The United States has been has been waging a secret war on Iran since the beginning of President Barack Obama’s presidency.
At least, it is war by the definition of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who told ABC News only three weeks ago that a major cyber attack on U.S. electrical or other infrastructure would be considered an act of war on a par with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
How would this be different from the technological attacks Obama has launched to debilitate and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities? And if they do constitute war, at what point do Congress and the American people get to weigh in?
This ethical dilemma is laid bare by The New York Times’ David Sanger in his credible new book, “Confront and Conceal.” It reveals how the United States used a worm to infiltrate and confound Iran’s nuclear computer system. It also illuminates the use of drones to pursue assassinations in Yemen and Pakistan. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chair of the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee, told the San Francisco Chronicle she found things in Sanger’s book that she had not known. Unfortunately, at this point, she and her colleagues are more focused on who’s leaking information than they are on what actually is happening.
Congress should conduct a full hearing on the ethics of cyber attacks and drone attacks against nations and suspected terrorists. Feinstein should lead the charge to establish rules of engagement for this rapidly emerging field of technological warfare.
Wars against sovereign nations must not be conducted in secret. They need to be debated and authorized by Congress in full public view. But war by technological attacks on a nation’s infrastructure is new, and it raises different issues from, say, a secret order to send troops to invade a country. It’s hard to imagine a modern president trying that. But if technological attacks truly are acts of war, as Panetta argues ― and who wouldn’t agree that the U.S. should swiftly retaliate against a foreign power that crippled our power plants? ― then shouldn’t more than one person be making the call?
Silicon Valley is perceived as the technological capital of the nation. It should be encouraging the debate. Any technology can be used for good or ill. But as it takes center stage in world affairs, the ethics of its use need to be examined.
Complicating all this is tech’s love-hate relationship with hackers. Facebook proclaims itself a hacker culture. On one level, the Iran cyber attacks were a nifty way to undermine a dangerous regime without risking lives. The developers must have felt great. But if we will consider this war if somebody does it to us, can it really just be clever strategy when we do it?
Obama’s direct engagement in this makes it clear where the buck stops. He is deciding when secret attacks on a foreign power’s infrastructure are justified, and when a drone should be used to assassinate someone he considers a terrorist or enemy of the state. People who trust Obama may be fine with this, but remember, the power doesn’t rest in the man, it rests in the office. What would George W. Bush, with Dick Cheney at his shoulder, do? How about Mitt Romney?
In 2009, in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama said, “Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength.”
It was a great speech. He should read over it again, hand out copies to Congress, and take it to heart.
