the point of hitting them is to cause commercial damage to american companies. In reality, this changes little in terms of US capacity. Doing the equivalent of this to Russia would be attacking their oil ports and infrastructure.
wildberries has been taken over by an oligarch and the only powers in Russia that Putin may hear are the oligarchs. There will be no 'overthrow of Putin' in Russia because there is no institutional support and it is well understood by literate people - a revolution is not just a disorganized uprising on the streets (what happens the next day? - return to normal) it requires years of planning and support.
Hitting the enemy where it hurts. It's much more effective to hurt Russian morale by making big explosions and petrol rain from striking a refinery or stopping/delaying shipments to the front line than by shutting down a center where a handful of people work and that won't directly impact the war. Ukraine must making fighting painful enough that the Russians withdraw, because the math of attrition favors the much more populous and richer Russians long term.
These feel quite different. IRGC attacked Amazon compute. Ukraine attacked several warehouses. Comparing Wildberries to Amazon is also only half the truth. Wildberries is directly part of russian war machine as soldiers need to buy essential dual-use equipment there and they even sell weapons.
An adjoining substation to BAH53 had one of it's two main buildings damaged/destroyed about 2026-07-16 per https://soaratlas.com/maps/asia-damage-to-data-center-power-substation-bahrain-jul-16th-2026-142024
Then about 2026-07-22 BAH53 itself was damaged/destroyed per https://soaratlas.com/maps/asia-damage-to-amazon-web-services-bahrain-jul-22nd-2026-142112
Possibly the least defended of the three sites as there is no air/missile defence battery in between this site and Iran.
No media reports about this data centre being attacked previously. Possibly the safest of the three as there are at least two (probably three) air/missile defence batteries in between this site and Iran.
Apparently the Batelco DC.1 data centre adjoining (and apparently critical to) BAH55 was damaged/destroyed about 2026-04-01 per https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgk28nj0lrjo _or_ the adjoining substation to these two facilities was damaged/destroyed -- news articles are hard to follow as to what exactly might have been damaged and the extent of damage caused.
Middle ground for defence with one or two (maybe three) air/missile defence batteries between this site and Iran, depending on where drones/missiles are launched from.
If these data centres are rebuilt, you'd maybe expect them to be rebuilt in new locations behind existing _permanent_ (and seemingly quite expensive) air/missile defence batteries in Bahrain (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1492281507 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1492953902). Based on the permanency of those air/missile defence batteries it doesn't look like the government of Bahrain are expecting things to get safer for data centre hosting in Bahrain any time soon.
> If these data centres are rebuilt, you'd maybe expect them to be rebuilt in new locations behind existing _permanent_ (and seemingly quite expensive) air/missile defence batteries in Bahrain
I've seen data centers that were built to withstand an aircraft impact (they were located on a major airport flight path). I wonder if they'd rebuild these to that standard or something even stronger, given these attacks. It probably wouldn't help much against ballistic missiles, but it might make it more resilient against drone attacks.
Here's a Google Maps link to BAH53 (Manama), it doesn't look like the hardened data centers I seen (e.g. sloped walls like a bunker): https://maps.app.goo.gl/6DjhQs753p6EHQUu6
London has lots of datacentres in Slough (near Heathrow) and Docklands (London City Airport, but also many LHR planes transit over).
AWS/Azure/GCP/etc Colo in Equinix/Telehouse datacentres there, and those Docklands locations in particular were picked based on location to LINX (major London peering/interchange), and LINX was put in Docklands out of desire for relatively proximity to telcos, and London’s banking/finance industry.
Not all businesses want to pay the premium for that level of redundancy. Businesses with lower margins want resilient service at a lower price point. With AI and contributed shift to cloud, the demand for lowering TCO for a greater share of the larger pie becomes greater.
> It probably wouldn't help much against ballistic missiles, but it might make it more resilient against drone attacks.
I think the two kinds of attacks are so different that they require different defenses.
Drones need not fly in straight lines. Data centers need ventilation, providing a path for drones. Putting grids in a ventilation shaft will stop the first drone, but a coordinated attack will use one drone to blow up defenses and a second/third/etc one to reach the target
It's sad but also interesting that in someone's disaster recovery plan now they need to add a line item about analyzing which datacenters are behind air defenses.
Update: IRGC published satellite imagery a few hours ago showing an impact to BAH54, apparently impacted on 2026-07-24, alongside another undated image before the impact. From a quick comparison of both images with reliable satellite imagery sources (e.g. WV02 image dated 2025-02-21 on ESRI World Imagery Wayback) there are no obvious signs of image manipulation, with roof features and surrounding buildings/other features lining up as expected. Additionally the claimed post-strike image adds a significant number of vehicles to the site (when there are usually close to none present), which may correspond to fire fighting vehicles expected to be monitoring the site afterwards. Further, Sentinel-2 imagery from 2026-07-24 shows a dark patch (blast damage) on the roof of BAH54 per https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/?zoom=18&lat=26.0509...
Upon checking Sentinel-2 imagery for BAH55 from 2026-03-29 to 2026-04-13 (and all later imagery) there is also visible blast damage to the roof of BAH55, which would correspond in timing to media reports about damage caused about 2026-04-01. Sentinel-2 imagery appears to clarify AWS' claim of "while in Bahrain, a drone strike in close proximity to one of our facilities" to mean a direct impact to the building. However it seems likely from high resolution satellite imagery of BAH55 that the machinery rooms of the building perhaps took most of the damage, perhaps leaving data halls in a better shape elsewhere in the building (but possibly still unusable due to water/smoke damage).
Not “wrongly flagged dead”, insta-dead because commenter is a consistent shit-poster. Put down the history book and read the comment history. If you feel strongly about it, vouch for the comment instead of reposting.
Makes me wonder how much use it actually gets if this is the first we’re hearing about it.
Edit: Incidentally news of the original strike was posted on HN 5 months ago and flagged, for whatever reason. Why would it be flagged? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47317587
It's been extensively reported on, and any AWS user that clicks on the health dashboard would also have seen it, even if they don't consume from news outlets.
As for use it gets: plenty of use, mostly when someone needs to have their worlds close to that area (usually latency or legal reasons). There are a lot of smaller businesses that lost a lot (or maybe even everything) because their never thought they would need to create backups in a different region. Most of that wasn't really reported on but instead gets shared on various platforms like Reddit.
> Are you implying that something that gets reported on, shouldn't be on HN?
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
> Makes me wonder how much use it actually gets if this is the first we’re hearing about it.
Or how good their HA/failover strategy must be.
Although losing one data centre from an availability zone seems like exactly the kind of issue AWS plan for and handle well, and does not take down the whole AZ. By contrast with "our BGP config got messed up".
Because individual HN users do the flagging and many are tired of the inevitable and pointless Israel v Palestine proxy comment war that predictably erupts on any topic related to the Middle East.
The point is that every random going-on gets used as an excuse to rehash the entire conflict from 1947 onwards, and a lot of people are just not interested in that, and don't consider it relevant to the site.
There were almost daily posts in HNs front page about it 4 months ago when it first happened, as well as front page headlines on CNN and WSJ and other news outlets, though they quickly got drowned out by all of the other Iran war stories when the war first broke out.
The reason it’s not really news this week is because both the Bahrain and the Dubai regions have been effectively non-operational for the last 4 months, so the IRGC saying they destroyed an already-destroyed region is less newsworthy.
There was a building hit near the data center on the first day of the war and that took down one AZ (unfortunately, two of my three EC2 instances were in that AZ). The hit on April 1 pretty much took it all down. Fortunately I had relatively up-to-date backups (both within 24 hours before each outage) so all I lost was a little email (spam) and some libera chat logs. I've moved to ap-southeast-1, which means trading a ~ 60ms ping to ~ 110ms.
I'm kinda surprised Amazon didn't send a team to collect all storage devices from the wreckage and ship them elsewhere to be connected to the network for recovery.
It's not like Amazon doesn't have tactical teams on call - if that was a priority, I'm sure it would have been done. But like any good datacenter provider, they have offsite backups, and I'd expect the damaged hardware will just be written off.
The company line has been that they expect you to have your own backups in a region outside of the Middle East or you’re hosed until they can turn the (now destroyed) buildings back on.
I wonder if AWS even has the capacity to keep an entire region’s data elsewhere if they wanted to (I mean they could with their margins, but I doubt they do.)
Yeah, they have backups of their shit, not your shit. If you don’t use their cross-region backups, I don’t know what to tell you. Even us-east-1 isn’t entirely immune to disasters manmade or otherwise…
With how overpaid and with how poorly the average AWS employee treats those around them (especially their colleagues), I think a little bit of real action is massively overdue for the average AWS peon. Please ship them to a war zone! Please!!!
Earn those bananas! Bezos isn't rich enough yet! Work harder!
I didn't see any photos of the building/damages, but assuming it caught fire and fire surpression systems were activated, many to most of the drives would not be easy to recover data from, to say nothing of physical recovery.
You're expected to keep your data redundant in a 2nd region... I'm sure not everyone does, but I'd guess most AWS customers that only keep their data in a single region have chosen a different region (us-east-1 perhaps...)
2. It’s expected and war, and while war is not good, I wonder about data backups and succession planning for this.
3. It makes sense they would’ve had a fire drill and reviewed since it’s a capital investment, 6 months of war, at the same time Bahrain is considered stable, so I really wonder about the conversation around this and if there was any disaster planning with this scenario in mind.
4. If there wasn’t, I’m sure there is now across all regions of AWS.
This month has been for me, a uptick in unique headlines that I wouldn’t have thought would happen.
The civilization in which you are a part of, this very mass that is greater than you and I, is evolving and changing. How can there not be new unique headlines?
I feel for both, people who where hosting there not expecting this war and this attack and the attackers, because they didn't attack just because they wanted but attacked as a response as stated earlier.
Bahrain is host to the headquarters of the US fifth fleet, a notable US airbase, and thousands of US military personnel. These assets are being used to attack Iran.
Why not defend it? You provide logistical support to US war of aggression, you become a legitimate target? What is this whitewashing of military involvement? (Both for Amazon and Bahrain)
Bahrain hosts bases that the US uses to attack Iran, and Amazon is part of the Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability program that provides the DoD with cloud services.
The article has actual quotations on Iran's justification: this is in response to a recent US attack on civilian infrastructure (an under-construction Iranian nuclear powerplant with no nuclear material present)
USA would look very bad if they started bombarding Canada over that, yes. Not even Russia does that. They protest but they haven't started bombarding neutral countries over such things yet. You don't see Ukraine bombarding Belarus either, even though Belarus is full of Russian bases.
US burnt almost entire latin american down last century because "can't have communism in our backyard", even though these countries are quite far geographically than Bahrain is to Iran. Besides, under every international law about neutrality, Bahrain/Kuwait/UAE none of them are neutral.
If only we lived in the reality where this was possible. Americans living in the same fear they inflict on the rest of the world might mellow them out a little.
What do you mean? It is very clear that Trump declared war on Iran. That's factual.
Civilian damage occurs all the time - often on purpose (infrastructure), sometimes not directly on purpose (drones getting off-target for various reasons, that also happens and not all of this is on purpose). What Iran does here is increase the cost of waging warfare against it, to make continuation of war as unappealing as possible. To claim the nearby countries are "uninvolved" while hosting military bases or providing targeting data to the USA is just propaganda. Why would you insinuate this? It is clearly an incorrect statement. One can debate whether targeting amazon is useful or not, but definitely you don't have an uninvolved country here, so much is clear. Besides, all companies of a given country at war, need to provide data and money anyway.
Was there really no other source than "houseofsaud.com" here? Seems like a strange source to be promoting on HackerNews. Their About, Contact, and Press pages don't even work. I can not find who owns this publication.
It does seem like we'd be better off with a more neutral source, but the only other article I could find from today (as opposed to 3 days ago) was https://iranwire.com/en/news/155401-irgc-claims-second-strik..., which doesn't look (or sound) like a neutral source either.
As an aside: I lack the vocabulary, but man those interactive "stats" cards scream LLM-written to me. No problem with it, necessarily, just something about that style seems to raise a flag in my mind.
They are certainly LLM-generated. I'm sure it's been done, but I would love to see a comprehensive look into what it is exactly that makes a UI seem LLM-generated.
