immediate.” (Taddeo, 2012, pg. 4 par. 4) Because of this transversality of combat, Taddeo argues that ethical guidelines are hard to measure and the utilitarian principle of doing more good than harm is hard to determine because casualties can be hard to define. (Taddeo, 2012, pg.5) Much like Boylon, Taddeo also points out the difficulty in attributing combatants and noncombatants, touching briefly also on the dilemma of state sponsored surveillance to protect against cyberwar that at the same time “may lead to the violation of individual rights.” (Taddeo, 2012, pg. 6 par 1) Taddeo closes by proposing a solution to the aforementioned concerns cyberwarfare brings in a just war: Information Ethics. The framework that Taddeo offers moral principles that revolve around informational entities and their effect on the infosphere. These principles argue that any form of destruction to the infosphere ought to be prevented and removed from the infosphere and that the “flourishing of informational entities as well as the whole infosphere out to be promoted by preserving cultivating, enhancing and enriching their properties.” (Taddeo, 2012, pg.7 par 5) by defining the nature of a cyber warfare attack, Taddeo reconciles the blurred lines between physical and nonphysical warfare brought about by cyber warfare. From these principles, Taddeo also delineates the boundaries of cyber warfare arguing that “CW ought to be waged only against those entities that endanger or disrupt the wellbeing of the Infosphere.” (Taddeo, 2012, pg. 8 par 1)Finally, to address the problem of attribution, Taddeo moves away from the civilian and military model and substitutes it with a licit and nonlicit model. Licit entities being the “malicious entities that endangered or disrupted the wellbeing of the Infosphere.” (Taddeo, 2012, pg. 9 par 5) The goals of a just war fit well within the consequentialist point of view because both hold the principle of doing more good than harm. This is especially true in Taddeo’s model that promotes the overall wellbeing of the infosphere, and protection of non-licit targets. When using Taddeo’s information ethics model, it is easy to see that the Iran and Israel conflict does not fit a just war. In addition to the principle of waging war only against licit entities, Taddeo also outlines that CW ought to be waged to preserve the wellbeing of the infosphere, and to promote the wellbeing of the infosphere. (Taddeo, 2012, pg.8 par 1) By engaging in an escalatory “tit for tat” conflict against civilian infrastructure, Israel and Iran go against all three aforementioned policies. The civilians are caught in the middle: Iranians with broken gas pumps, Israeli’s with blackout hospitals. They are what Taddeo refer to as non licit actors. Instead of targeting their adversaries population and infrastructure, Israel and Iran should keep their cyberwar in the cyberspace, attacking only licit targets such as military and intelligence centers. This war would address what Taddeo calls “entropy” in the infosphere, and keep in line with the principle of keeping cyberwar within cyberspace. By doing this, both Israel and Iran can “do the most good” and minimize collateral damage.
In conclusion, cyber warfare does not fit neatly within the principles of a just war. When viewed from the perspective of information ethics however, the ethical limits of cyber warfare can be more easily defined. This model of information ethics model proposed by Taddeo is very consequentialist in nature, with a goal of maintaining the infosphere’s status quo and protecting non licit entities. The cyber warfare fought between Iran and Israel is an unjust war. It is an unjust war because it does more harm than good. Future conflicts should be fought in the infosphere, minimizing impact to civilians. Perhaps in the case of Israel and Iran, this is more easily said than done because both nations have been warring before cyber-attacks, and the cyber-attacks are an effect not the cause of their conflict. To this end, I agree with Boylan’s closing thoughts that cyber warfare requires international oversight, in the form of international regulation and perhaps another Geneva Convention.
WORKS CITED:
Amer, A. (2021, November 8)). The cyberwar between Israel and Iran is heating up. Middle East Monitor. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20211108-the-cyberwar-between-israel-and-iran is-heating-up/
Boylan, M. (2013, September). Can there be a Just Cyber War? Journal of applied ethics and philosophy (5) 10-17. DOI 10.14943/jaep.5.10
Da Silva, C., Collier, K., & Reuters. (2021, October 27). Iran says sweeping cyberattack took down gas stations across the country. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/cyberattack-blamed-iran-gas-stations-hit-major disruptions-rcna3806
Taddeo, M. (2012, January). An analysis for a just cyber warfare. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261488493