{"id":113,"date":"2025-06-25T21:15:39","date_gmt":"2025-06-25T21:15:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/student.wp.odu.edu\/tturn021\/?page_id=113"},"modified":"2025-06-25T21:18:29","modified_gmt":"2025-06-25T21:18:29","slug":"case-analysis-6-4-on-cyberconflict","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/student.wp.odu.edu\/tturn021\/law-and-ethics-phil-355e\/case-analysis-6-4-on-cyberconflict\/","title":{"rendered":"Case analysis 6.4 on Cyberconflict"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In recent years, the ongoing cyberwar between Israel and Iran has escalated significantly, affecting not only government targets but also the lives of everyday citizens. According to Middle East Monitor, Israel has carried out cyberattacks that targeted Iran\u2019s railway system and other public infrastructure, while Iran has responded with retaliatory strikes, such as the October 2021 attack that shut down hundreds of gas stations across the country. These acts go beyond military or intelligence systems and have deliberately impacted civilian life, causing disruption, panic, and economic harm. Iran\u2019s attack on gas stations led to widespread fuel shortages and public unrest, and while Israel has not claimed responsibility for all its suspected cyberattacks, they show a pattern of targeting civilian-adjacent infrastructure. Both countries appear to be using cyberweapons to wage shadow wars without engaging in direct military conflict. However, this tactic raises major ethical questions, especially when civilians are caught in the crossfire, not by bullets or bombs, but by code and malware. These cyberattacks are not clean or contained; they ripple across societies and borders, blurring the lines between wartime targets and everyday people. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that the Confucian ethical framework shows us that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just because it violates key Confucian values such as harmony, social stability, and the protection of the innocent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Analysis Using Michael Boylan\u2019s Framework<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Michael Boylan\u2019s essay \u201cCan There Be a Just Cyber War?\u201d explores how traditional just war theory can be applied, or sometimes fails to apply, to cyberconflict. A central concept in Boylan\u2019s work is the distinction between jus ad bellum (justice in going to war) and jus in bellum (justice in the conduct of war). He argues that cyberwarfare complicates these concepts because of how hard it is to identify attackers, assess proportionality, and ensure discrimination between military and civilian targets. Boylan also highlights the importance of public declaration and accountability in war, two things that are often absent in cyber operations. For a cyberwar to be just, he believes, it must be limited, necessary, proportionate, and ethically transparent. In the cyberwar between Israel and Iran, these principles are not being upheld. For example, Iran\u2019s 2021 cyberattack on Israeli water systems could have harmed civilians by disrupting access to clean water. Likewise, the gas station attack blamed on Iran caused chaos for millions of Iranian citizens. On the other side, Israel\u2019s attack on Iran\u2019s train systems shut down critical infrastructure and may have endangered lives through disruption of transportation and emergency services. These attacks are not being carried out on military or intelligence targets; they are aimed at public systems that civilians rely on. From Boylan\u2019s perspective, such actions fail the jus in bello test of discrimination, which says that war should be conducted in a way that clearly distinguishes between combatants and non-combatants. The cyberattacks in this conflict repeatedly blur that line. For instance, attacking gas stations and railway systems not only affects the governments of Iran or Israel; it disrupts the lives of everyday people, many of whom have no control over their country\u2019s foreign policy. That violates the principle of protecting non-combatants, which is essential to any claim that a war, physical or cyber, is just. Boylan also emphasizes proportionality: the idea that the harm caused by a military action must not outweigh the military advantage gained. It\u2019s difficult to say whether these cyberattacks have achieved any meaningful strategic benefit. Iran\u2019s attack on Israeli infrastructure and Israel\u2019s suspected retaliation against civilian systems seem more like shows of power or attempts to humiliate the other side rather than actions grounded in military necessity. That lack of proportionality makes them ethically unjustifiable under Boylan\u2019s model. Lastly, Boylan calls for transparency and accountability, another area where cyberwarfare often falls short. Most cyberattacks are not publicly claimed, and attribution is usually speculative. Israel and Iran often deny responsibility or remain silent. This lack of public declaration means citizens are left in the dark and cannot hold their governments accountable, further violating the standards of a just war. From the Confucian perspective, these failures are especially troubling. Confucian ethics emphasizes harmony, order, and the protection of the community. Actions that create widespread disruption and fear go against the Confucian value of social stability. Leaders, in Confucianism, are expected to act with ren (humaneness) and to prioritize the well-being of their people. Cyberattacks that harm civilians, whether through psychological fear or economic chaos, undermine the trust and harmony that a Confucian society strives to maintain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Combining Boylan\u2019s just war criteria with Confucian ethics paints a clear picture: the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just. These attacks are not properly targeted, are disproportionate in their effects, and erode the moral fabric of society. Even if the intent is national security, how it is pursued through covert cyberattacks on public systems fails to meet the ethical standards of both Western just war theory and Confucian moral reasoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Analysis Using Mariarosaria Taddeo\u2019s Framework<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mariarosaria Taddeo, in her paper \u201cAn Analysis for a Just Cyber Warfare\u201d, offers a framework for evaluating the morality of cyber conflicts by adapting the principles of just war theory to the cyber domain. One of her key contributions is the idea that cyberwarfare must meet two distinct thresholds: the Threshold of Severity and the Threshold of Just Cause. The Threshold of Severity refers to the scale and impact of a cyberattack; it must be significant enough to be considered an act of war. The Threshold of Just Cause requires that the reason for the cyberattack must be morally sound, such as national defense or the prevention of large-scale harm. Taddeo also insists that any cyber operation must follow principles of discrimination and proportionality, and that the war must be conducted under legitimate authority. Importantly, she argues that cyberwarfare should not be used for political manipulation, economic pressure, or show-of-force intimidation tactics. Instead, it must aim to resolve conflicts in a morally responsible way that minimizes harm and upholds international