From what I can tell, the issues are: Fonts are too small, secondary fonts have terrible contrast with their backgrounds, information is too dense/not enough white space, overuse of blinking/glowing status dots, overuse of bordered elements, and overuse of accented elements. I am surely forgetting some other issues.
I'm not sure why there seems to be a consistent set of design mistakes that LLMs tend toward.
> I'm not sure why there seems to be a consistent set of design mistakes that LLMs tend toward.
Probably something to do with the training data and how it’s weighted. It’s the same how the writing is essentially full of overused phrases, the AI slop feel.
I'm not sure I would consider it too dense. If anything I think they tend to be too sparse, although this could just be that they're often used for marketing type sites, which seem to want to make you scroll and click a lot for anything anyway, even if you have the screen space.
The status dots are a part of animations in general, which they overuse, especially things like transform/scale on hover and hover effects on many many elements.
I think it's not simply borders but contrasting-color borders often with box shadows.
Lack of visual hierarchy. Lots of use of bold text to make numbers stand out, without bolding the corresponding labels. Reliance on heavily-saturated primary colors. Limited attention paid to alignment.
LLMs in general are pretty terrible at spatial arrangement. You should see some of the architects' critiques of AI-generated floorplans that are on YouTube; the LLM generates a layout that is just nuts. I've found them largely useless at putting together UI mocks; Figma or Photoshop is still way easier to work with if you just want to cut up UI elements and rearrange them.
They're definitely Claude generated. People at my last company loved to generate pages & stat cards with Claude and they all had this exact same style.
My annoyance is that it's hard to figure out if it's actually up-to-date or not. If you click "Live conflict timeline →" it brings you to a collection of pages not updated since April (and at different points in April, oddly). The date count seems right, the oil price might have been correct when it was published but isn't "live" despite being labeled that way.
Between this and the Wildberries depot strikes in the Ukraine war, I think it really highlights how much peace was required to make the centralisation we've experienced work.
In Wildberries case (and Ozon's shortly), that centralization didn't require much peace at all - just a government that wasn't run by a fascist nutter who naively thought he could invade a neighbor without consequences.
Russia has not formally declared they are at war. Some like Peskov have stated that they are in a state of war but that's different. In fact it is illegal in Russia to refer to it as a war. This law was introduced in 2022 and has not been repealed.
They aren't neutral either. They're hosting military bases and miilitary assets that are being used to attack them. They are allowing their airspace to be used. Same with their waters and ports.
Which is to say that all the military assets in Gulf countries, including this Amazon DC, are valid military targets.
The Gulf States are in fact military rivals and cold adversaries of Iran; Iran vs. the Gulf States is a more salient geopolitical conflict than Iran vs. Israel. Iran has, through the IRGC, been in hot wars with the Gulf States in the last 10 years.
At least some of them, it depends on who you ask (Simferopol). But I had been using Ukraine as a shorthand for the conflict, so editing it to be clearer
Which reminds me: a friend made a wild mulberry pie yesterday with some dried mulberries shipped in from Chernobyl a year ago. He set it to cool overnight but when he checked in early morning and cut a slice, he found some of the berries glowed in the dark.
His quandary: should he eat it anyway? Seems like the radiation should be minimal, after all. Or maybe wait until this next Wednesday when he has a stomach x-ray and eat a small slice just beforehand to confound his primary care physician (they are both great practical jokers!)?
- Both require widely-separated resource opportunities. For whales, seasonally-abundant food such as krill or fish; for cargo, large-scale production and consumption of goods separated by water.
- Both require comparative safety from predators. Large adult whales have virtually no natural predators (orcas being a notable exception), until human whaling grew in scale largely since the 1500s and accelerating greatly through the 19th and 20th centuries, during which whole populations where annihilated. Maritime shipping depends on a lack of piracy or hostile naval warfare, with tremendous losses to traffic being seen during the 1st and 2nd World Wars in both the Atlantic and Pacific.
Highly-centralised or choreographed logistics chains are also fragile and subject to disruption. During WWII, the Soviet Union was initially inclined to One Big Dump supply depots, possibly a hallmark of centralised planning. These proved attractive targets and quite harmful to ongoing operations, and over the course of the war much more decentralised patterns emerged, or so I dimly recall from long-ago reading. Decentralised operations are integral to much guerilla / asymmetric warfare by the inferior party.
> How long will it take to rebuild those datacenters given the supply shortage?
Amazon will already have quite a lot of hardware queued up for new datacenter builds and expansions, some of that will presumably be redirected to this project once folks stop chucking missiles around. They also pride themselves on the speed of new datacenter rollout - even if they have to bulldoze the site and start from scratch, I doubt it takes as long as a year.
As someone who has lived most of his life in Iran, I ask those who find any alignment with the IRGC to please understand that it is a religiously fanatic military and terrorist group.
They are behind many atrocities in Iran and in the region including the situation in Gaza (partially). They also provided weaponry and support to Russia against Ukraine.
Instead this is a conflict where all sides are garbage. It's a conflict where we hope that everyone loses.
On the one side you have a terrorism-sponsoring theocracy that wants to force stone-age beliefs on its people, while exporting mayhem elsewhere. On the other you have Iran. (ba-dum-tss!)
Seriously, though, everyone involved with this conflict are bad actors. The US has bombed some 8 countries so far this year, threatened literal allies such that they got blood supplies ready for an invasion, is busy looting Venezuela like a busted pirate shithole -- basically Somalia -- is starving Cuba, is terroristically blowing up random boats by titling them "narco-terrorists", and is headed by a criminal rapist PoS that is rapidly turning the country into an idiocracy while their military is headed by a ChatGPT spouting imbecile. Israel is a war-criming pariah that pushed their luck a little too far and it turns out you can only bank on "but the holocaust" for so long while you're a rogue hermit nation that has vile behaviours and habits.
It's only in context that Iran, far down in the depths of garbage nations, somehow comes out looking like the better party in the conflict.
I totally agree with most of what you’ve said. The only part I disagree with is the whitewashing of what the IRGC has done across the region for years. Dismissing or minimizing its actions/impact simply because we also oppose other bad actors is, imo, a critical mistake.
Only then will you have the moral altitude to "go after theirs".
Not until WE have prosecuted OUR war criminals, will we have the precedent to prosecute any other nations' war criminals [1].
So, get on with it, citizen. Hold your government accountable. The people always get the governments they deserve.
[1] - No, "the West" is not morally capable of going after Putin, Netanyahu, etc. Not until we start prosecuting our own war criminals with real, effective results.
It's interesting that Cuba, Iran, and even Venezuela all took as part of their identity some sort of adversarial position with the United States (although Venezuela was post-Chavez). The US is currently treating them, to some degree at their word at this point.
Whereas you could look at a place like Vietnam that fought its war and moved on, Trump's focus is largely dealing with actors that never did. I suspect the Saudi's won't be the only Nuclear deal signed. So much of this is just the cold war extended, but with North Korea and Iran trying to work their way past non-proliferation. The natural response would also be to arm South Korea and possibly Japan. All of which would have been the West's natural response to non-proliferation being violated.
I get the perception, but much of this is decades in the making and almost everyone involved including the US should have sued for peace years ago. Actual peace. Not, "we're not firing rockets but Israel can't exist."
I doubt you'll find many people here who are in alignment with a bigoted and criminal regime such as Iran's and its military.
What may be misinterpreted as sympathy for them is sympathy for the suffering Iranians, and antipathy for the criminal and bigoted US foreign policy especially in the Middle East. This did not start with Trump's recent idiotic game; Iran's only democratically elected president so far was toppled in 1953 by the CIA at the request of Churchill, because they felt Iran's oil does not belong to the Iranian people but to British Petroleum.
I don't care about Iran's leadership and think this shouldn't be the US's war to fight. Also, we aren't even trying to replace their government, we're just attacking per Israel's wishes. There must be a lot of Americans who agree.
Either treat it as not our problem, or if we're going to get involved, have a strategy to change the government. Yes it has been done in Iran at least once from the outside, maybe twice.
The alternative is what the last five American presidents have done: containment. There's a reason Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton and Bush didn't start the war that Trump did. This is why.
Trump could EASILY increase US support to Ukraine. He could have even done what France was flirting with, which was deploying boots on the ground in defensive positions as a "red line". Bringing up Ukraine/Russia is not in good faith. You know this, you know that democrats have called for aggressively arming Ukraine and never wanted this dumb Iran war.
Trump isn't "strong" until he actually calls Putin's bluff on nuclear weapons. You're not gonna do it Putin, and I'm fully willing for me and everyone I know to die in WW3/nuclear holocaust just to make sure Putin goes to hell a bit faster.
Ground troops have to invade Iran. Trump can't do that now because of upcoming midterm elections. After the elections, if there is no other way then Trump has to send ground troops in.
The alternative is it just destroy all their oil infrastructure and wait for the regime to collapse from lack of funds. But Trump doesn't want to do that (or let Israel do it) because he dreams of taking all that oil for himself and his buddies like in Venezuela.
If you do that, the oil, gas, and desalination infrastructure of the Gulf states will go down together with Iran. And besides that, why do you want to fight Iran to begin with?
This gets downvoted and ignored in every thread I see, not just on this website. But how is this not obviously the answer? We know Russia and China are funneling money to Iran so it would be a double win to drain their coffers too.
Morality aside, I just don’t see how this has been ignored. I know there is a large push for peace by many of the leaders of Iran and it turns out decentralized power can be a double-edged sword. Still, they can’t hold out forever.
Forget Iraq, forget Afghanistan... because This Time It's Different
and of course ground troops _have_ to invade Iraq, Saddam has WMD's. And it will finally bring stability to the region. And they _have_ to invade Afghanistan, there is no way to take out bin Laden otherwise. And it will finally bring stability to the region. Casualties will be minimal because the oppressed natives will welcome us as liberators and our overwhelming military superiority will ensure our troops suffer no casualties.
There are no good choices here. It is either ground invasion and restore Ahmadinejad to power, or accept defeat and accept whatever "protection fee" Iran wants to charge ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
How are these equivalent? Yes, if you've started a pointless unjust war that you can't win, the right thing to do is say mea culpa, accept whatever fees the other party charges and fuck off forever. Not try your best to start WWIII just because, hell, we already killed 3000 civilians, might as well try to beat our high score from Iraq, right?
I believe IDF accepts foreign volunteers if they are Jewish. I could be wrong. If you are a jew, you can join now. You don't have to wait for the USA to send troops.
Well, maybe start fixing problems at home before spending tens of billions not fixing things anywhere else? we can't even change ourselves for the better, an adjudicated rapist, alleged pedophile rules us, and we're going to reform other countries? what grounds do we have to be casting stones ? "they're killing protestors!" I hear many westerns say, while ignoring the americans we're jailing for 30 years, calling terrorists for protesting the extrajudicial killings ICE are doing.
we have millions without healthcare, above subsistence employment, food security. Why are americans worried about "changing" iran?? Let's look in the mirror, folks.
Why do we think it's our job to intervene in other countries like this?
And if we wanted to help another country, working with the international community should be the only approach we take.
We've spent many decades overthrowing countries to what end? Even our vassals like Israel have universal healthcare while we're all in debt because of healthcare. It's not working and needs to stop.
It comes down to the simple reality that "I am because we are" and as such any time a human being is oppressed we are all oppressed.
One could make the argument the people who live in liberal democracies have an obligation to help those who unfortunately do not and who are still forced to live under autocratic oppression.
There were periods in history where most people lived under the thumb of some sort of autocrat of one form or another be they monarchs or religious leaders. Most people had very few human rights and had little opportunity for self-determination. Through the hard work of revolutionaries around the world many of those autocrats were deposed and others seeing the writing on the wall offered power to the people more willingly.
Think of it like a jailbreak where the jailer is oppressive and everyone in the jail is innocent. On your wait out should help open the cells of as many people as you can if only out of your own self interest because a larger mob escaping gives each individual a better chance to escape due to strength in numbers but also because it's just the right thing to do.
It's sort of the same thing here, Our ancestors (or even some of us) got out from under the thumb of an autocrat jailer but there are still others in that jail. If we don't help them who will? What would you want someone else to do if you were in their situation? To walk by an unjustly imprisoned person's jail cell and not free them when it is trivial to do so makes you the jailer.
