After reading both articles entirely, It would appear that there is definitely significantly high escalatory tensions between Iran and Israel and considering that these conflicts have been going on for some time it definitely makes the question whether or not their war is just, a highly controversial topic indeed. What makes the situation even more delicate in terms of an answer to that proposed question is the evidence that suggests that these countries are not utilizing normal means of tactical warfare, as an alternative they have seemingly both chosen to use cyber assaults to go about targeting each other. This is an irregular means of warfare and with both countries refusing to take responsibility for recent events it just makes the situation all the more chaotic. All in all, while many believe that the cyberwar between Iran and Israel is just, I feel that war really cannot be viewed as just in any sense when humans are seeking to destroy other humans. While cyber attacks are not manual methods or traditional warfare they are still intended to cause harm to someone else thus making it an act of war in a broad sense. In this case analysis I will argue that confucianism shows us that the cyberwar between Iran and Israel is not just because war can be costly financially, emotionally, often eventually forces inclusion of neighboring governments, and the damage is hard to recover from.

In the article entitled “can there be a just cyberwar” written by Michael Boylan, multiple instances and ideologies are expressed throughout the entirety of the article simply to provide an accurate interpretation of answers to the question that was proposed in the title of the article. Boylan begins the article by stating this article is intended to open the horizons of his audience’s mind to be able to perceive what may seem as different meanings of war, examples of it, and if it can be considered just overall. Preceding from that point he makes his first point by establishing a concise difference between an act of cyberwar and an act of cyber sabotage and establishing the means of which an action can be considered an act of war. He says that an act of war is an act of aggression by one country against another country, territory, or sovereign state according to international rules and regulations. The example provided from him for cyber sabotage suggests that if one intends to hack a particular organization like a bank for example to acquire personal information about citizens like social security numbers or tax information, that would be an act of sabotage which is ultimately considered a criminal act. On the contrary if another country disabled a military appliance of another country that this could be ultimately considered an act of war at a cyber level. While I do agree with this broad sense of definition between the two terms, I feel as if the description is too broad and does not accurately cover all scenarios that have and can happen. For example, what do we consider a scenario in which a U.S. citizen decides to hack a military application? Is that still simply a crime? An act of terrorism? An act of war? Are acts of terrorism considered an act of war? And is treason considered an isolative term or does it fall underneath crime, war, or terrorism? Moving into a deeper study of war tactics exhibited by many countries today Boylan begins to speak on cyber warfare as an overall tactic of war. He states that the newly developed usages of cyber warfare have altered the original scope of what can be considered war substantially. He proposes that because of the role in terms of killing, identifying aggressors (which can be extremely difficult to accomplish in certain scenarios), “territoriality and neutrality are blurred” due to the usage of cyber warfare through the internet, and lastly the “conceptualization of the attack and response” need new guidelines. As a result of this it has become increasingly more difficult to perceive certain things as an act of war. This point has actually proven to be a real element to the Iran/Israel conflict. The U.S. seemingly has a part in this conflict but because cyber attacks are nearly untraceable it is hard to pick out who was responsible for specific cyber events. Everything is ultimately a guess based on proposed intelligence obviously there is no tangible trajectory of a cyber attack. When you add this element of cyber warfare in addition to social bias that is going to automatically state that the opposition was behind the attack it is a case for even more of a chaotic mess. For example, think of the Russian government and media and how they make Ukraine out to be the villain of the war despite them being the invaders and making the first move toward war. Because of various governmental based media outlets, people who believe in various religions and/or ethical ideologies like followers of confucianism, followers that would likely engage in war in a way that does not affect citizens of the enemy that aren’t raising arms against them, can be manipulated into thinking that a war like the Iran/Israel conflict is a essential war. That in itself is a sense of corruption which is another reason why that war is not just. Boylan never gives a true answer whether he believes that cyber warfare is just or not, however if we use apply this to the original topic of this case analysis I believe even though the complexity of a just war is stretched out I still believe that because of the destructive intent and the apparency of the who is participating in the engagement (Iran and Israel), the conflict can be accurately expressed as unjust war actions. 

