In the fall of 2021, Iran found itself at the center of yet another cyberattack. This attack targeted government-issued fuel cards, keeping thousands of Iranians from being able to get fuel. Israel did not claim responsibility for the attack, but Iran assumes it was them. Attacks have been occurring between Iran and Israel for more than ten years, but in the last two years, civilian targets have been hit on both sides. In 2020, Israel’s water sanitation facilities were attacked. They responded by attacking computer facilities at Iran’s largest port. Shortly before the fuel attack, there was a similar attack on the Iranian Railway’s computer system, resulting in the cancelation of thousands of trains. Iran responded by targeting an Israeli hospital. The cyberattack on Iran’s fuel distribution system is believed to be in response to the hospital attack and is just the most recent example of the back-and-forth cyberattacks between Iran and Israel. These attacks are becoming increasingly more sophisticated and severe with each back-and-forth, as is clear by changing tactics to attack civilian targets. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that ubuntu ethics shows us that the cyber war between Israel and Iran is not just because it is harming many people and, therefore, not in the best interest of humanity as a shared community.
One of Boylan’s central concepts is just war theory. According to this theory, it is immoral to be the one who starts the war. Once the war is started, however, there are just and unjust ways it can be continued. These war rules have traditionally applied to sovereign states, where war was won by whoever had the strongest warriors. Now, whichever country has the best technology and weapons is the winner. With the development of cyber technology, entire wars can be fought and won (or lost) without necessarily shedding blood. It can all happen in the cyber world. It can also be hard to pinpoint who initiated the war or where an attack is coming from since the internet is worldwide. Cyberattacks occur not using ground troops but generally via the internet or perhaps a flash drive. Attacks can be passive in nature like spying or active in nature and disruptive. Some of these attacks cannot be limited only to the initial country or organization attacked but will spread globally because of the use of the internet. These attacks can target nearly any industry including infrastructure. Depending on the target, the damage can be limited or quite severe. For example, targeting an electrical plant that supplies power to a hospital can cause disruption to operations, leading to the death of many people. Other attacks might not seem bad on the surface but end up causing a catastrophic landslide of events. An attack on the New York Stock Exchange, for example, could initially result in the loss of money but eventually, destabilize the entire world’s economy. Part of the problem with cyber warfare is that it can be difficult to tell where an attack originated. The attacking country can even make it look like it was a different country that initiated the attack. So, a country might not know whom to retaliate against or might retaliate against the wrong country because it is so difficult to know where the attacks are originating. Another problem with cyber war is that it can be challenging to only attack military targets and exclude civilians. For example, attacking a dual-use air traffic control system that uses GPS/radar can affect the military but can also affect civilian airplanes, causing crashes and deaths of civilians. An additional challenge with cyber warfare is that it can be difficult to determine when or if traditional warfare tactics can be used in counterattack or retaliation for a cyberattack. The initial cyberattack may have resulted in economic loss but then the counterattack using conventional methods (ground troops, bombs, etc.) can result in the loss of life. This proportionality of response can be a tricky field to navigate.
These articles do not discuss who started the war between Iran and Israel, but they have been going on for a long time. The longer they continue, the more damage keeps occurring. They are currently engaged in a tit-for-tat war that continues to escalate with every retaliation. They aren’t using traditional military ground troops but are engaging each other through cyberattacks. Within the past several years, the targets have been increasingly focused on civilians instead of the military. In addition to this, the countries are not necessarily taking responsibility and claiming the attacks, but each is assuming the origin of the attacks. Boylan discusses in his article how difficult it can be to know the true origin of an attack, and that may be what is happening here. Iran assumes all the attacks are coming from Israel and (presumably) retaliates against Israel, and Israel does the same to Iran. They are also choosing civilian targets more often, which involves a greater number of people and the threat of lost civilian (innocent) lives. As each attack increases in severity, the threatened consequences against innocent people also become elevated. Boylan talks about how attacks can have one point of origin with repercussions that can spread. This could have happened with the fuel attack in Iran. Only two years prior, there had been deadly protests in Iran over fuel prices. When the Iranian fuel distribution system was attacked, there was the potential for an increase in fuel prices which could have, again, lead to deadly protests. This did not happen, but the potential was there. It is obvious that the attacks are becoming more serious every time and the consequences can also spread beyond the initial target. Another point Boylan makes is about proportionality. Are Iran and Israel responding to each attack with the appropriate amount of force? Are the attacks appropriately proportional? I would argue no, they are not proportional, and that the conflict keeps escalating with every retaliation.