Now that's the theory. In practice, I agree with much of what you're saying -- reality is a far trickier place than we'd like and the details make doing the right thing difficult if not impossible. And that doesn't cover the reality that western democracies are imperfect themselves and that many of their citizens are still subject to repression by their own autocratic leaning leaders, and so that we can't always do the right thing, but we should at least aspire to.
If you overthrow one autocrat and the society is not ready to self-govern, you'll just have another one taking his place. The best you can do is to fund some kind of democratic opposition on the ground and in exile, hoping to grow a political class mature enough that they will take over after autocrat loses power one way or another.
Trump is not Che Guevara. The US doesn't send troops at great personal danger to themselves to help oppressed revolutionaries. They back fascist dictatorships and launch drone strikes. They murdered 120 children on day one in Iran. Buying the party line here is absurd.
In this case, the US was pretty involved in destabilizing the country. If the us and the uk hadn't intervened in 50s, Iran would have made a successful transition from monarchy to democracy. I guess we can discuss if the US owes anything to anyone, but a case for the us correcting earlier mistakes can definitely be made.
I can't assume that Iran would've successfully transitioned to democracy, or that it's even what should happen there. All those Arabian Gulf countries are monarchies.
> Why do we think it's our job to intervene in other countries like this?
If Iran wasn't supporting terror organizations around the world and didn't help russia I would agree. Their country, they can kill as much of their own people as they please.
Israel's leader is wanted by the international court for genocide. And lets not forget how Iran's current government took power? US installed a dictator in Iran because UK was angry that Iran nationalized the UK owned oil fields. This led to a coup, which resulted in the current Iranian government.
There's no good guys. Why is the US even there?
Edit: downvoted to -3. Did i say anything that was untrue? Or do people not like the truth?
Yes. We had no good justification for war against the crown circa the American revolutionary war. The crown spent a lot of money defending us vs the French in the French and Indian war and were totally justified in levying the extremely low taxes that they did on the colonists.
The funny thing is that the prosecutor for the ICC (Khan) who issued charges against Netanyahu was just removed today over sexual assault allegations, which had previously not been reported because the Muslim victim was worried that the charges against Netanyahu would be dropped. Khan literally messaged her “Think about the Palestinian arrest warrants”. Palestine has been such an effective political tool for the Muslim oligarchs and patriarchy. So anyway… more bad guys.
> US installed a dictator in Iran because UK was angry that Iran nationalized the UK owned oil fields.
> Did i say anything that was untrue? Or do people not like the truth?
It is widely assumed, but not factually correct, that the US was responsible.
On August 15th 1953 the CIA staged a coup to overthrow the government, but it failed. By the next day the State Department was actively trying to enter into diplomatic talks.
Three days later a group of clerics headed by Ayatollah Borujerdi took advantage of the situation and stirred up unrest that was ultimately responsible for the Shah taking power. They had been concerned about Mossadeq embracing secular liberalism and a referendum that dissolved the Majlis (parliament/congress). MI-6 had offered them support, but they rejected it.
> On 19 August 1953, Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup d'état that strengthened the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. It was instigated by the United Kingdom (MI6), under the name Operation Boot[5][6][7][8] and the United States (CIA), under the name TP-AJAX Project[9] or Operation Ajax. A key motive was to protect British oil interests in Iran after Mosaddegh nationalized the country's oil industry
That was the understanding until the CIA released a bunch of documents in 2017 which revealed that it was such an abysmal failure that they almost called off the entire thing.
The attempted coup brought out a lot of pro Mossadeq protestors. It wasn't until the 19th when clerics organized anti Mossadeq protestors that it took hold.
Might be worth flagging to Wikipedia editors for a review.
Even if we take these claims at face value, think about how this looks from the Iranian side:
- Failed coup attempt threatens government
- 'Ooops sorry just pranking you lol'
- Distracted government challenged by internal actor
- Power vacuum followed by monarchy
I'm sorry, this is like disclaiming responsibility for shooting at you on the grounds that most of my bullets missed and the one that hit just winged you. It's not my fault that your grumpy neighbor exploited the situation to attack you and then a third actor exploited the situation to seize all your assets!
This is absolutely 100% true, which is why deliberately destroying all the pre-existing structural deterrents to their bad behavior was such a disaster.
Iran did bad things, but not as much as they could. Now they're doing more bad things and we can't stop them.
No-one in their right mind wants to support IRGC. But, to see an egotistic, deranged, clown and the entire circus getting slapped in the face, is very satisfying to watch.
Iranian here, I have no love for the IRGC but I am glad they are keeping Americans from destroying our country right now.
We don't need Americans to "save us", we have 90M intelligent people and can resolve our own issues. It would be great if the West started respecting the sovereignty of other nations.
I have a hard time sympathizing with the Pahlavi supporters cheering the bombing of our home.
My comment wasn’t about the West saving us, nor was it about supporting Pahlavi (which I personally did, but of course I’m against the continued bombing of my country).
What I’m saying is that supporting one of the biggest terrorist group in the world by the logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a grave mistake. It legitimizes one of the biggest, if not the biggest, reasons behind the current situation in Iran and some other bad situations in the region.
If you are an Iranian, you know what IRGC has done and keep doing, how good they are at propaganda and how nothing is beyond them including killing (and worse) anyone anywhere in the name of their god.
I know what IRGC has done, my cousin was spent 6 months in the Evin prison after the Mahsa uprising and her entire life was stolen from her. So I don't need a moral lecture.
But the IRGC is the only one defending my home right now. I also find it curious why you are not calling the US or Israel against this illegal aggression against our country?
Then we have both suffered from IRGC. as I have loved ones who were killed by them, and we both have a stake in the country’s security, since my family and most of my friends still live there.
What I’m saying is that we should not legitimize the IRGC. Trump is bad, the current Israeli government is very bad, and the IRGC is very bad.
On another note, the IRGC is defending itself, not us. They’ve killed exponentially more people in days than US or Israel has over in total. Again, all of these are bad.
Don't be so self-centered. Supporting the IRGC to give Trump a presidency-ending war is the rational approach for non-US citizens. Iran has been so far a much more contained risk for them than the US.
Clearly the biggest tell that you are anything but Iranian. You might dislike the regime but no one calls their own government a “terrorist group”, a term reserved for foreign agents.
I don't know if you realize - but the Americans have offered IRGC a pretty generous deal that essentially removes almost all sanctions in return to stop developing nukes, and the IRGC itself is escalating the situation, which could force America to bomb Iran again.
You forgot to mention a small detail, the US did that only after they started a war. The US is known for its perfidy at this point, so any deals they propose aren't exactly trustworthy, and the US couldn't even contain israel after the latest MoU which made it void.
If only the prior P5+1 / Iran JCPOA deal of 2015 that constrained HEU and was backed up by multi country inspectors and tamper resistant / revealing on site instrumentation hadn't been thrown out the window by some fool.
Why on earth would anyone trust a country that reneged on a hard fought deal and followed that up by bombing during negotiations to restore what was lost.
Maybe because signing a new deal is better for your country and your people?
Like what's the worst case scenario that happens to iran if they just signed a new deal? How would it have been any worse than the current situation?
The deal doesn't even require a high level of trust - worst case they just go back to the previous situation. Making a deal only has an upside, even without trust.
Just like employment at will - and yet having a job is better than no job in most cases.
There's zero foundation for trust to uphold an international agreement even between US and its closest allies. Iran has no basis to believe any agreement will be legitimate or upheld.
The previous agreement ended with the US killing the Ayatollah and other senior leaders, promoting regime change, and demanding unconditional surrender. Venezuela capitulated to the US and is now under US control. If Iran's leadership's goal is to survive and to maintain control of their country, they're likely to continue hostilities until they re-establish a deterrent. Worked for the Taliban in Afghanistan.
If you believe the US military, Iran has already lost the majority of its capital-intensive armaments and its nuclear program and its senior leadership. This means there are fewer strategic holdings now at risk. Iran knows it can't be effectively invaded. The regime loses control in two scenarios: (1) internal regime change; (2) diplomatic capitulation to US demands. Waiting out at least US mid-terms while continuing to threaten the strait and neighbor's infrastructure is quite possibly Iran's best decision tree path from the point of view of the regime.
Yes of course but you are forgetting Iran needs to arm itself to the teeth before the new deal, so that when American does dealy things during the deal they are repelled. Just like the last few times America did a "peace deal" with Iran and then started dropping bomb deals upon them.
What is a deal? I think its a matter of definition. America is in the 9th or 10th day of continually dropping bomb deals unprovoked after setting a peace deal. Under that definition of deal, I think Iran should drop some good deals on some American naval vessels until America stops this stupid war.
I am of course not certain why Iran's armament is of any concern to America. It might be of concern to another country of course, which loves to make America fight its wars.
The current POTUS tore up the last nuclear deal with iran in 2018 for domestic political payoff. I can't take protestations about 'we've been trying to negotiate!' seriously when they come from the same people that created nearly a decade of strategic uncertainty (preceded by years of trash talk) and whose negotiation style oscillates between brutal violence and self-pitying wheedling.
I don't want to be partisan, but the incumbent POTUS is the epitome of dishonesty and the political polarization in US domestic politics is so extreme that even US allies are talking about a generational loss of trust. It would be irrational for a historical antagonist like Iran to bank on negotiating a new agreement with a country that refuses to bind itself by any international norms; it seems to me that it would be far more rational for Iran to breakout in pursuit of a nuke, and having once performed a successful test, reap the benefits of strategic stability that have gradually accrued to North Korea despite its ongoing pariah status. That is to say, once they have a nuke and other countries can no longer casually attack them, more of their economy can be redirected away from acquiring a strategic deterrent and into more normal kinds of economic development.
Not only has the US proven itself to be incredibly untrustworthy -both recently and in the past-, the protracted war in Ukraine demonstrates what happens when you give up your nukes and a member of the "nuke-havers" club decides that they want your territory. We're at the point where any country that has a militant nuclear-weapons-equipped neighbor and has both the ability to develop nuclear weapons and the state power to keep control of them would be stupid not to build them.
It's a shame that several of the countries that are supposed to be "the adults in the room" have decided to abandon the various gentlemen's agreements that made nuclear-weapons nonproliferation agreements sensible.
And it started bombing twice during those negotiations. They started war after Iran made concessions. And bombed during first negotiations.
The US idea of peace was regular bombing - I have heard people from defemse sector even use the "lawn moving" term publically. I dont understand an expectation that foreign country should be ok with that.
Plus, Trump dont do good faith deals, he promisses and breaks deals next day.
The American's ally broke the MoU nearly immediately after the signing by continuing to attack Lebanon.
> Point 1: The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.
As an American, I don't see how you can have serious negotiations with the US at the moment. You negotiate to an agreement, and then the terms change after agreement is announced. Or you show up to negotiations and your negotiation team is assassinated. Or your head of state is assasinated or kidnapped.
If you do get to a deal, there's no permanance and no means of enforcement.
> we have 90M intelligent people and can resolve our own issues
This seems counterfactual, unless you called the regime for which you state you «have no love for» "satisfactory" or its length "insignificant".
> we have 90M intelligent people
This is also a pretty unbelievable claim - were it so, I and many others would move to Iran immediately. Can we say you are not being literally factual?
And what happened before then? Iran had a secular prime minister, Mossadegh, but the UK and US supported, among others, conservative clerics to overthrow that elected government to put in a dictatorship.
Then in the 1970s the CIA provided SAVAK with the names of secular left opposition to arrest and execute.
So spare me talk about foreigners supporting religious fanatics, the western establishment did so for decades.
I for one don't want my tax dollars used to bomb schools in Iran.
Yes true, but also anyone in Iran no matter what part your from wants the US gone in the region. The US is seen as responsible for allowing slavery in many golf states. It's also responsible for unfair businesses. And seen as a mafia state that steals resources.
Radars and bases along the path of travel from Iran to Israel have been progressively degraded. Various interceptor types also have low stockpiles at present. I'm absolutely not an expert keeping well-informed, but my understanding is that Jordan's recent losses mean much of the path is now relatively clear of air defenses, and Israel would have to mount most/all defenses from their own territory for the first time. But Israel is at-present not engaging in the war, preferring to let US do the work, as a minister recently stated. Regardless, it may be attacked, depending on IDF actions in Lebanon.
