In the cyber world, the conflict between Israel and Iran is getting worse, and neither side has claimed responsibility for the recent attacks. As Iran’s gas shortage got worse, it became clear that a computer glitch in the supply network was to blame. After some time, it was found that it had been attacked online. However, both Iran and Israel are afraid that this cyberwar could turn into a real-life conflict. Iran will not stand by while the other side attacks. Because there is a lot at stake and terrible things could happen, hacking groups often go after Israel. (Amer, 2021). When the cyberattack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was first said to have happened in 2010, it was blamed on the US and Israel. This event was a big deal in the world of cyberattacks because it caused both data loss and physical harm, which had never happened before. That being said, the infamous Stuxnet virus was the one used in this case. Many people think that Israel will keep trying to get involved in cyberspace and other areas to stop Iran from reaching its nuclear program goals, even though there isn’t any proof that Israel was behind the attack. Iran is putting in a lot of work to improve its cyber capabilities and become a major player in the global cyber community (Cohen et al., 2015). Because of April 2020, Israel and Iran’s cyberattacks on each other have become stronger. Major news outlets all over the world have written a lot about the exchange of cyberattacks. According to some, Iran was trying to get into Israel’s water and sewage systems. In May 2020, Israel responded by attacking Iran’s working Shaheed Rajaee port in Bandar Abbas with a cyberattack. It was reported by Cohen et al. (2015) that there have been many explosions, power outages, and fires in different parts of Iran, including military bases, commercial centers, and industrial areas. Israel now has a clear advantage over Iran in this cyber conflict because the balance of power has changed a lot. Like they did in the past, the Iranians are learning new things, getting better at what they already know, and getting ready to fight back against Israeli attacks. The ongoing cyber war between Iran and Israel is an unfair conflict because Israel responds to cyberattacks in unpredictable and aggressive ways. I will use the ethics of care tool to show this in this case analysis.

Being able to keep the balance between attacks and defenses in cyber warfare is very important. It is very bad to get involved in a traditional conflict with another country. What people are always talking about is how resilient the economy can be in the face of problems. It’s important for everyone to understand that past events that hurt and damaged people were acts of war. The government or regional economies can be seen in these percentages (Boylan, 2013).

The Iranian government launched a cyberattack on Israel’s water and sewage system to mess up the system and possibly put Israeli civilians in danger by changing the chemicals in the water. The attempted attack on Israel’s infrastructure did not hurt the country, but it did show that Iran is using cyberwar against innocent civilians, which could be seen as an act of war (Cohen et al., 2015). The response from Israel was way too strong, and it caused a lot more damage than the first Iranian attack. It looks like Israel wanted to show the Iranian government how much stronger they were in terms of technology and military power so that they wouldn’t try to attack again in the same way (Cohen et al., 2015). It is said that an explosion in a data storage facility killed two scientists who worked on the Iranian nuclear program. In 2018, some people were able to get into a facility and steal a lot of Iranian nuclear plans (Cohen et al., 2015). Israeli responses to what’s going on in Iran have been vague and hard to pin down, which has led to rumors that Israel is behind cyberattacks on Iranian military or infrastructure. Our country’s actions and words about Iran make it clear what its leaders think. Through its stronger military and technological capabilities, Israel wants to create an unfair relationship with Iran over its nuclear program. One way to look at Israel’s response to Iran’s attacks on civilian infrastructure is as a form of revenge, like the saying “an eye for an eye.” But some people might question whether this is the right thing to do because it might be seen as an overreaction that goes beyond the initial offense. Some people are also worried that this response might do more harm than good.

Iran launched a cyberattack on Israel’s water and sewage systems, making the cyberwar between the two countries even worse. When Israel admitted that someone tried to break into their water system, American media quickly blamed Iran, even though Tehran said they had nothing to do with it. Israel’s response was large and strong, with big fires, explosions, and power outages that could have hurt both the Iranian military and the country’s civilian infrastructure (Cohen et al., 2015). As was already said, Israel saw this strike as a very serious violation. Iran’s main response has been to deny the attacks’ purpose, nature, and scope, giving the rest of the world a skewed and incomplete account of what happened (Cohen et al., 2015). On the one hand, the Iranian government’s vague and mysterious comments add to the mystery surrounding Tehran’s possible involvement in cyberattacks against Israel. But this lack of certainty could make people think that Iran doesn’t have control over its own country’s sovereignty and can’t stand up to threats. It’s very likely that Iran will keep improving and expanding its strong cyber warfare skills, making its competition with Israel in this area stronger by focusing on physical infrastructure (Cohen et al., 2015).

