Is the cyberwar between Israel and Iran a just war?

In the last decade, Iran and Israel have been engaging in a constant cyberwar that have raised the question of what is considered cyber warfare and when those actions are justified as an act of war. While neither country has officially confirmed the origin of attacks, “neither [countries] need official confirmation from each other to know who is responsible.”(Amar, 2021) While it is obvious both countries are responsible, neither country’s critical infrastructure is able to protect themselves from these state-sponsored attacks. In the latest cyber-attack, hundreds of gas stations around Iran have suffered a backend computer glitch that stopped gas stations from distributing gasoline to their civilians. This disruption lasted several hours, until officials were able to manually fix the issues. This recent attack was Israel’s latest response to Iran’s cyber-attack affecting six water and sanitation facilities in Israel. While this attack could have been deadly due to water poisoning, officials were able to deter the attack and quickly recover the water services. It is important to note that while both countries have equally contributed to both cyber-attacks, more recent cyber-threats have targeted civilians and non-combative individuals. Thus, questioning if those cyber actions are ethical and promote a justified act of war between the countries. In this Case Analysis I will argue that the consequentialist tool shows us that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just because of how dynamic cyber warfare is and how incompatible its principles are under the Just War Theory. 

Michael Boylan focuses his scholarly essay, Can there be a Just Cyber War?, about reconceptualizing the traditional Just War paradigm to extend to other attributes, such as cyber warfare. Boylan first introduces the traditional Just War mythology 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.” (Boylan, 2013) This concept has existed for hundreds of years that are focused upon two main requirements: an aggressive action by one state against another must be conducted and the goal of the attacker must be either territory, resources, or strategic advantage against the other state. However, Boylan states the traditional Just War theory is outdated and inconsistent with the advancement of technology and innovation. Without changing the paradigm, many questions remain unanswered of what constitutes a Just War with a world so reliant on computers/the Internet. Boylan expresses the difference in cyber warfare and traditional warfare between four different concepts. First, cyberwarfare does not explicitly tend to kill. It is important to note that cyberwarfare could potentially cause death, but most of the time the intended goal of cyberwarfare is to target systems for disruption. Compared to traditional warfare, traditional attacks focus on pure killing. Secondly, it is not always clear or understood who directly commits the act of aggression. Due to Internet anonymity and security techniques, adversaries could spoof or frame other states for the act of aggression. This blurs the line of where the act comes from and its purpose. Thirdly, the Internet is a vast hub of interconnected networks that connect nodes together. Compared to traditional warfare, this blurs the line of neutral parties who are not involved with the conflict and what territory is defined as a specific state. Finally, Boylan argues that both the attack and response of both parties need further clarification and regulation of what kind of cyber-attack is an act of war. Due to the lack of defined regulations, it is unknown what is considered an act of war in cyberspace. 

Boylan’s interpretation of the Just War theory is important to the Case Analysis itself as it helps determine if the cyber actions of both Israel and Iran is considered a justifiable war. Boylan directly argues that the current interpretation of the Just War paradigm is inconsistent with the current world we live in. Relating the principles of Boylan and considering the current principles of the Just War theory, the cyberwar between Iran and Israel has not had the motive of killing nor resulted in death. It is important to note that the traditional paradigm has a primary focus of killing, while cyberwarfare does not necessarily focus on killing. It could potentially happen but does not directly result in death. This has been relevant to the ongoing cyberwar between the two countries, as their attacks were mostly disruption rather than physical harm. For example, take the cyber-attack on Iran’s gas stations from Israel. The attack disrupted thousands of Iranians trying to get gasoline but did not cause any death from the attack. This point can be further expanded to another point Boylan makes in his argument; attribution and regulations lack the understanding of a response nor a justified attack. While Iran and Israel’s cyberwarfare are both targeted against each other, current cyber regulations and Internet anonymity makes it difficult to directly make one party responsible. Boylan states that this is why Iran and Israel acknowledge the cyber-incident, but never directly make someone publicly responsible. Compared to traditional warfare, it is significantly easier to identify the attacking adversary and state regulations have justifiable war laws. In cyberwarfare, it is difficult to legally prove one party committed the act of aggression due to Internet anonymity and even if they did, many states lack cyber regulations to legally cyberwar. Using the utilitarian principles of the consequentialist theory, we can determine if an individual’s actions provide more “good” or “bad” in the world. Considering the cyber tit-for-tat that Iran and Israel are doing, many of the current actions have neither provided good nor bad in the world. Rather, it may have disrupted services and individual lives, no deaths have occurred. Compared to a world where these states justify these actions as an act of war, traditional war will take over cyber warfare and cause physical violence and harm. Thus, not only creating the next World War, but this also proves that the cyberwar between Iran and Israel cannot be justified under the Just War theory. 