Iran also isn't hitting Israel because they know Israel will go after Tehran and the regime more directly. They were the ones to target the Basij police, industrial and steel plants, government buildings etc. America is mostly constraining itself to bombing the coast and military assets, with a focus on the strait.
That plus most of Iran's attacks on Israel didn't do anything and likely still won't. Which is why Iran focused on the weaker gulf states even when Israel was involved.
Iran has recently demonstrated the ability to execute accurate strikes in Jordan. If it can do so in Jordan, it can do so in Israel once Israeli air defences are similarly degraded. Doubly so because many missiles meant for Israel were intercepted by Jordan.
Iran knows Israel won't stop itself from attacking for too long. So they are going to wait until that point and they are likely going to try the same targeting methodology to paralyze Israeli airbases. If they manage to do so, they will be able to significantly reduce the US/Israeli strike tempo and to be more successful using drones, not even missiles.
This assumes Iran is maintaining consistent stockpiles and still has the capability of large attacks, including their fancier missiles which can avoid SAM systems. It's been well reported the number of drones/missiles Iran fired has consistently decreased. Israel and the US destroyed most of their missile factories so Iran is going to be conservative with how they use them.
At the peak Iran fired 650 missiles at Israel and only killed 28 people, mostly from hitting a single residential building. These days Iran is only firing small salvos into gulf states and only 20-30 drones at a time. I'd be surprised if they could pull off 2025 numbers when they fired a hundred at Israel.
Iran has been getting consistent impacts on US bases in Jordan essentially every day for the past few weeks, and they are well defended.
At the end of the day Iran has more missiles than the US has interceptors. So when you get to the point when you're talking about running out, they just don't need to launch big salvos anymore.
> It's been well reported the number of drones/missiles Iran fired has consistently decreased.
One way of interpreting that statistic is that they are running out of munitions. Another way is to consider that stockpiles are not running low, but the initial response was a collection of high-burn, uncoordinated, decentralized tactical actions after an attempted decapitation-strike disrupted top-down C&C. Now that the fog of war has cleared, and communication has been restored, a more strategic regime is now in effect.
Yes this is essentially what I was thinking. And there have been repeated estimates about Iranian stockpiles that have proven completely wrong. I think they have been able to manufacture throughout the war.
The political party I am a member off wanted a total arms embargo on Israël including anti air defense. (It didn't go anywhere ofcourse. But that a mainstream party is fed up with Israël is quite revolutionary).
Although what has changed is that Israël is no longer getting guns for free they need to pay for it same as everyone else. Progress!
You seem to be woefully uninformed on this subject. Far northern Israel was evacuated in 2023 and has long since moved on to reconstruction. No significant damage in the area was directly from Iran, it was all from Hezbollah (their proxy militia in Lebanon).
The north of israel also wasn't evacuated for the recent Iran campaign. That was in 2024 and they didn't evacuate for the recent ground invasion they did in Southern Lebanon.
> Which is why Iran focused on the weaker gulf states even when Israel was involved.
Also, Israel will not abandon (or be abandoned) by the US, but the others might want to cut their losses if supporting the US becomes costlier than being neutral.
The game being played is extremely interesting, with high stakes and no margin for error. Too bad people die.
Both Kuwait and Bahrain did airstrikes in Iran today with intelligence and air support from UAE. The gulf states being low risk targets will likely be a short term thing for Iran in the long run as well. https://x.com/WSJ/status/2080693251682795705
The US will not be able to sustain a military presence in the Middle East for much longer. Dedollarisation is happening and when it hits a tipping point, they won’t be able to sustain their current debt financing and interest on treasury bonds will rise sharply to compensate for that.
Won’t be pretty, as no empire has ever fallen peacefully.
The Israelis are the only ones that can, and want, to strike back. Besides no one weeps for missiles falling on Israeli cities, so that doesn’t serve the Iranians at all. Lots of much softer targets for Iranian missiles which can’t do anything to Iran.
Forgive the uninformed question, but doesn't Saudi Arabia also have significant armed forces? Given that Iran has closed the Straights of Hormuz and attacked several other Arab states, and has conducted strikes in Saudia Arabia itself, wouldn't that give Saudia Arabia a solid reason to strike back?
From what I have read, their armed forces aren’t very motivated. There are stories about pilot trainings where the pilots were a bunch of rich guys that got into their jet, took off with full afterburner, did some fun loops and landed after using up their fuel.
Saudi has the advantage that they have the US doing the dirty work for them. No need to do much themselves.
Many former army personnel have told me that the militaries of Oman (British-trained and equipped) and UAE (Australian and British-trained, US-equipped) are better in terms of capability and valor than most European countries, including even Germany's. Where they do face issues is in equipment stockpiles and sustaining conflict, which is what we've seen.
The Saudi main army is pretty incompetent, but the Royal Guard is extremely effective. They are separately trained by the West and maintain comms separate from the main army. And now they've teamed up with Pakistan, which has one of the best air forces in the region.
Qatar recently opened up a route for citizenship to foreign veterans who serve in their armed forces. That guarantees them a steady supply of soldiers from the region should the need arise.
The most vulnerable are Bahrain and Kuwait, but both of them have had help with security actions from their more competent neighbors.
Saudi Arabia has carried out airstrikes in Iran - but geography is a good reason not to want to escalate hostilities, despite the generational animus between the countries.
Iran has threatened to attack Saudi oil infrastructure if the Saudis join the Israel-American war on Iran. The Iran War Is Destroying Something More Valuable Than Oil - https://houseofsaud.com/iran-war-refinery-crisis-saudi-aramc... As it has become clear that the US missile defence shield over Saudi Arabia is inadequate (as the US can't provide enough interceptors), the Saudis have decided to be cautious.
AMZN could have for example bought a "Gepard" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard) - easily shoots down cruise missiles and drones. Just a couple millions would have saved billions.
One> An executive has to care about a cost center, then proceeds to invest in prevention instead of looking like a hero after, instead of putting off a fire an getting a promotion or bonus. Which is nigh impossible.
Two> Our tech overlords try to push for our cyberpunk present to at least look kinda cool. Which they also refuse todo.
Related: Ukraine have been targeting [1] warehouses owned by Wildberries, the Russian domestic equivalent of Amazon, causing $2.2bn of damage to-date.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/24/ukraine-wareho...
I wonder why they don’t target Russian data centers? Much harder to repair or replace.
Do they even still exist? It's not easy to find even a small russian VPS to be a reverse proxy for your encrypted messenger project any more.
the point of hitting them is to cause commercial damage to american companies. In reality, this changes little in terms of US capacity. Doing the equivalent of this to Russia would be attacking their oil ports and infrastructure.
wildberries has been taken over by an oligarch and the only powers in Russia that Putin may hear are the oligarchs. There will be no 'overthrow of Putin' in Russia because there is no institutional support and it is well understood by literate people - a revolution is not just a disorganized uprising on the streets (what happens the next day? - return to normal) it requires years of planning and support.
Hitting the enemy where it hurts. It's much more effective to hurt Russian morale by making big explosions and petrol rain from striking a refinery or stopping/delaying shipments to the front line than by shutting down a center where a handful of people work and that won't directly impact the war. Ukraine must making fighting painful enough that the Russians withdraw, because the math of attrition favors the much more populous and richer Russians long term.
These feel quite different. IRGC attacked Amazon compute. Ukraine attacked several warehouses. Comparing Wildberries to Amazon is also only half the truth. Wildberries is directly part of russian war machine as soldiers need to buy essential dual-use equipment there and they even sell weapons.
AWS hosts all DoD cloud infrastructure. Isn't that analogous?
AWS's 3 data centres in me-south-1 are:
BAH53 (Manama): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1492345589
BAH54 (Zallaq): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1359931661
BAH55 (Hamala): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/956069872
If these data centres are rebuilt, you'd maybe expect them to be rebuilt in new locations behind existing _permanent_ (and seemingly quite expensive) air/missile defence batteries in Bahrain (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1492281507 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1492953902). Based on the permanency of those air/missile defence batteries it doesn't look like the government of Bahrain are expecting things to get safer for data centre hosting in Bahrain any time soon.
> If these data centres are rebuilt, you'd maybe expect them to be rebuilt in new locations behind existing _permanent_ (and seemingly quite expensive) air/missile defence batteries in Bahrain
I've seen data centers that were built to withstand an aircraft impact (they were located on a major airport flight path). I wonder if they'd rebuild these to that standard or something even stronger, given these attacks. It probably wouldn't help much against ballistic missiles, but it might make it more resilient against drone attacks.
Here's a Google Maps link to BAH53 (Manama), it doesn't look like the hardened data centers I seen (e.g. sloped walls like a bunker): https://maps.app.goo.gl/6DjhQs753p6EHQUu6
Can you give an example? I find this hard to believe. Why not pick a location not within a "major airport flight path"? It seems much cheaper.
At least one colo facility I’ve been was an ex-defense facility. And it had reasons to be where it was, and to be hardened.
London has lots of datacentres in Slough (near Heathrow) and Docklands (London City Airport, but also many LHR planes transit over).
AWS/Azure/GCP/etc Colo in Equinix/Telehouse datacentres there, and those Docklands locations in particular were picked based on location to LINX (major London peering/interchange), and LINX was put in Docklands out of desire for relatively proximity to telcos, and London’s banking/finance industry.
It is probably far cheaper to simply have global redundancy for the data and compute than to put the datacenter in a bunker.
Tell everyone that you have global redundancy and they won't even bother to damage it because it won't help their cause.
Not all businesses want to pay the premium for that level of redundancy. Businesses with lower margins want resilient service at a lower price point. With AI and contributed shift to cloud, the demand for lowering TCO for a greater share of the larger pie becomes greater.
> It probably wouldn't help much against ballistic missiles, but it might make it more resilient against drone attacks.
I think the two kinds of attacks are so different that they require different defenses.
Drones need not fly in straight lines. Data centers need ventilation, providing a path for drones. Putting grids in a ventilation shaft will stop the first drone, but a coordinated attack will use one drone to blow up defenses and a second/third/etc one to reach the target
And presumably eventually those exhaust ports would be obfuscated, necessitating the stealing of plans to identify such vulnerabilities.
What's hosted at BAH54?
The 8200 used Microsoft datacenters in Netherlands and Ireland and got cut off.... maybe they switched providers
It's sad but also interesting that in someone's disaster recovery plan now they need to add a line item about analyzing which datacenters are behind air defenses.
Update: IRGC published satellite imagery a few hours ago showing an impact to BAH54, apparently impacted on 2026-07-24, alongside another undated image before the impact. From a quick comparison of both images with reliable satellite imagery sources (e.g. WV02 image dated 2025-02-21 on ESRI World Imagery Wayback) there are no obvious signs of image manipulation, with roof features and surrounding buildings/other features lining up as expected. Additionally the claimed post-strike image adds a significant number of vehicles to the site (when there are usually close to none present), which may correspond to fire fighting vehicles expected to be monitoring the site afterwards. Further, Sentinel-2 imagery from 2026-07-24 shows a dark patch (blast damage) on the roof of BAH54 per https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/?zoom=18&lat=26.0509...
Update 2:
Upon checking Sentinel-2 imagery for BAH55 from 2026-03-29 to 2026-04-13 (and all later imagery) there is also visible blast damage to the roof of BAH55, which would correspond in timing to media reports about damage caused about 2026-04-01. Sentinel-2 imagery appears to clarify AWS' claim of "while in Bahrain, a drone strike in close proximity to one of our facilities" to mean a direct impact to the building. However it seems likely from high resolution satellite imagery of BAH55 that the machinery rooms of the building perhaps took most of the damage, perhaps leaving data halls in a better shape elsewhere in the building (but possibly still unusable due to water/smoke damage).
[1] https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/?zoom=17&lat=26.156&...
[2] https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/?zoom=17&lat=26.156&...
Isn't an AWS region comprised of at least three data centers "many kilometers apart"[1]?
So, if the whole of me-south-1 (Bahrain) went down it means at least three buildings many kilometers apart must have been attacked.
[1] https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/global-infrastructure/regio...
See also - Bahrain Held the Data — Riyadh Held the Vision - https://houseofsaud.com/aws-bahrain-vision-2030-irgc/
American agression winning silly prizes.
