By Thomas Mayfield

Cyber-war and cyber conflicts are a relatively new and rapidly evolving form of warfare. And as technology continues to advance, society can expect these types of attacks to evolve in sophistication, frequency, and destructiveness. Additionally, the moral and ethical theories that determine whether or not a cyber-attack or cyber war is justifiable will also evolve. Recently, Iran and Israel have been engaged in a tit-for-tat cyberwar that has caused damage to critical infrastructure and has disrupted the lives of civilians in both countries. While neither side has officially taken responsibility for launching cyber-attacks on the other, tensions have continued to rise as both countries increase the severity of their attacks over the last several years. For this case analysis, I will argue that the ethical theory of consequentialism shows us that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just due to the harm it has the potential to cause to civilians.

The first article that I will be analyzing during this assignment is titled “Can There Be a Just Cyber War?” by Michael Boylan.  One of the central concepts that Boylan discusses in this article is that we can’t think of the term cyberwarfare as a term in and of itself due to the fact that it doesn’t fall into traditional war archetypes. An archetype represents a pre-established set of standards or ideas and represents a stereotypical example of something. Because technology in our modern society is constantly changing and evolving, applying a definition to the phrase “Cyber War” is extremely difficult. This is because every time it occurs it is often employed by a different method or takes on a different form. Like with traditional wars, a cyber-attack can often be the precursor to a cyber war. When a cyber-attack takes place, it is generally the result of actions carried out by cyber criminals that employ a variety of techniques in order to exploit a vulnerability within a computer or computer networks. These attacks often result in stolen data, destroyed hardware, installation of malware, or enable the attacks to utilize a compromise system in order to facilitate a future attack after additional intelligence gathering. Boylan goes on to further discuss the differences between cyber warfare and sabotage, and how each term can be differentiated based primarily on the severity of each. Examples of sabotage could include disabling a company’s website or stealing sensitive personal information online. In contrast, an example of cyber warfare could involve a foreign adversary crippling the navy’s ability to communicate via the fleet satellite communications system, resulting in warships and submarines being unable to communicate or properly operate while at sea. If something like this were to happen, it would undoubtedly be considered an act of cyber warfare.

What is currently taking place between Iran and Israel in the realm of cyberspace could best be described as cyber warfare, each country is deliberately targeting government-maintained infrastructure as well as civilian owned and operated industries. The ethical theory of consequentialism dictates that an act can be judged as either morally right or wrong based on the consequences of that action. Let’s imagine a hypothetical situation where Iran learns that Israel is about to launch a nuclear attack on its capital and major cities, if Iran where to employ a cyber-attack with the intent of disabling Israel’s nuclear weapon launch systems in order to save the lives of countless civilians, then this response would be morally justified under the ethical theory of consequentialism. In reality however, the ongoing cyber war taking place between these two countries civilians and non-combatants in the middle of the crossfire. Cyber-attacks from Israel have rendered hundreds of thousands of Iranians unable to refuel their cars, resulting in financial and opportunity losses for the general populace. The Iranians responded by launching a cyber-attack of their own that targeted an Israeli hospital that resulted in the hospital workers having to do work with the aid of their automated computer systems and endangered the civilians. These confrontations are increasing in frequency and severity, and so far, the civilians of both countries have suffered the brunt of each attack. Since innocent civilians are routinely being harmed, it’s clear that the ethical theory of consequentialism wouldn’t consider these actions to be morally right.

In the conclusion of Taddeo’s article “An Analysis For A Just Cyber Warfare”,  the author argues that transversality is the main feature that separates cyber warfare from conventional warfare. It describes this transversal nature with respect to the level of violent escalation. The false belief that cyber warfare is bloodless because it is conducted in cyberspace and not in the physical domain makes it appealing to military strategists and politicians because “ it liberates political authorities of the burden of justifying military actions to the public opinion”. It is also easy to deny responsibility as both Iran and Israel continue to do. In the decades long conflict, both sides seem to use the tactic as a way to inflict pain and hardship on its enemy, reaping the internal political benefit without the moral or ethical downside of launching a traditional military campaign that would drain both countries of precious human and material resources in bloody and destructive battles using conventional munitions. Each side of the conflict feels justified in their need to retaliate in a perpetual cycle of revenge. However, the tenets of Just War Theory prescribe that military operations should avoid causing harm to civilian non-combatants. Cyber warfare gives them the cover of deniability to continue ongoing hostilities without leaving obvious evidence of the perpetrators, even though everyone involved is aware of who the perpetrators are.

When applying the Ethics of Consequentialism to the ongoing conflict it is easy to infer that both nations are wrong to accept cyber warfare as a means to inflict “bloodless” harm on each other. It is also worth considering how they may view it differently. It is important to note that my Western viewpoint may not equate to the cultural and political norms of Iran and Israel in what they collectively and individually perceive as right and just within their cultural framework. The political calculations of these nations obviously see some benefit and a tacit moral approval for repeatedly engaging in acts of cyber warfare with each other. It could be that from their viewpoint, they are morally obligated to strike back at any attempt to attack their country. For countries that have witnessed centuries of hardship and destruction caused by endless fighting, the clean and sterile battlefield of cyberspace could be viewed as a favorable option that meets a perceived obligation to conduct war on their neighbor without destroying expensive infrastructure. Although each side may feel morally justified in their actions, the question of producing a good outcome remains. Considering the perpetual nature of these attacks with no peaceful resolution to ongoing disputes because of cyber war, the conclusion must be drawn that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not justified. Peace between Iran and Israel, even if only tenuous, is the best indicator for what could be attributed as a good outcome. These actions are not bringing the combatants to the negotiating table or inciting a national conversation for peace talks. They are instead pushing each other away from normalized relations and thus maintaining the status quo.

For this case analysis, I discussed how the ethical theory of consequentialism shows us that the ongoing cyber war between Iran and Israel is morally wrong due to the unjustifiable harm it has caused to the civilian populations of both nations and an inability to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict. This case analysis began by understanding how Boylan defines the concept of cyber warfare and how this concept relates to the ongoing conflict taking place between Iran and Israel. I then discussed the transversality of cyberwarfare due to the fact that its a conflict that can’t be readily seen by the public, meaning that it often does not result in widespread public backlash. This transversality enables both nations to continue these attacks on one another, despite the harm it causes to the general populace of both nations. While it’s understandable that each nation feels the need to launch a counterattack in response to the other, when civilians are the ones being targeted it’s impossible to condone or support these ongoing actions.