peace. When we examine the cyberwar between Israel and Iran through Taddeo\u2019s framework, it becomes clear that the conflict does not meet these ethical standards. Iran\u2019s cyberattack on Israeli water systems reportedly attempted to change chemical levels, which could have poisoned the water supply. This act meets the Threshold of Severity because it could have endangered public health. However, the Just Cause for that attack is questionable. It appears retaliatory and strategic, rather than a response to an imminent threat. Likewise, Israel\u2019s cyberattacks on Iranian infrastructure, especially the railway system, caused large-scale confusion and disruption without clear military necessity. These actions resemble attempts to destabilize the opponent and send a warning message, rather than defend against a concrete threat. These attacks also violate the principle of discrimination. Civilians are the primary victims, not military personnel. When Iran shut down gas stations across the country, the public was left stranded and confused, with many unable to travel or go to work. When Israel reportedly hacked Iran\u2019s train schedules, travelers were trapped, and emergency services were delayed. These are not targeted military strikes; they are digital equivalents of bombing a public square to make a political point. Under Taddeo\u2019s model, this cannot be ethically justified. In terms of proportionality, both sides fall short. The amount of disruption and fear these attacks generate is massive, and the benefits, if any, are vague or symbolic. The attacks seem to be designed to show technological capability and to assert dominance, not to achieve specific security goals. Taddeo warns against this kind of misuse of cyberwarfare, arguing that once these tactics become normalized, they invite escalation and increase the risk of broader conflict. Using the Confucian ethical lens, these actions are further condemned. Confucianism is rooted in values such as harmony (he), respect for human life, and the duty of rulers to care for their people (ren). Both Israeli and Iranian leaders, through these cyber actions, have failed to uphold those duties. Confucianism does allow for the defense of the state, but only if it is carried out with restraint, wisdom, and deep concern for the human impact of one\u2019s actions. By targeting infrastructure critical to daily life, these cyberattacks disrupt not only material systems but also the social and moral harmony of the nations involved. They fuel fear, distrust, and anxiety, qualities Confucian thought strongly opposes in leadership and governance. Furthermore, Confucian ethics emphasizes the importance of ethical role modeling by those in power. If leaders resort to underhanded, harmful tactics, they set a dangerous precedent for how conflicts should be resolved. Thus, both Taddeo\u2019s framework and the Confucian tool led to the same conclusion: the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just. It fails to meet the necessary thresholds of cause and severity in a morally responsible way, and it disregards the ethical responsibility of leaders to act with humanity, moderation, and care for civilians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to this analysis, the right path would be for both nations to cease attacks on civilian systems and to redirect their efforts toward diplomatic conflict resolution, or at the very least, to confine cyber operations to military and state-level targets only. Cyberwar, if it must exist, should be limited, transparent, and strictly regulated to prevent widespread harm and long-term destabilization, both practically and morally. The right thing to do, based on this assessment, would be for both nations to step back from targeting civilian systems and instead seek diplomacy or at least confine any cyber actions to military or intelligence-based targets. Ethical cyber behavior, even in conflict, must aim to limit harm, preserve order, and uphold human dignity. Without those limits, cyberwarfare risks becoming a chaotic, unjust tool that ultimately harms more than it protects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this analysis, we\u2019ve seen that both Michael Boylan and Mariarosaria Taddeo offer strong ethical frameworks that help us evaluate the morality of cyberwarfare. When combined with the Confucian ethical tool, which emphasizes harmony, moral leadership, and care for others, it becomes clear that the ongoing cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just. These cyberattacks routinely target civilian infrastructure, lack proportionality, fail to meet ethical thresholds of cause and severity, and disrupt the social and moral order in both societies. While the intention may be to avoid full-scale war, the unpredictable and far-reaching consequences of these actions suggest that they cause more harm than they prevent. Some may argue that cyberwarfare is better than traditional warfare, as it can disable systems without killing people directly. While this may be true in some cases, cyberwarfare still creates serious risks for civilians and can easily escalate into broader conflict. It also normalizes secretive, unchecked aggression, a trend that undermines both international norms and ethical leadership. A Confucian approach reminds us that the right path is not simply the one with the least bloodshed, but the one that promotes peace, dignity, and respect for all members of society. That means leaders must avoid causing unnecessary harm, even to their enemies, and instead work toward stability and ethical resolution of conflict. While the world may not be able to fully eliminate cyber conflict, we can and should demand higher moral standards for how it\u2019s conducted, especially when civilian lives are at stake.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction In recent years, the ongoing cyberwar between Israel and Iran has escalated significantly, affecting not only government targets but also the lives of everyday citizens. According to Middle East Monitor, Israel has carried out cyberattacks that targeted Iran\u2019s railway system and other public infrastructure, while Iran has responded with retaliatory strikes, such as the… <\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":29489,"featured_media":0,"parent":110,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/student.wp.odu.edu\/tturn021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/113"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/student.wp.odu.edu\/tturn021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/student.wp.odu.edu\/tturn021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/student.wp.odu.edu\/tturn021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/29489"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/student.wp.odu.edu\/tturn021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=113"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/student.wp.odu.edu\/tturn021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/113\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":114,"href":"https:\/\/student.wp.odu.edu\/tturn021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/113\/revisions\/114"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/student.wp.odu.edu\/tturn021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/110"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/student.wp.odu.edu\/tturn021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}