Wrongly flagged dead (like a lot of comments get on these Iran threads):
know-how 1 hour ago [dead] | parent | next [–]
Iran has been killing Americans and Israeli since the 1970s. Read a history book.
Swipes and personal attacks (in the flagged comment) violate HN guidelines.
It would have been ... better ... without the 2nd sentence.
Correction, dead, not flagged. Account is apparently banned, as mikestew notes: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49047910>.
Not “wrongly flagged dead”, insta-dead because commenter is a consistent shit-poster. Put down the history book and read the comment history. If you feel strongly about it, vouch for the comment instead of reposting.
Shows unavailable, last status update 30th April https://health.aws.amazon.com/health/status
Makes me wonder how much use it actually gets if this is the first we’re hearing about it.
Edit: Incidentally news of the original strike was posted on HN 5 months ago and flagged, for whatever reason. Why would it be flagged? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47317587
Oftentimes discussions get killed not because the source article is bad but because the discussions themselves devolve into flame bait/war?
Having reviewed the comments I don’t see any indication of why it would be flagged for the discussion.
It's been extensively reported on, and any AWS user that clicks on the health dashboard would also have seen it, even if they don't consume from news outlets.
As for use it gets: plenty of use, mostly when someone needs to have their worlds close to that area (usually latency or legal reasons). There are a lot of smaller businesses that lost a lot (or maybe even everything) because their never thought they would need to create backups in a different region. Most of that wasn't really reported on but instead gets shared on various platforms like Reddit.
Are you implying that something that gets reported on, shouldn't be on HN? Also, clearly it wasn't that extensive if GP hadn't heard about it
I learned about it from HN, a while ago.
> Are you implying that something that gets reported on, shouldn't be on HN?
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
The only reason we knew about it is that it was one of our network output 'node', but I don't think I've read anything about it in generalist medias
> Makes me wonder how much use it actually gets if this is the first we’re hearing about it.
Or how good their HA/failover strategy must be.
Although losing one data centre from an availability zone seems like exactly the kind of issue AWS plan for and handle well, and does not take down the whole AZ. By contrast with "our BGP config got messed up".
> Why would it be flagged?
Because individual HN users do the flagging and many are tired of the inevitable and pointless Israel v Palestine proxy comment war that predictably erupts on any topic related to the Middle East.
It isn't a proxy discussion though. It is the same discussion.
Yes.
The point is that every random going-on gets used as an excuse to rehash the entire conflict from 1947 onwards, and a lot of people are just not interested in that, and don't consider it relevant to the site.
There were almost daily posts in HNs front page about it 4 months ago when it first happened, as well as front page headlines on CNN and WSJ and other news outlets, though they quickly got drowned out by all of the other Iran war stories when the war first broke out.
This is just one of the popular ones, but there were also tens of posts about it with only 1-10 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47641788
Here’s another popular one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47632503
The reason it’s not really news this week is because both the Bahrain and the Dubai regions have been effectively non-operational for the last 4 months, so the IRGC saying they destroyed an already-destroyed region is less newsworthy.
There was a building hit near the data center on the first day of the war and that took down one AZ (unfortunately, two of my three EC2 instances were in that AZ). The hit on April 1 pretty much took it all down. Fortunately I had relatively up-to-date backups (both within 24 hours before each outage) so all I lost was a little email (spam) and some libera chat logs. I've moved to ap-southeast-1, which means trading a ~ 60ms ping to ~ 110ms.
I'm sure there are businesses in the UAE, but wondering, why would one keep instances/data on a zone at risk since well over a year now.
Genuinely curious. Aside for high frequency trading where latency is so vital.
The next closest region is Tel-Aviv, I guess it's pretty obvious they won't put their workload here.
And after that it's Mumbai, 2500km away. That will easily double your latency, which is someone that you can feel in usage.
Why wouldn’t they - Israel and UAE have good relations
Israel starts new war every month, you can understand that it is risky to put your data in a data center that could be the target as well.
me-south-1 is in fact, quite possibly permanently, "offline".
I'm kinda surprised Amazon didn't send a team to collect all storage devices from the wreckage and ship them elsewhere to be connected to the network for recovery.
I'm surprised you'd think sending civilians into a war zone is a good thing.
War zones tend to have lots of people in already, and many of them really want a job.
1.5M civilians already live in Bahrain. This usage makes the term "war zone" meaningless.
It's not like Amazon doesn't have tactical teams on call - if that was a priority, I'm sure it would have been done. But like any good datacenter provider, they have offsite backups, and I'd expect the damaged hardware will just be written off.
The company line has been that they expect you to have your own backups in a region outside of the Middle East or you’re hosed until they can turn the (now destroyed) buildings back on.
I wonder if AWS even has the capacity to keep an entire region’s data elsewhere if they wanted to (I mean they could with their margins, but I doubt they do.)
Yeah, they have backups of their shit, not your shit. If you don’t use their cross-region backups, I don’t know what to tell you. Even us-east-1 isn’t entirely immune to disasters manmade or otherwise…
With how overpaid and with how poorly the average AWS employee treats those around them (especially their colleagues), I think a little bit of real action is massively overdue for the average AWS peon. Please ship them to a war zone! Please!!!
Earn those bananas! Bezos isn't rich enough yet! Work harder!
I didn't see any photos of the building/damages, but assuming it caught fire and fire surpression systems were activated, many to most of the drives would not be easy to recover data from, to say nothing of physical recovery.
You're expected to keep your data redundant in a 2nd region... I'm sure not everyone does, but I'd guess most AWS customers that only keep their data in a single region have chosen a different region (us-east-1 perhaps...)
Sat Photo https://soaratlas.com/maps/asia-damage-to-amazon-web-service...
1. Wow this is a headline.
2. It’s expected and war, and while war is not good, I wonder about data backups and succession planning for this.
3. It makes sense they would’ve had a fire drill and reviewed since it’s a capital investment, 6 months of war, at the same time Bahrain is considered stable, so I really wonder about the conversation around this and if there was any disaster planning with this scenario in mind.
4. If there wasn’t, I’m sure there is now across all regions of AWS.
This month has been for me, a uptick in unique headlines that I wouldn’t have thought would happen.
The civilization in which you are a part of, this very mass that is greater than you and I, is evolving and changing. How can there not be new unique headlines?
After a period of the same regurgtation, you get stale. It makes 100% perfect sense why a data center is a strategic place to attack.
Just talk to me, 10, 20 years ago, there was no true conversation around attacking datacnters.
Just think how much RAM and SSD's were lost. :(
I feel for both, people who where hosting there not expecting this war and this attack and the attackers, because they didn't attack just because they wanted but attacked as a response as stated earlier.
Winner: US military industrial complex + Israel
Losers: Everyone else
Please explain how attacking a civilian data center in an uninvolved country is a "response".
Bahrain is host to the headquarters of the US fifth fleet, a notable US airbase, and thousands of US military personnel. These assets are being used to attack Iran.
They’re involved.
I'm not defending it, but these countries host US bases.
Why not defend it? You provide logistical support to US war of aggression, you become a legitimate target? What is this whitewashing of military involvement? (Both for Amazon and Bahrain)
Bahrain hosts bases that the US uses to attack Iran, and Amazon is part of the Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability program that provides the DoD with cloud services.
The article has actual quotations on Iran's justification: this is in response to a recent US attack on civilian infrastructure (an under-construction Iranian nuclear powerplant with no nuclear material present)
Let’s say you live in the northern US and Canada signs a deal with China to put air bases with Chinese missiles just north of the US border.
Would that be fine? Or would that cause a lot of tension with Canada and make them involved in a US-China conflict?
USA would look very bad if they started bombarding Canada over that, yes. Not even Russia does that. They protest but they haven't started bombarding neutral countries over such things yet. You don't see Ukraine bombarding Belarus either, even though Belarus is full of Russian bases.
US burnt almost entire latin american down last century because "can't have communism in our backyard", even though these countries are quite far geographically than Bahrain is to Iran. Besides, under every international law about neutrality, Bahrain/Kuwait/UAE none of them are neutral.
If only we lived in the reality where this was possible. Americans living in the same fear they inflict on the rest of the world might mellow them out a little.
What do you mean? It is very clear that Trump declared war on Iran. That's factual.
Civilian damage occurs all the time - often on purpose (infrastructure), sometimes not directly on purpose (drones getting off-target for various reasons, that also happens and not all of this is on purpose). What Iran does here is increase the cost of waging warfare against it, to make continuation of war as unappealing as possible. To claim the nearby countries are "uninvolved" while hosting military bases or providing targeting data to the USA is just propaganda. Why would you insinuate this? It is clearly an incorrect statement. One can debate whether targeting amazon is useful or not, but definitely you don't have an uninvolved country here, so much is clear. Besides, all companies of a given country at war, need to provide data and money anyway.
My colleague in Dubai says that ATM's are all working so the claim that bank infrastructure is down may not be correct.
Was there really no other source than "houseofsaud.com" here? Seems like a strange source to be promoting on HackerNews. Their About, Contact, and Press pages don't even work. I can not find who owns this publication.
I don't see them listed on https://mediabiasfactcheck.com either, which is usually a red flag for me. For example you can find other suspicious sources - like Iran International - on there https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/iran-international-bias-and-c...
The article is about Iranian state media announcing the strikes, so here's the article from Iranian state media: https://www.tasnimnews.ir/en/news/2026/07/24/3655089/irgc-an... . Not sure if it's been independently confirmed via satellite imagery though, I looked on Twitter but just saw satellite photos from Iranian media (i.e. https://x.com/SoarAtlas/status/2080490121284272431 )
Euronews: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48995033
CNBC: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49004096
This one got more upvoted for some reason though.
Don't forget the instant dickover. I lasted two seconds post load before I hit back.
> Their About, Contact, and Press pages don't even work.
The whole website seems to have issues, probably because of AWS issues in the middle-east. But archived pages are available:
- About: https://web.archive.org/web/20260719174647/https://houseofsa...
- Contact: https://web.archive.org/web/20260328195438/https://houseofsa...
It does seem like we'd be better off with a more neutral source, but the only other article I could find from today (as opposed to 3 days ago) was https://iranwire.com/en/news/155401-irgc-claims-second-strik..., which doesn't look (or sound) like a neutral source either.
As an aside: I lack the vocabulary, but man those interactive "stats" cards scream LLM-written to me. No problem with it, necessarily, just something about that style seems to raise a flag in my mind.
Part of it is the clash with the pages UI. Dark black cards in the middle of a light theme.
The entire houseofsaud.com site appears to be LLM-generated, I wouldn't trust a single thing it says.
I wouldn't trust a single thing it says even if it was human-generated.
Used for translation maybe? I tried to scan to see which plugins, but it had two responses for me, and the second one was 'off'
Definitely more than translation. This page has every AI UI trope under the sun. The titles on the main page also all seem very AI-speak
They are certainly LLM-generated. I'm sure it's been done, but I would love to see a comprehensive look into what it is exactly that makes a UI seem LLM-generated.
From what I can tell, the issues are: Fonts are too small, secondary fonts have terrible contrast with their backgrounds, information is too dense/not enough white space, overuse of blinking/glowing status dots, overuse of bordered elements, and overuse of accented elements. I am surely forgetting some other issues.
I'm not sure why there seems to be a consistent set of design mistakes that LLMs tend toward.
> I'm not sure why there seems to be a consistent set of design mistakes that LLMs tend toward.
Probably something to do with the training data and how it’s weighted. It’s the same how the writing is essentially full of overused phrases, the AI slop feel.
I'm not sure I would consider it too dense. If anything I think they tend to be too sparse, although this could just be that they're often used for marketing type sites, which seem to want to make you scroll and click a lot for anything anyway, even if you have the screen space.
The status dots are a part of animations in general, which they overuse, especially things like transform/scale on hover and hover effects on many many elements.
I think it's not simply borders but contrasting-color borders often with box shadows.
Lack of visual hierarchy. Lots of use of bold text to make numbers stand out, without bolding the corresponding labels. Reliance on heavily-saturated primary colors. Limited attention paid to alignment.
LLMs in general are pretty terrible at spatial arrangement. You should see some of the architects' critiques of AI-generated floorplans that are on YouTube; the LLM generates a layout that is just nuts. I've found them largely useless at putting together UI mocks; Figma or Photoshop is still way easier to work with if you just want to cut up UI elements and rearrange them.