In the article entitled “An analysis for a just cyber warfare” the author, Mariarosaria Taddeo begins the article by proposing what was relatively the same thing that Michael Boylan stated in the first article, cyber warfare changes the entire dynamic of what we use to call a war from a traditional standpoint. Taddeo, like Boylan, believes this to be the case due to there being an entirely different environment of battle where “physical and non-physical entities coexist”. With the context that Taddeo provides the audience with for cyber warfare it appears that cyber warfare is really dangerous due to its variety of ways it can affect an opponent. Cyber warfare can be used in violent manner as well as non violent which makes it a much more formidable option for countries to use, vs. traditional warfare that has its limitations, because other countries have to do so much more work to fend against it. It can be used to hack military databases, possibly force enemy planes to fail mid flight, contaminate a water supply network, and so much more that it is inconceivable to most. Also as a result of this ethical boundaries can be quickly violated due to cyber warfare’s capability of having seemingly endless amounts of ways that it can affect not only the military but citizens not even wearing uniforms. For example the unexpected gasoline price jump for individuals involved in the Iran/Israel conflict. Preceding from this point, Taddeo goes into the analysis of the just war theory and cyber warfare ultimately corrupts its otherwise concise display of how to handle going to war. The just war theory essentially states that a country should only go to war when all hope and attempts to peacefully resolve the conflict have all been suspended and going to war is the only means in which a country can defend itself. Taddeo proposes that cyber warfare changes the dynamic of this ideology greatly, because cyber warfare does not need to incorporate the eventual amount of bloodshed that traditional warfare would certainly require which would reduce the collosal tension placed on governments to prevent themselves from having to resort to traditional warfare which is usually more costly than anyone could possibly plan for whether they lose that conflict or not. So in this case if a country felt it to be necessary they could launch a non-violent cyber attack against another country as an attempt to resolve their conflicts without the need of immediate human casualties. Despite this logic, however, deciding to go about the execution of a cyber attack first can be considered an act of war underneath the policies of the just war theory which most countries would not let go unnoticed but instead retaliate to. Having read Taddeo’s takes up to this point it is easier to understand his final point in which he states that whether cyber warfare can be just or not come down to whom is affected outside of just the military, the ratio between good and harm when going to the war (includes loss of infrastructure and human casualties to name a example), and whether they abide by the guidelines expressed through the just war theory. Ultimately I find that if these policies that Taddeo expressed in this article need to be utilized when considering whether or not cyber warfare is just or not, then the original conflict between Iran and Israel should indefinitely be considered unjust. The cyber incidents enacted against one another have led to gasoline price hikes, water and sanitation facilities being attacked, massive revolts by civilians and utter peril otherwise.  I’m sure there are plenty of peacekeepers protesting against the war as well, choosing to abide by Confucianist views, deciding to only pursue elements of life that will bring about great moral effects toward themselves and the atmosphere around them. As a result of their own morals they find themselves choosing to attempt helping those in need, caught in the crossfire of the war and to do whatever they can to put an end to this madness yet they too are forced to deal with the same hardships as everyone else and likely even further horrible treatment because of their views on the conflict and the immoral decision making of some people that are currently in power in other countries. It truly goes to show that war can never be just or good for anyone whether it incorporates cyber warfare or traditional warfare. In addition to the unprecedented consequences that citizens in the area face, I fail to see any benefit to the entire conflict from an outsider viewpoint. Everything seems to be pretty chaotic, especially for Iran who are completely vulnerable to cyber attacks. I’m not sure if any kind of peace agreement can be put into effect at this point of the conflict but one thing is for sure both sides are suffering from the incident and it is tragic really because everyone living in the area doesn’t want to take part in the conflict.

While some feel that the ongoing cyber related turmoil between Israel and Iran is just because it is not a violent means of warfare, they neglect the fact that while the cyber attacks weren’t directly violent in terms of killing, they have forced critical inconvenient hardships on hundreds of thousands of people. Though these attacks were not tangible the effects certainly were and if these effects were not quickly handled within the country there could have definitely been casualties. Both of these articles do an excellent job at providing explanation why cyber warfare is such a dangerous tactic in warfare today and why it is ultimately considered an act of war to use it. As I suggested in the beginning I can’t think of a way that war can ever just especially underneath constraints acquired throughout these two articles. Simply put the repercussions of war as well as the actual intentions only harbor destructive intent and there is no way to find anything justifiable in that.