By the principles of ubuntu ethics, this war is unethical. All of humanity can be seen as one large, collective community. What is best for one person is best for the community and vice versa. Continuing to attack each other is not what is best for humanity. What is best for humanity is peace between the two countries, so that is also what is best for the countries. They keep escalating the situation by repeatedly attacking each other, but that is the opposite of what they should be doing. They should stop fighting altogether. Both sides need to stop. They need to feel and understand that all of humanity is one big community. Once they understand this, they can see that their actions of attacking each other are wrong because they are hurting others and, by extension, themselves. They shouldn’t simply limit their attacks or move their methods to more traditional warfare or choose military targets instead of civilians. It doesn’t matter who started it or why. Ubuntu ethics would say that the entire “just war theory” is wrong because war itself would be wrong. Ubuntu ethics would say the entire war between Iran and Israel and causing harm to people in any capacity is unethical. They need to stop it entirely and make peace. That would be what is best for humanity (the community) and best for each individual.
Taddeo also discusses just war theory but says it is not enough when considering the morality of cyber war. His solution uses information ethics to fill in the gaps. Cyber warfare targets the informational environment in order to manipulate enemy resources through interference or by gaining complete control. It can be conducted by military or nonmilitary agents, humans or AI, in the physical or nonphysical world, and be either violent or non-violent. It all depends on the type of attack and how it is carried out. For example, a civilian (human, nonmilitary agent) can cause a cyber attack on a train station leading to a train derailment (in the physical world) and the loss of many lives (violent). Another example would be a military cyber intelligence operator (human, military agent) that uses a cyber attack to disable a computer network (nonphysical world) containing intel on their military (nonviolent). All of the lines in traditional warfare operating with military agents causing violence in the physical world are blurred. Information ethics bypasses most of the issues by looking at the information cycle as a whole and includes all entities involved in the information cycle. Information ethics argues that all living and nonliving things make up the infosphere and have moral rights, at the very least the right to exist. Morality, then, is understood based on what effect an action will have on the entire infosphere. Any action that disrupts or adds entropy to the infosphere is immoral. Informational entropy, therefore, is immoral and should not exist in the infosphere. This concept is understood in a nonphysical sense rather than applying to the physical world.
These principles can be applied to the cyber war between Israel and Iran. They can include military or nonmilitary combatants, human or AI, occur in the physical or nonphysical world, and be violent or nonviolent. The articles mainly discuss attacks occurring to civilians with real effects felt in the physical world but imply that past attacks occur on civilians. It is believed to be state-sponsored, but it is unknown whether the attackers are actually military or civilian. Regardless of who is attacking or where they are attacking, the attacks clearly disrupt the infosphere. There are real effects felt in both the cyber world and the physical world. This, without a doubt, is adding entropy to the infosphere, which goes against Taddeo’s principles of information ethics. If the well-being of the infosphere is the ultimate good and adding entropy to the infosphere is the ultimate evil, these cyber attacks would be considered evil.
Ubuntu ethics would agree with information ethics in this specific case that the actions are not moral. Israel and Iran keep attacking each other back and forth, adding more and more entropy into the infosphere. This doesn’t really benefit anyone, especially not humanity as a whole. If both countries believed in ubuntu ethics, they would not keep attacking each other, adding more entropy into the infosphere. Information ethics and ubuntu ethics agree that these attacks are morally wrong. Ubuntu ethics would have the countries right their wrongs and do what is best for humanity as a whole because we are all the same species, part of a massive community. They would stop the attacks, restore any information or financial losses that have been incurred, and find peace. They would remove any entropy they added to the infosphere and not add any entropy back into it again. They would live in harmony because that is what would be best for everyone involved.
According to ubuntu ethics, the cyber war between Israel and Iran is not ethical. They are hurting people and causing destruction, which hurts themselves as well. This is because we are all one great community, part of the human race. According to ubuntu ethics, anything that hurts one person in the community hurts all, therefore they are only hurting themselves by continuing the war. They should stop the war and make peace to benefit both themselves and the others. One problem with ubuntu ethics is that both countries would have to prescribe that belief in order to make it work. If only one country believed, the other country would keep attacking them and they could do nothing back. Ubuntu ethics would say that all wars are unjust in theory, but in practical applications, it doesn’t usually work. This is because not everyone believes in ubuntu ethics. Due to this difference in ethical beliefs, ubuntu ethics are a great ethical framework in theory, but the practical application is much more difficult.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20211108-the-cyberwar-between-israel-and-iran-is-heating-up/