This is the claude code frontend-skill.
They're definitely Claude generated. People at my last company loved to generate pages & stat cards with Claude and they all had this exact same style.
The "Conflict Pulse" status dot is really the shit cherry on top.
My annoyance is that it's hard to figure out if it's actually up-to-date or not. If you click "Live conflict timeline →" it brings you to a collection of pages not updated since April (and at different points in April, oddly). The date count seems right, the oil price might have been correct when it was published but isn't "live" despite being labeled that way.
I wonder how the real House of Saud would feel about having their name used by some random news website? Not amused, probably...
Who knows, someone might end up in a suitcase!?
DIMMs and SSD prices are about to go “plaid”.
Between this and the Wildberries depot strikes in the Ukraine war, I think it really highlights how much peace was required to make the centralisation we've experienced work.
The Gulf States aren't at war with Iran.
In Wildberries case (and Ozon's shortly), that centralization didn't require much peace at all - just a government that wasn't run by a fascist nutter who naively thought he could invade a neighbor without consequences.
Officially, neither is the US, since Trump doesn't have that power.
If you take that approach, Ukraine is still a special operation.
Of course, which is why I called the whole lot wars until someone started HN nitpicking one of them
Russia has officially declared they are at war with Ukraine
Russia has not formally declared they are at war. Some like Peskov have stated that they are in a state of war but that's different. In fact it is illegal in Russia to refer to it as a war. This law was introduced in 2022 and has not been repealed.
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/05/1084729579/russian-law-bans-j...
To add on that, the propaganda spinned it as:
1. Not a war
2. A defensive/protective operation.
The reason being the article 353 of Russian Criminal Code, under which planning or waging a war of aggression carries a prison sentence.
https://crimeofaggression.info/selected-documents/
Not that the law matters in Russia, but defence in depth I guess.
They aren't neutral either. They're hosting military bases and miilitary assets that are being used to attack them. They are allowing their airspace to be used. Same with their waters and ports.
Which is to say that all the military assets in Gulf countries, including this Amazon DC, are valid military targets.
The Gulf States are in fact military rivals and cold adversaries of Iran; Iran vs. the Gulf States is a more salient geopolitical conflict than Iran vs. Israel. Iran has, through the IRGC, been in hot wars with the Gulf States in the last 10 years.
Struck Wildberries depots are in Russia, not Ukraine.
At least some of them, it depends on who you ask (Simferopol). But I had been using Ukraine as a shorthand for the conflict, so editing it to be clearer
St. Petersburg is certainly in Russia. Thanks for clarifying.
They hit one in Crimea yesterday.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/ukraine-hits-russias-larg...
Which reminds me: a friend made a wild mulberry pie yesterday with some dried mulberries shipped in from Chernobyl a year ago. He set it to cool overnight but when he checked in early morning and cut a slice, he found some of the berries glowed in the dark.
His quandary: should he eat it anyway? Seems like the radiation should be minimal, after all. Or maybe wait until this next Wednesday when he has a stomach x-ray and eat a small slice just beforehand to confound his primary care physician (they are both great practical jokers!)?
I didn't know they had significant fruit production in Russia and Ukraine. What sort of berries do they produce?
"Wildberries" is a Russian online retailer, comparable to Amazon.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildberries>
Centralised and long-distance commerce (and passenger travel) are all but wholly predicated on minuscule risks.
I draw parallels between the development of whales and large-scale shipping:
- Both are comparatively recent developments. Giant whales are less than 5 million years old, large cargo ships (tankers, dry bulk, containers) at what are now considered ordinary scales are less than three decades old. (See: <https://logisticselearning.com/largest-container-ships/> especially graphic here: <https://logisticselearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/im...>.)
- Both require highly-efficient propulsion: mammalian metabolism, petroleum-fueled diesel engines, respectively.
- Both require widely-separated resource opportunities. For whales, seasonally-abundant food such as krill or fish; for cargo, large-scale production and consumption of goods separated by water.
- Both require comparative safety from predators. Large adult whales have virtually no natural predators (orcas being a notable exception), until human whaling grew in scale largely since the 1500s and accelerating greatly through the 19th and 20th centuries, during which whole populations where annihilated. Maritime shipping depends on a lack of piracy or hostile naval warfare, with tremendous losses to traffic being seen during the 1st and 2nd World Wars in both the Atlantic and Pacific.
(There's a similar pattern with air travel, in which flights virtually instantly divert far from active combat zones. The list of airliner shoot-down incidents is surprisingly large: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_inc...>.)
Highly-centralised or choreographed logistics chains are also fragile and subject to disruption. During WWII, the Soviet Union was initially inclined to One Big Dump supply depots, possibly a hallmark of centralised planning. These proved attractive targets and quite harmful to ongoing operations, and over the course of the war much more decentralised patterns emerged, or so I dimly recall from long-ago reading. Decentralised operations are integral to much guerilla / asymmetric warfare by the inferior party.
How long will it take to rebuild those datacenters given the supply shortage? Are we talking like 3+ years?
3 years after all parties put weapons down?
amazon says the UAE one will take 'several months', I think that's probably a hard thing to guess though.
> How long will it take to rebuild those datacenters given the supply shortage?
Amazon will already have quite a lot of hardware queued up for new datacenter builds and expansions, some of that will presumably be redirected to this project once folks stop chucking missiles around. They also pride themselves on the speed of new datacenter rollout - even if they have to bulldoze the site and start from scratch, I doubt it takes as long as a year.
The bigger story is how there's a complete media blackout on this and why it's not a bigger news story in places without one
The disconnection of the world into isolated anclaves proceeds as planned.
As someone who has lived most of his life in Iran, I ask those who find any alignment with the IRGC to please understand that it is a religiously fanatic military and terrorist group.
They are behind many atrocities in Iran and in the region including the situation in Gaza (partially). They also provided weaponry and support to Russia against Ukraine.
Yes. American attack on Iran did not help anything though, and threw a lot of countries and people into pretty bad situation.
Hard to like anyone in this situation.
Almost no one finds "alignment" with the IRGC.
Instead this is a conflict where all sides are garbage. It's a conflict where we hope that everyone loses.
On the one side you have a terrorism-sponsoring theocracy that wants to force stone-age beliefs on its people, while exporting mayhem elsewhere. On the other you have Iran. (ba-dum-tss!)
Seriously, though, everyone involved with this conflict are bad actors. The US has bombed some 8 countries so far this year, threatened literal allies such that they got blood supplies ready for an invasion, is busy looting Venezuela like a busted pirate shithole -- basically Somalia -- is starving Cuba, is terroristically blowing up random boats by titling them "narco-terrorists", and is headed by a criminal rapist PoS that is rapidly turning the country into an idiocracy while their military is headed by a ChatGPT spouting imbecile. Israel is a war-criming pariah that pushed their luck a little too far and it turns out you can only bank on "but the holocaust" for so long while you're a rogue hermit nation that has vile behaviours and habits.
It's only in context that Iran, far down in the depths of garbage nations, somehow comes out looking like the better party in the conflict.
I totally agree with most of what you’ve said. The only part I disagree with is the whitewashing of what the IRGC has done across the region for years. Dismissing or minimizing its actions/impact simply because we also oppose other bad actors is, imo, a critical mistake.
PROSECUTE ALL WAR CRIMINALS.
But, start with YOUR OWN FIRST.
Only then will you have the moral altitude to "go after theirs".
Not until WE have prosecuted OUR war criminals, will we have the precedent to prosecute any other nations' war criminals [1].
So, get on with it, citizen. Hold your government accountable. The people always get the governments they deserve.
[1] - No, "the West" is not morally capable of going after Putin, Netanyahu, etc. Not until we start prosecuting our own war criminals with real, effective results.
It's interesting that Cuba, Iran, and even Venezuela all took as part of their identity some sort of adversarial position with the United States (although Venezuela was post-Chavez). The US is currently treating them, to some degree at their word at this point.
Whereas you could look at a place like Vietnam that fought its war and moved on, Trump's focus is largely dealing with actors that never did. I suspect the Saudi's won't be the only Nuclear deal signed. So much of this is just the cold war extended, but with North Korea and Iran trying to work their way past non-proliferation. The natural response would also be to arm South Korea and possibly Japan. All of which would have been the West's natural response to non-proliferation being violated.
I get the perception, but much of this is decades in the making and almost everyone involved including the US should have sued for peace years ago. Actual peace. Not, "we're not firing rockets but Israel can't exist."
You mean the countries the US has physically and economically attacked for decades having resentment for that?
As for Vietnam, they're suffering from tariffs, why are you assuming they're also no negatively affected by the Trump admin?
Good thing tjat Trump and Netanyahu ensured the IRGC will stay in power for many years to come, then
"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
-Thucydides' Melian Dialogue
Given how clownish the US is handling this war, I'm afraid you just have to get used to it.
I doubt you'll find many people here who are in alignment with a bigoted and criminal regime such as Iran's and its military.
What may be misinterpreted as sympathy for them is sympathy for the suffering Iranians, and antipathy for the criminal and bigoted US foreign policy especially in the Middle East. This did not start with Trump's recent idiotic game; Iran's only democratically elected president so far was toppled in 1953 by the CIA at the request of Churchill, because they felt Iran's oil does not belong to the Iranian people but to British Petroleum.
unfortunately- you've terrorists & warmongers governing all 3 parties in this war.
I don't care about Iran's leadership and think this shouldn't be the US's war to fight. Also, we aren't even trying to replace their government, we're just attacking per Israel's wishes. There must be a lot of Americans who agree.
What are alternatives. You can't change from inside and you can't change from the outside.
Either treat it as not our problem, or if we're going to get involved, have a strategy to change the government. Yes it has been done in Iran at least once from the outside, maybe twice.
The alternative is what the last five American presidents have done: containment. There's a reason Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton and Bush didn't start the war that Trump did. This is why.
Even Biden and Bush got too involved in the region. There's really not much for us to gain there, because it's not for us. Biden is still #1 on this list https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary?cycle=All&ind...
Why does the amount of money mattter and not the actions taken?
Trump has done more pro israel actions than Biden
Containment led to russia launching hundreds of iranian designed drones at Ukraine evey day.
Trump could EASILY increase US support to Ukraine. He could have even done what France was flirting with, which was deploying boots on the ground in defensive positions as a "red line". Bringing up Ukraine/Russia is not in good faith. You know this, you know that democrats have called for aggressively arming Ukraine and never wanted this dumb Iran war.
Trump isn't "strong" until he actually calls Putin's bluff on nuclear weapons. You're not gonna do it Putin, and I'm fully willing for me and everyone I know to die in WW3/nuclear holocaust just to make sure Putin goes to hell a bit faster.
Ground troops have to invade Iran. Trump can't do that now because of upcoming midterm elections. After the elections, if there is no other way then Trump has to send ground troops in.
The alternative is it just destroy all their oil infrastructure and wait for the regime to collapse from lack of funds. But Trump doesn't want to do that (or let Israel do it) because he dreams of taking all that oil for himself and his buddies like in Venezuela.
If you do that, the oil, gas, and desalination infrastructure of the Gulf states will go down together with Iran. And besides that, why do you want to fight Iran to begin with?
This gets downvoted and ignored in every thread I see, not just on this website. But how is this not obviously the answer? We know Russia and China are funneling money to Iran so it would be a double win to drain their coffers too.
Morality aside, I just don’t see how this has been ignored. I know there is a large push for peace by many of the leaders of Iran and it turns out decentralized power can be a double-edged sword. Still, they can’t hold out forever.
Because destroying the world's oil infrastructure guarantees the collapse of the USA?
Ground troops. Not going to happen or will become a disaster. And even if, what exactly would be their mission?
> Not going to happen or will become a disaster.
The one coherent rule of this administration is that "will become a disaster" is not a part of the decision making process.
to die for israel
Forget Iraq, forget Afghanistan... because This Time It's Different
and of course ground troops _have_ to invade Iraq, Saddam has WMD's. And it will finally bring stability to the region. And they _have_ to invade Afghanistan, there is no way to take out bin Laden otherwise. And it will finally bring stability to the region. Casualties will be minimal because the oppressed natives will welcome us as liberators and our overwhelming military superiority will ensure our troops suffer no casualties.