Mariarosario Taddeo focuses her scholarly essay, An analysis for a just cyber-warfare, on the ethical analysis of cyber warfare and its issues regarding the Just War Theory. Taddeo defines cyber warfare as “an offensive or defensive military strategy… targets ranging both on the physical and non-physical domains.” (Taddeo, 2012) While Taddeo defines traditional warfare as more of a combative and violent approach built upon three basic principles: war as last resort, more good than harm, and non-combatant immunity. Taddeo expands Boylan’s previous point about the consequences of cyber-warfare not necessarily being violent and contrasts the differences between traditional warfare. Taddeo expresses that traditional warfare is violent, physical, and targets civilians involving only human conflicts. While cyber warfare can be both violent or nonviolent in the non-physical space, known as the Internet,  targeting militaries or civilians. This form can be constructed in an artificial or non-artificial form that may not involve human interactions at all. Cyber warfare is highly dynamic and “should be fear[ed] as much as traditional warfare as it can lead to highly violent and destructive consequences”( Taddeo, 2012) due to how interdependent society is with digital technology. Combined with the interdependence, the “transversality of the modes of [cyber warfare] combat… make it difficult to define unequivocally ethical guidelines.” (Taddeo, 2012) This causes issues for both legal and Just War Theories, as it is difficult to define cyber warfare actions. In terms of the traditional Just War Theory being a “was as last resort” option, arguments could be made that cyber warfare could be used to deter justifiable war as more of a peaceful option. However, it is important to note that while the cyber-attack would be considered bloodless and more of an informational attack, the premeditated attack would be considered a “first strike” move that goes against current Just War principles. Another principle of the traditional Just War Theory focuses on if the justified actions of a state are “more good than harm[ful]” in their doings. Again, cyber warfare could not be included in this ideology as the actions of cyber-attack are versatile and possesses as unethical. While a cyber breach would remain bloodless, compromising the personal data of millions of innocent lives against an adversary would not be a morally desirable choice of actions. Rather, the amount of unethical issues cyber warfare poses will limit the amount of “good” achieved by their actions. Finally, the last Just War principle that is inconsistent with cyber warfare is enforcing “non-combatant immunity.” Rather, the non-combatant immunity of civilians is blurred alongside combative entities due to the interconnections between each other. In the digital atmosphere, much of the state interconnects non-combative and combative personnel through a large network and if parts of these resources were attacked, the collateral damage would affect non-combative individuals. Thus, breaking the non-combatant immunity principle and the Just War Theory itself. 

Taddeo’s perspective of cyber warfare and its correlation to the Just War Theory emphasizes the incompatibility of cyber warfare principles being able to confine inside the Just War Theory. Due to how dynamic cyber warfare can be and how incompatible it is with the traditional Just War Theory; Taddeo helps us determine if the actions of Iran and Israel is a justifiable war. Taddeo explains how cyber warfare is utilized as a dynamic weapon for more peaceful or deadly objectives towards a different dimension of targets. With the differences of cyber warfare, many of the attributes break the core principles of the Just War Theory and separate cyber warfare from the current Just War paradigm. As previously stated, Israel’s latest attack against Iran affecting gasoline distribution was bloodless and was a direct response to a previous cyber-attack they suffered prior. Who was affected the most by the cyber-attack anyways? Both states are changing their cyber-attacks to affect more non-combative entities in an endless game of tit-for-tat. Considering Taddeo’s principles of a Just War, the actions of both Iran and Israel have broken the non-combatant immunity, as civilians are targeted the most. However, no deaths have occurred, and both cyber-attacks are proving to be unethical in their manner that causes more harm than good for their respective societies. Applying the utilitarian principles, from the consequentialist theory, we can analyze if one’s actions added more “good” in the world or more “bad” in the world from their choices. In the case of Iran and Israel, their actions did not necessarily add further good nor bad in the world. Their attacks were mostly disruptive, and those entities were able to quickly recover with no public blame given to one party. However, in a world where either state justifies these cyber-attacks as an act of a just war, more “bad” and harmful outcomes would happen. While the initial cyber-attack would be bloodless, the victim state would enact these cyber-attacks as an aggression of war and in turn transition their attacks into more of a traditional form. Meaning, more physical violence and battles that cause death on both sides from the two states. Using both the utilitarian and Just War principles, we can consider the actions of both Iran and Israel as not being a just war.

The Case Analysis involving Iran and Israel presents a new controversial and problematic issue on whether cyber warfare can be applied to the traditional Just War Theory that has been enacted for decades. Boylan and Taddeo argue that cyber warfare is dynamic in its approach that is not necessarily violent in its actions. Instead, cyber-attacks vary in their purpose and objective that is unconventional to traditional attacks. While both Boylan and Taddeo define the Just War theory differently, both authors explain how cyber warfare cannot be classified inside the Just War theory due to their difference. While an argument could be made about how unethical these cyber-attacks could be, especially targeting non-combatant entities, all the attacks were non-violent in nature. Through these differences, it becomes clear that neither countries’ infrastructure is prepared for these kinds of cyber-attacks and with the lack of cyber definition, neither country knows the proper way to address the issue. The utilitarian principle from the consequentialist theory is important to the Case Analysis as we can determine what kind of world would be more “good” or “bad” from different actions taken. Current actions taken towards both societies have caused more disruptions but did not necessarily cause either good or bad in the world. While if a world where Iran or Israel considered these cyber-attacks as just war, traditional warfare would occur. Thus, causing death and more adverse consequences in the world. In combination, neither cyber warfare nor the Just War theory are compatible with each other and expresses the need for the current Just War Theory to stretch to newer attributes in society. Therefore, the cyberwar between Iran and Israel is not a justifiable war.