Would it ever be the case that war is politics with cyber strikes?
As the article points out, the strikes were politically motivated (against Iran's regime), but were they an act of war?
Under what circumstances should the American people tolerate an act of war being carried out on their "behalf"?
In my view, the democratic process should be used to prevent the US from doing "warmaking" that is not broadly supported by the public.
In fact, as it is well known, the framers required congress to declare war.
So what is the purpose of the US conducting such a strike done without democratic consent?
My guess is that it was conducted to help nudge the American people into accepting acts of war by executive fiat against Iran, when the legal justification for them is at risk of being removed via the democratic process (1). The house passed a bill requiring congressional authorization, but the senate did not.
So we can view the cyber strike as the executive branch asserting its power to make war against Iran without the sort of missiles and bombs that make Americans easily think of it as war.
1. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/19/18691936/h...