CASE ANALYSIS ON CYBERCONFLICT
Posted by santw001 on Apr 20, 2022 in Uncategorized | 0 comments
CASE ANALYSIS ON CYBERCONFLICT
The article “Iran says sweeping cyberattack took down gas stations across country” by Chantal Da Silva, Kevin Collier, and Reuters explores the cyberattack on Iran’s gas stations. This article highlighted that the president of Iran, Ebrahim Raisi, had confirmed that the cyber-attack disrupted gas stations nationwide. Following the disruptions that disabled the use of fuel cards issued by the government to enable the consumers to purchase subsidized fuel, long queues formed outside the gas stations (Da Silva et al., 2021). Consequently, the Iranian president warned that Iran should show readiness for cyberwar. Although this president did not accuse any nation or group of the attack, his sentiments implied that he thought the anti-Iranian forces were responsible for the attack. In his article “The cyberwar between Israel and Iran is heating up,” Adnan Abu Amer noted that the cyberattack on Iranian gas stations indicated the escalating war between Iran and Israel. According to Amer (2021), Israel and Iran have many foes, but few can launch accurate, effective, and large-scale attacks on either nation. These attacks have occurred for more than ten years; however, the cyber-attacks have targeted civilians recently. Amer also pointed out that after the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak, the Iranians attacked six Israel water and sanitation facilities. Iran’s biggest port was also attacked a few weeks before it attacked Israel’s water and sanitation facilities. In addition, the Iranian Railway network system was targeted a few months before the attack on its gas stations. In response, Amer noted that Iran attacked Hillel Yaffe Hospital’s network system, an attack that put the lives of Israelis at risk. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that virtue ethics shows us that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just because a moral character cannot engage in cyberattacks.
One of the critical issues Michael Boylan examined in his essay ‘Can there be a Just Cyber War?” is the impact of cyber warfare. He noted that an attack against the critical infrastructure could have regional and global impacts. As per Boylan (2013), malware such as viruses, worms, and Trojan horses disable the functioning of the computer-driven facilities in a country. This can adversely affect essential facilities like the sewage system, air traffic control, and electricity. In addition, Boylan (2013) asserted that the attacks on these critical infrastructures could affect civilians. For instance, this author noted that attacks on the electricity grid could stop electricity supply to healthcare facilities, which can cause deaths if there is no backup system.
Moreover, Boylan (2013) observed that the electricity grid failures might lead to severe disruptions of response services by the police, fire, and other emergency personnel. Also, he elucidated that the attacks on the air traffic control system could result in loss of life and civilian aircraft crashes. Similarly, the attacks on the stock market could result in bogus trading, which can put the entire stock trading system at risk. The effect could be far-reaching because it can lead to unimaginable global economic disasters. Regardless of the attacks, Boylan (2013) claimed that these attacks could blur the separation between civilian and military targets.
Another critical concept Boylan (2013) explored is target distinction and attribution. Unlike conventional wars, cyber warfare poses the danger of attribution. This is because cyber warfare makes it hard to determine the perpetrator. Boylan (2013) provides an example of a case where country A may send an attack to country B and then back to the target nation to create an impression the attack originated in country B. This may result in counter-attacks against an innocent party. Under the just war theory, target distinction is an essential component. Because the infrastructure that may be attacked has dual use in cyber warfare, civilians may be targets. For instance, attacking an air traffic control system may affect the military and civilians. Likewise, an attack on an electric grid used by civilians and the military will result in significant collateral destruction on operating theaters and hospitals, which can cause of lives of civilians (Boylan, 2013).
The other important concept in Boylan’s essay is attack and response. In this vein, Boylan noted that the cyber-attack counter-response could be perceived as just if the attack and response are proportional and there is no loss of lives. However, this stance makes an assumption that the attacked nation has resolved the attribution issues. If the victim nation cannot resolve the attribution issues, attacking another country would be unjust.
Based on the concepts from Boylan’s essay, it can be argued that the cyberwar between Iran and Israel is not a just war. First, the cyber warfare between the two nations has resulted in adverse effects on the two countries. For example, the cyber-attack on Iran’s gas stations caused nationwide disruptions. The Iranians could not use the government-issued cards, making them not take advantage of the subsidized fuel. So, the Iranians had to spend more money to buy fuel. Amer (2021) noted that many Iranians could not fuel their vehicles because of the cyber-attack. Therefore, the cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure affect civilians. It should be remembered before the attack on Iran’s gas stations, both Iran and Israel had engaged in many counter cyber-attacks. The attacks adversely affected the civilians in the two nations, showing how the attacks could blur the distinction between the military and civilian targets. In addition, it is not easy to tell the attacker because of the nature of cyber-attacks. Israel and Iran may be engaging in counter-attacks without knowing precisely the attacker. The attacker can be from a different nation but makes the attack appear to originate in another country.
Accordingly, the right thing that Israel and Iran should do is to stop engaging in endless cyber-attacks. Both Israel and Iran should help their people be virtuous (good) individuals. Considering that cyber attackers are not virtuous since they do not possess good virtues, it would be morally right if the two nations desist from carrying out cyber-attacks. The cyber-attacks are wrong acts because virtuous individuals would not conduct them if they were in similar situations. In addition, considering that the effects of cyber-attacks are wide-reaching and the civilians often are the targets, the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is an unjust war. This war is not building a good society because it makes the perpetrators act immorally. For Iranians and Israelis to be virtuous, they need to act virtuously by ending the cyberwar.