They didn't even change the excuse, it's supposedly WMDs again
If you thought Afghanistan was a disaster, Iran would be at least 10 times worse.
There are no good choices here. It is either ground invasion and restore Ahmadinejad to power, or accept defeat and accept whatever "protection fee" Iran wants to charge ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
How are these equivalent? Yes, if you've started a pointless unjust war that you can't win, the right thing to do is say mea culpa, accept whatever fees the other party charges and fuck off forever. Not try your best to start WWIII just because, hell, we already killed 3000 civilians, might as well try to beat our high score from Iraq, right?
People have been saying we're going to invade Iran for almost 25 years now. It's always just about to happen, yet never does.
Who has been saying that?
I believe IDF accepts foreign volunteers if they are Jewish. I could be wrong. If you are a jew, you can join now. You don't have to wait for the USA to send troops.
I volunteered on the condition that they send Gal Gadot to train me. After I signed all the papers, Netta Barzilai showed up on my doorstep!
> alternatives...
Well, maybe start fixing problems at home before spending tens of billions not fixing things anywhere else? we can't even change ourselves for the better, an adjudicated rapist, alleged pedophile rules us, and we're going to reform other countries? what grounds do we have to be casting stones ? "they're killing protestors!" I hear many westerns say, while ignoring the americans we're jailing for 30 years, calling terrorists for protesting the extrajudicial killings ICE are doing. we have millions without healthcare, above subsistence employment, food security. Why are americans worried about "changing" iran?? Let's look in the mirror, folks.
Why do we think it's our job to intervene in other countries like this?
And if we wanted to help another country, working with the international community should be the only approach we take.
We've spent many decades overthrowing countries to what end? Even our vassals like Israel have universal healthcare while we're all in debt because of healthcare. It's not working and needs to stop.
It comes down to the simple reality that "I am because we are" and as such any time a human being is oppressed we are all oppressed.
One could make the argument the people who live in liberal democracies have an obligation to help those who unfortunately do not and who are still forced to live under autocratic oppression.
There were periods in history where most people lived under the thumb of some sort of autocrat of one form or another be they monarchs or religious leaders. Most people had very few human rights and had little opportunity for self-determination. Through the hard work of revolutionaries around the world many of those autocrats were deposed and others seeing the writing on the wall offered power to the people more willingly.
Think of it like a jailbreak where the jailer is oppressive and everyone in the jail is innocent. On your wait out should help open the cells of as many people as you can if only out of your own self interest because a larger mob escaping gives each individual a better chance to escape due to strength in numbers but also because it's just the right thing to do.
It's sort of the same thing here, Our ancestors (or even some of us) got out from under the thumb of an autocrat jailer but there are still others in that jail. If we don't help them who will? What would you want someone else to do if you were in their situation? To walk by an unjustly imprisoned person's jail cell and not free them when it is trivial to do so makes you the jailer.
Now that's the theory. In practice, I agree with much of what you're saying -- reality is a far trickier place than we'd like and the details make doing the right thing difficult if not impossible. And that doesn't cover the reality that western democracies are imperfect themselves and that many of their citizens are still subject to repression by their own autocratic leaning leaders, and so that we can't always do the right thing, but we should at least aspire to.
If you overthrow one autocrat and the society is not ready to self-govern, you'll just have another one taking his place. The best you can do is to fund some kind of democratic opposition on the ground and in exile, hoping to grow a political class mature enough that they will take over after autocrat loses power one way or another.
Maybe the best you can do is just don't meddle in other's internal affairs.
Just think how would you feel if other countries interfered 'with all good intentions, of course' in the internal affairs of your country.
Trump is not Che Guevara. The US doesn't send troops at great personal danger to themselves to help oppressed revolutionaries. They back fascist dictatorships and launch drone strikes. They murdered 120 children on day one in Iran. Buying the party line here is absurd.
In this case, the US was pretty involved in destabilizing the country. If the us and the uk hadn't intervened in 50s, Iran would have made a successful transition from monarchy to democracy. I guess we can discuss if the US owes anything to anyone, but a case for the us correcting earlier mistakes can definitely be made.
there's much more to the story of Iran than the simple "oh of course the UK and US are bad"
I can't assume that Iran would've successfully transitioned to democracy, or that it's even what should happen there. All those Arabian Gulf countries are monarchies.
never mind that Iran has a totally different language, culture and history
> our vassals like Israel
Are you sure it isn’t the other way around?
are you saying jews control the world?
No, they're saying America is a vassal of Israel. Very different statement.
Exactly. It's not US imperialism. I'm not against US imperialism.
You probably should be?
> Why do we think it's our job to intervene in other countries like this?
If Iran wasn't supporting terror organizations around the world and didn't help russia I would agree. Their country, they can kill as much of their own people as they please.
Do nothing and let them live in peace.
Israel's leader is wanted by the international court for genocide. And lets not forget how Iran's current government took power? US installed a dictator in Iran because UK was angry that Iran nationalized the UK owned oil fields. This led to a coup, which resulted in the current Iranian government.
There's no good guys. Why is the US even there?
Edit: downvoted to -3. Did i say anything that was untrue? Or do people not like the truth?
> This led to a coup, which resulted in the current Iranian government.
I mean, you're passing over the violent revolution from socialists and Islamists.
America had a violent revolution. So did practically every other country. Are violent revolutions de facto bad?
Yes. We had no good justification for war against the crown circa the American revolutionary war. The crown spent a lot of money defending us vs the French in the French and Indian war and were totally justified in levying the extremely low taxes that they did on the colonists.
We should be part of Canada right now
The funny thing is that the prosecutor for the ICC (Khan) who issued charges against Netanyahu was just removed today over sexual assault allegations, which had previously not been reported because the Muslim victim was worried that the charges against Netanyahu would be dropped. Khan literally messaged her “Think about the Palestinian arrest warrants”. Palestine has been such an effective political tool for the Muslim oligarchs and patriarchy. So anyway… more bad guys.
> US installed a dictator in Iran because UK was angry that Iran nationalized the UK owned oil fields.
> Did i say anything that was untrue? Or do people not like the truth?
It is widely assumed, but not factually correct, that the US was responsible.
On August 15th 1953 the CIA staged a coup to overthrow the government, but it failed. By the next day the State Department was actively trying to enter into diplomatic talks.
Three days later a group of clerics headed by Ayatollah Borujerdi took advantage of the situation and stirred up unrest that was ultimately responsible for the Shah taking power. They had been concerned about Mossadeq embracing secular liberalism and a referendum that dissolved the Majlis (parliament/congress). MI-6 had offered them support, but they rejected it.
I would highly recommend this book if you can get a copy: https://www.amazon.com/Iran-CIA-Fall-Mosaddeq-Revisited/dp/0...
> On 19 August 1953, Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup d'état that strengthened the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. It was instigated by the United Kingdom (MI6), under the name Operation Boot[5][6][7][8] and the United States (CIA), under the name TP-AJAX Project[9] or Operation Ajax. A key motive was to protect British oil interests in Iran after Mosaddegh nationalized the country's oil industry
Straight from Wikipedia
That was the understanding until the CIA released a bunch of documents in 2017 which revealed that it was such an abysmal failure that they almost called off the entire thing.
The attempted coup brought out a lot of pro Mossadeq protestors. It wasn't until the 19th when clerics organized anti Mossadeq protestors that it took hold.
Might be worth flagging to Wikipedia editors for a review.
Even if we take these claims at face value, think about how this looks from the Iranian side:
- Failed coup attempt threatens government
- 'Ooops sorry just pranking you lol'
- Distracted government challenged by internal actor
- Power vacuum followed by monarchy
I'm sorry, this is like disclaiming responsibility for shooting at you on the grounds that most of my bullets missed and the one that hit just winged you. It's not my fault that your grumpy neighbor exploited the situation to attack you and then a third actor exploited the situation to seize all your assets!
>Edit: downvoted to -3. Did i say anything that was untrue? Or do people not like the trutH
Isn't it an oversimplification to say there are no good guys? O
This is absolutely 100% true, which is why deliberately destroying all the pre-existing structural deterrents to their bad behavior was such a disaster.
Iran did bad things, but not as much as they could. Now they're doing more bad things and we can't stop them.
No-one in their right mind wants to support IRGC. But, to see an egotistic, deranged, clown and the entire circus getting slapped in the face, is very satisfying to watch.
Iranian here, I have no love for the IRGC but I am glad they are keeping Americans from destroying our country right now.
We don't need Americans to "save us", we have 90M intelligent people and can resolve our own issues. It would be great if the West started respecting the sovereignty of other nations.
I have a hard time sympathizing with the Pahlavi supporters cheering the bombing of our home.
My comment wasn’t about the West saving us, nor was it about supporting Pahlavi (which I personally did, but of course I’m against the continued bombing of my country).
What I’m saying is that supporting one of the biggest terrorist group in the world by the logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a grave mistake. It legitimizes one of the biggest, if not the biggest, reasons behind the current situation in Iran and some other bad situations in the region.
If you are an Iranian, you know what IRGC has done and keep doing, how good they are at propaganda and how nothing is beyond them including killing (and worse) anyone anywhere in the name of their god.
I know what IRGC has done, my cousin was spent 6 months in the Evin prison after the Mahsa uprising and her entire life was stolen from her. So I don't need a moral lecture.
But the IRGC is the only one defending my home right now. I also find it curious why you are not calling the US or Israel against this illegal aggression against our country?
Then we have both suffered from IRGC. as I have loved ones who were killed by them, and we both have a stake in the country’s security, since my family and most of my friends still live there.
What I’m saying is that we should not legitimize the IRGC. Trump is bad, the current Israeli government is very bad, and the IRGC is very bad.
On another note, the IRGC is defending itself, not us. They’ve killed exponentially more people in days than US or Israel has over in total. Again, all of these are bad.
Don't be so self-centered. Supporting the IRGC to give Trump a presidency-ending war is the rational approach for non-US citizens. Iran has been so far a much more contained risk for them than the US.
Here, have a look for what a terrorist country looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_U...
> one of the biggest terrorist group in the world
Clearly the biggest tell that you are anything but Iranian. You might dislike the regime but no one calls their own government a “terrorist group”, a term reserved for foreign agents.
Stop astroturfing behind a throwaway, you coward.
I don't know if you realize - but the Americans have offered IRGC a pretty generous deal that essentially removes almost all sanctions in return to stop developing nukes, and the IRGC itself is escalating the situation, which could force America to bomb Iran again.
You forgot to mention a small detail, the US did that only after they started a war. The US is known for its perfidy at this point, so any deals they propose aren't exactly trustworthy, and the US couldn't even contain israel after the latest MoU which made it void.
Not true. The US has been negotiating with Iran for over a year about a nuclear deal before the war started. This has all been public.
If only the prior P5+1 / Iran JCPOA deal of 2015 that constrained HEU and was backed up by multi country inspectors and tamper resistant / revealing on site instrumentation hadn't been thrown out the window by some fool.
Why on earth would anyone trust a country that reneged on a hard fought deal and followed that up by bombing during negotiations to restore what was lost.
Maybe because signing a new deal is better for your country and your people?
Like what's the worst case scenario that happens to iran if they just signed a new deal? How would it have been any worse than the current situation?
The deal doesn't even require a high level of trust - worst case they just go back to the previous situation. Making a deal only has an upside, even without trust.
Just like employment at will - and yet having a job is better than no job in most cases.
So why is the US bringing all the drama here then?
Is it really just for a return to the pre-Trump status quo, only this time with the same deal not cosigned by Obama?
Yes, it's as simple as that, Trump just wants his name on the deal.
That's not even enough though. Ask the Canadians who signed the USMCA (https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/pr...).
There's zero foundation for trust to uphold an international agreement even between US and its closest allies. Iran has no basis to believe any agreement will be legitimate or upheld.
So again, let's say the agreement doesn't hold - how exactly is that worse than before?
The previous agreement ended with the US killing the Ayatollah and other senior leaders, promoting regime change, and demanding unconditional surrender. Venezuela capitulated to the US and is now under US control. If Iran's leadership's goal is to survive and to maintain control of their country, they're likely to continue hostilities until they re-establish a deterrent. Worked for the Taliban in Afghanistan.