Cyberwarfare is a type of conflict that can use either offensive or defensive military tactics. It is supported by states and takes place in an informational setting. The level of violence can change depending on the situation (Taddeo, 2012). It has agents and targets in both the physical and non-physical worlds. According to JWT, war is a very violent and cruel activity that is planned and carried out by armed forces and governments. When you try to use JWT ideas in CW, it can be hard because the two situations are so different. Three issues come up when the ideas of “non-combatants exemption,” “more good than damage,” and “war as a last resort” are put into practice. According to Taddeo, if relations between Iran and Israel are tense in 2012, a cyberattack on the computer systems of one country might help ease things up. The attack would not be violent because it would target the informational infrastructure of the enemy state instead of its people. The strike could also help ease tensions and lower the chances of a future armed conflict, which is another benefit. However, JWT says that this kind of attack as a preventative measure is illegal because it is seen as an act of war (Taddeo, 2012). It would be against international law and the idea that war should only be used as a last resort to let the cyberattack happen. In the event that neither country starts the cyberattack, a violent conflict will have to happen. We can see from this example how hard it is to make moral rules that are specific to the field of CW. Because so many different strategies are being thought about, it is hard to come to clear moral conclusions. To make conflicts less likely, it might be helpful to think about other ways to solve problems that focus on nonviolent and peaceful solutions (Taddeo, 2012). It is important to think about this when looking at how small CW incidents affect the enemy’s informational resources as part of any research that aims to set ethical standards. Notably, Israel has been blamed for these kinds of things. The way CW works makes it unlikely that it would hurt people or damage a lot of property, since its main target is digital infrastructures. Cyberwarfare is a possibility when there is conflict in cyberspace, but most of the time, it leads to bad behavior. The enemy’s informational infrastructure can be broken into even if harsh or violent methods are not used (Taddeo, 2012). On the other hand, some people think that the idea of fair warfare and the JWT’s guiding principles are still relevant and could be used to govern this new type of combat (Taddeo, 2012). There is a strong link between cyber security and cyberattacks and the two main parts of just war theory (JWT), which are about why a war should happen and how people should act during a war (Taddeo, 2012).

Why certain actions are morally right or wrong and how to decide what those actions are are the focus of a moral theory (Dipert, 2014). Cyberwarfare can be done in many ways that don’t involve violence, permanent damage, or traditional ways of physically invading a country’s borders. When talking about cyber warfare, a lot of people use the word “attack” in the wrong way. Instances of attacks between nations include things like stealing intellectual property, spying online, messing with data or information processing, trying to get into an information system, and, very rarely, destroying property or killing people on purpose. Based on Dipert (2014), if these actions are seen as attacks, Israel may have a good reason to fight back. Since the beginning of the military, spying and spreading false information have never been seen as war crimes that call for violence. When it comes to intellectual property theft, trade and patent treaties and the groups that watch over them have a hard time (Dipert, 2014). Ipert (2014). It’s clear that there are still not enough clear rules about what kinds of cyberintrusion and dishonesty are okay and not okay. Because of this, most of what people call cyberattacks don’t need more than a response that fits their nature and level of severity (Dipert, 2014). 

Even though cyberattacks are usually done in secret, the recent fights between Israel and Iran have been much more intense, widely known, and open. Because both sides stayed in their positions of power, this could be the real reason for the recent escalation. Given Israel’s advanced technological skills and its over-the-top defenses against Iranian attacks, it is clear that this situation may go beyond cyberwarfare. Boundaries would only be crossed if countries used traditional ways to attack in response to cyber warfare. If there is a possible threat to human lives, the situation will get worse. If cyber warfare was done in an ethical way, none of these things would happen. The ethics of care tool makes it clear that cyberwarfare is not the main problem in the ongoing conflict between these two countries. They would be better off finding a different way to deal with their problems, like having an open conversation or dialogue.

References

 Amer, Dr. A. (2021). The cyberwar between Israel and Iran is heating up. Middleeastmonitor. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20211108-the-cyberwar- between-israel-and-iran-isheating-up/. 

Boylan, M. (2013). Can there be a Just Cyber War? eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp; Journal of Applied Ethics and Philosophy. https://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/54138/1/JAEP5_2_Boylan.pdf. 

Cohen, Matthew S., Charles D. Freilich, and Gabi Siboni. “Israel and Cyberspace: Unique Threat and Response.” International Studies Perspectives, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekv023. 

Dipert, R. (2014). Distinctive Ethical Issues of Cyberwarfare. Researchgate.Net. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289003623_Distinctive_Ethical_Issues_of_Cyb erwarfa re.

 Taddeo, M. (2012). An Analysis for A Just Cyber Warfare. en-sectech.tau.ac.il; NATO CCD COE Publications, Tallinn. https://ccdcoe.org/uploads/2012/01/3_5_Taddeo_AnAnalysisForAJustCyberWarfare.pdf.