The first important concept in Mariarosaria Taddeo’s article “An analysis for a just cyber-warfare” is transversality. According to Taddeo, transversality is a vital feature differentiating cyber warfare from traditional warfare. It makes cyber warfare appealing from political and ethical viewpoints. Although cyber warfare appears to avoid human commitment and bloodshed, Taddeo (2012) observed that society members should fear it the way they fear traditional warfare. He attributed this to the fact that cyber warfare can be dangerous for civil society and military forces.
The second important concept in Taddeo’s article is the Just War Theory (JWT). As per Taddeo, three key principles should be considered when relating JWT and cyber warfare. These principles include “war as a last resort,” “more good than harm,” and “non-combatants immunity” (Taddeo, 2012). The “war as a last resort” principle presents that a country will only engage in war after exhausting all the reasonable and peaceful options to resolve the warring issues. Relating this principle to the “war as a last resort” principle, it can be noted that it shakes cyber warfare since it may not entail physical violence. However, cyber warfare would be considered a war under JTM. Therefore, a country that authorizes a cyber-attack will violate the principle of “war as a last resort.”
The “more good than harm” principle requires a state to consider the war’s universal goods and universal evils. Taddeo (2012) opined that a nation would be justified to declare war if the goods and evils were proportional. It is easy to assess the war’s goods and evils in traditional warfare. Nevertheless, it is not easy to determine the equilibrium between goods and evils in cyber warfare. Taddeo (2012) warned that although cyber warfare may not cause physical destruction, it can lead to unethical actions. Furthermore, Taddeo (2012) noted that it is not justifiable for a state to start a cyber-warfare even if the goods are more than the evils.
Lastly, regarding the “discrimination and non-combatant immunity,” Taddeo (2012) highlighted that this principle aims at lowering the bloodshed as well as prohibiting violence against the non-combatants. However, when it comes to cyber-warfare, the blurring between military organizations and civil society makes civilians participate in war. So, the civilians can launch a cyber-attack and conceal their status. Equally, the combatants can carry out an attack and hide among the civilians. This scenario may force the state to carry out surveillance over an entire population, which breaches individual rights such as anonymity and privacy (Taddeo, 2012).
The third most important concept Taddeo (2012) covers is the elements of just information warfare. Under this concept, Taddeo explicates that a state has a right to carry out cyber warfare if it identifies the licit target. Additionally, Taddeo points out that resorting to cyber-warfare is defensible if it will permit the country to avoid engaging in traditional warfare. Nonetheless, Taddeo (2012) contends that the “more good than harm” and proportionality principles should be followed.
The three concepts from Taddeo’s article apply to the cyberwar between Israel and Iran. The transversality principle shows that this cyberwar between Israel and Iran can adversely affect both the military and civilians in Israel and Iran. Both nations have experienced the ugly side of this cyber warfare, as evidenced by the disruptions in critical infrastructure. The principles of JTW also apply to the current unceasing cyber warfare between Iran and Israel. It can be argued that Israel and Iran have not exhausted all the avenues to resolve their conflicting issues. Therefore, by engaging in cyber-attacks, they violate the “war as a last resort” principle. The just information warfare concept also applies to the case since Israel can argue that it was justifiable to spy on Iran’s nuclear plans for its defense.
The right thing Israel and Iran should do is pursue other alternatives to solve their issues instead of engaging in retaliatory attacks. This is a right act because a virtuous person possibly would not want a war. Therefore, both Iran and Israel should make their citizens good people who embrace a set of virtues like justice, temperance, prudence, and fortitude. These virtues will help build citizens who will only engage in moral actions. This will mean that the Israelis and Iranians will stop attacking each other.
The cyberwar between Israel and Iran is unjust since it contradicts the principles of virtue ethics. As suggested by virtue ethics, a virtuous individual will live virtuously, implying they will not engage in activities that can be deemed immoral. The cyber-attacks between Israel and Iran are unjust since they affect the infrastructure with dual use, meaning the civilians are getting affected. As pointed out by Boylan, attacks on critical infrastructure can cause more significant ramifications that can endanger the lives of civilians. Equally, Taddeo noted that cyberwar is unethical since it contradicts the three principles of JTW. However, some people may contend it is necessary to engage in cyber-attack to defend their nations from foreign attacks. For example, a nation may use spyware to obtain security intelligence or classified information from another country. The use of spyware to access confidential information to protect a nation can sound convincing. Still, it is unethical to spy on other countries` affairs since it contradicts the virtue element of prudence.
References
Amer, A. 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). Can there be a Just Cyber War?. Journal of applied ethics and philosophy, 5, 10-17.
Da Silva, C., Collier, K., & Reuters. (2021, October 27). Iran says sweeping cyberattack took down gas stations across country. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/cyberattack-blamed-iran-gas-stations-hit-major-disruptions-rcna3806
Taddeo, M. (2012). An analysis for a just cyber warfare. In 2012 4th international conference on cyber conflict (CYCON 2012) (pp. 1-10). IEEE.