If you believe the US military, Iran has already lost the majority of its capital-intensive armaments and its nuclear program and its senior leadership. This means there are fewer strategic holdings now at risk. Iran knows it can't be effectively invaded. The regime loses control in two scenarios: (1) internal regime change; (2) diplomatic capitulation to US demands. Waiting out at least US mid-terms while continuing to threaten the strait and neighbor's infrastructure is quite possibly Iran's best decision tree path from the point of view of the regime.
Yes of course but you are forgetting Iran needs to arm itself to the teeth before the new deal, so that when American does dealy things during the deal they are repelled. Just like the last few times America did a "peace deal" with Iran and then started dropping bomb deals upon them.
And what in the deal will stop them? It's a deal about nuclear capabilities - the previous deal certainly didn't prevent their conventional armament.
What is a deal? I think its a matter of definition. America is in the 9th or 10th day of continually dropping bomb deals unprovoked after setting a peace deal. Under that definition of deal, I think Iran should drop some good deals on some American naval vessels until America stops this stupid war.
I am of course not certain why Iran's armament is of any concern to America. It might be of concern to another country of course, which loves to make America fight its wars.
1-800-come-on-now
The current POTUS tore up the last nuclear deal with iran in 2018 for domestic political payoff. I can't take protestations about 'we've been trying to negotiate!' seriously when they come from the same people that created nearly a decade of strategic uncertainty (preceded by years of trash talk) and whose negotiation style oscillates between brutal violence and self-pitying wheedling.
I don't want to be partisan, but the incumbent POTUS is the epitome of dishonesty and the political polarization in US domestic politics is so extreme that even US allies are talking about a generational loss of trust. It would be irrational for a historical antagonist like Iran to bank on negotiating a new agreement with a country that refuses to bind itself by any international norms; it seems to me that it would be far more rational for Iran to breakout in pursuit of a nuke, and having once performed a successful test, reap the benefits of strategic stability that have gradually accrued to North Korea despite its ongoing pariah status. That is to say, once they have a nuke and other countries can no longer casually attack them, more of their economy can be redirected away from acquiring a strategic deterrent and into more normal kinds of economic development.
Hi, USian here, as I assume you are.
Not only has the US proven itself to be incredibly untrustworthy -both recently and in the past-, the protracted war in Ukraine demonstrates what happens when you give up your nukes and a member of the "nuke-havers" club decides that they want your territory. We're at the point where any country that has a militant nuclear-weapons-equipped neighbor and has both the ability to develop nuclear weapons and the state power to keep control of them would be stupid not to build them.
It's a shame that several of the countries that are supposed to be "the adults in the room" have decided to abandon the various gentlemen's agreements that made nuclear-weapons nonproliferation agreements sensible.
Didn't the US previously make a deal then Trump broke it?
And it started bombing twice during those negotiations. They started war after Iran made concessions. And bombed during first negotiations.
The US idea of peace was regular bombing - I have heard people from defemse sector even use the "lawn moving" term publically. I dont understand an expectation that foreign country should be ok with that.
Plus, Trump dont do good faith deals, he promisses and breaks deals next day.
The American's ally broke the MoU nearly immediately after the signing by continuing to attack Lebanon.
> Point 1: The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.
You forgot that the USA broke the deal immediately after making it.
As an American, I don't see how you can have serious negotiations with the US at the moment. You negotiate to an agreement, and then the terms change after agreement is announced. Or you show up to negotiations and your negotiation team is assassinated. Or your head of state is assasinated or kidnapped.
If you do get to a deal, there's no permanance and no means of enforcement.
How is attacking a random datacenter keeping the Trump administration from attacking Iran?
> we have 90M intelligent people and can resolve our own issues
This seems counterfactual, unless you called the regime for which you state you «have no love for» "satisfactory" or its length "insignificant".
> we have 90M intelligent people
This is also a pretty unbelievable claim - were it so, I and many others would move to Iran immediately. Can we say you are not being literally factual?
And what happened before then? Iran had a secular prime minister, Mossadegh, but the UK and US supported, among others, conservative clerics to overthrow that elected government to put in a dictatorship.
Then in the 1970s the CIA provided SAVAK with the names of secular left opposition to arrest and execute.
So spare me talk about foreigners supporting religious fanatics, the western establishment did so for decades.
I for one don't want my tax dollars used to bomb schools in Iran.
Yes true, but also anyone in Iran no matter what part your from wants the US gone in the region. The US is seen as responsible for allowing slavery in many golf states. It's also responsible for unfair businesses. And seen as a mafia state that steals resources.
Is there a news article on this event that isn’t AI slop?
Despite the destruction, me-south-1 still has more nines than us-east-1
this datacenter appears to be 99.99 percent destroyed
There's usually more than one datacenter in an AZ.
Lmao
I don't know if this is serious or if it's a joke.
Won’t get a red dot until they pour molten lava over it.
Solid lava just won't do.
It usually does not unless you happen to be the ribcage of an Aztec warrior
They wouldn't fake uptime for their shareholders, now would they?
Green Checkmark with a little “i” notice
and one of those footer codes to update the year next to the Copyright
0.99999
After this strike, the only AWS region in the ME that remains operational is the one in Tel Aviv (a bit ironic if you ask me).
UAE has been down for months, Bahrain is now offline, Saudi Arabia is still under construction.
not really ironic given the billions of dollars israel gets to defend themselves. Iran, and most of the modern world, are not idiots.
Radars and bases along the path of travel from Iran to Israel have been progressively degraded. Various interceptor types also have low stockpiles at present. I'm absolutely not an expert keeping well-informed, but my understanding is that Jordan's recent losses mean much of the path is now relatively clear of air defenses, and Israel would have to mount most/all defenses from their own territory for the first time. But Israel is at-present not engaging in the war, preferring to let US do the work, as a minister recently stated. Regardless, it may be attacked, depending on IDF actions in Lebanon.
Iran also isn't hitting Israel because they know Israel will go after Tehran and the regime more directly. They were the ones to target the Basij police, industrial and steel plants, government buildings etc. America is mostly constraining itself to bombing the coast and military assets, with a focus on the strait.
That plus most of Iran's attacks on Israel didn't do anything and likely still won't. Which is why Iran focused on the weaker gulf states even when Israel was involved.
Iran has recently demonstrated the ability to execute accurate strikes in Jordan. If it can do so in Jordan, it can do so in Israel once Israeli air defences are similarly degraded. Doubly so because many missiles meant for Israel were intercepted by Jordan.
Iran knows Israel won't stop itself from attacking for too long. So they are going to wait until that point and they are likely going to try the same targeting methodology to paralyze Israeli airbases. If they manage to do so, they will be able to significantly reduce the US/Israeli strike tempo and to be more successful using drones, not even missiles.
This assumes Iran is maintaining consistent stockpiles and still has the capability of large attacks, including their fancier missiles which can avoid SAM systems. It's been well reported the number of drones/missiles Iran fired has consistently decreased. Israel and the US destroyed most of their missile factories so Iran is going to be conservative with how they use them.
At the peak Iran fired 650 missiles at Israel and only killed 28 people, mostly from hitting a single residential building. These days Iran is only firing small salvos into gulf states and only 20-30 drones at a time. I'd be surprised if they could pull off 2025 numbers when they fired a hundred at Israel.
Iran has been getting consistent impacts on US bases in Jordan essentially every day for the past few weeks, and they are well defended.
At the end of the day Iran has more missiles than the US has interceptors. So when you get to the point when you're talking about running out, they just don't need to launch big salvos anymore.
> It's been well reported the number of drones/missiles Iran fired has consistently decreased.
One way of interpreting that statistic is that they are running out of munitions. Another way is to consider that stockpiles are not running low, but the initial response was a collection of high-burn, uncoordinated, decentralized tactical actions after an attempted decapitation-strike disrupted top-down C&C. Now that the fog of war has cleared, and communication has been restored, a more strategic regime is now in effect.
Yes this is essentially what I was thinking. And there have been repeated estimates about Iranian stockpiles that have proven completely wrong. I think they have been able to manufacture throughout the war.
The political party I am a member off wanted a total arms embargo on Israël including anti air defense. (It didn't go anywhere ofcourse. But that a mainstream party is fed up with Israël is quite revolutionary).
Although what has changed is that Israël is no longer getting guns for free they need to pay for it same as everyone else. Progress!
I would be worried about staying in the Jumeirah Burj Al Arab, these days.
I suspect that Iran knows that going after Dubai would upset a lot of American (and Sunni) billionaires.
The service might be a bit poor, given that Burj Al Arab has already been closed for months since Iran struck it in the beginning of March.
Ah. Makes sense. I have been deliberately avoiding keeping up with that mess.
...which I now return to...
UAE paid Iran billions of dollars to halt strikes: Report - https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uae-paid-iran-billions-do... .
Danegeld!
The north of Israel has been completely evacuated. But yeah Iran didn't do any damage. lol
You seem to be woefully uninformed on this subject. Far northern Israel was evacuated in 2023 and has long since moved on to reconstruction. No significant damage in the area was directly from Iran, it was all from Hezbollah (their proxy militia in Lebanon).
... was at one point partially evacuated. It isn't currently, and hasn't been for years at this point.
You may be confused with southern Lebanon, which is.
The north of israel also wasn't evacuated for the recent Iran campaign. That was in 2024 and they didn't evacuate for the recent ground invasion they did in Southern Lebanon.
> Which is why Iran focused on the weaker gulf states even when Israel was involved.
Also, Israel will not abandon (or be abandoned) by the US, but the others might want to cut their losses if supporting the US becomes costlier than being neutral.
The game being played is extremely interesting, with high stakes and no margin for error. Too bad people die.
Both Kuwait and Bahrain did airstrikes in Iran today with intelligence and air support from UAE. The gulf states being low risk targets will likely be a short term thing for Iran in the long run as well. https://x.com/WSJ/status/2080693251682795705
The US will not be able to sustain a military presence in the Middle East for much longer. Dedollarisation is happening and when it hits a tipping point, they won’t be able to sustain their current debt financing and interest on treasury bonds will rise sharply to compensate for that.
Won’t be pretty, as no empire has ever fallen peacefully.
The Israelis are the only ones that can, and want, to strike back. Besides no one weeps for missiles falling on Israeli cities, so that doesn’t serve the Iranians at all. Lots of much softer targets for Iranian missiles which can’t do anything to Iran.
Forgive the uninformed question, but doesn't Saudi Arabia also have significant armed forces? Given that Iran has closed the Straights of Hormuz and attacked several other Arab states, and has conducted strikes in Saudia Arabia itself, wouldn't that give Saudia Arabia a solid reason to strike back?
last time ksa went to war it was against yemen, and didnt go very well.
A show army - the monarchy don't trust an army of rural peasants - they might get ideas and stage a coup.
From what I have read, their armed forces aren’t very motivated. There are stories about pilot trainings where the pilots were a bunch of rich guys that got into their jet, took off with full afterburner, did some fun loops and landed after using up their fuel.
Saudi has the advantage that they have the US doing the dirty work for them. No need to do much themselves.
Arab militaries, whilst sometimes well equipped, are thoroughly incompetent, possibly by design. They are not a major factor here.
Many former army personnel have told me that the militaries of Oman (British-trained and equipped) and UAE (Australian and British-trained, US-equipped) are better in terms of capability and valor than most European countries, including even Germany's. Where they do face issues is in equipment stockpiles and sustaining conflict, which is what we've seen.
The Saudi main army is pretty incompetent, but the Royal Guard is extremely effective. They are separately trained by the West and maintain comms separate from the main army. And now they've teamed up with Pakistan, which has one of the best air forces in the region.
Qatar recently opened up a route for citizenship to foreign veterans who serve in their armed forces. That guarantees them a steady supply of soldiers from the region should the need arise.
The most vulnerable are Bahrain and Kuwait, but both of them have had help with security actions from their more competent neighbors.
Saudi Arabia has carried out airstrikes in Iran - but geography is a good reason not to want to escalate hostilities, despite the generational animus between the countries.
Iran has threatened to attack Saudi oil infrastructure if the Saudis join the Israel-American war on Iran. The Iran War Is Destroying Something More Valuable Than Oil - https://houseofsaud.com/iran-war-refinery-crisis-saudi-aramc... As it has become clear that the US missile defence shield over Saudi Arabia is inadequate (as the US can't provide enough interceptors), the Saudis have decided to be cautious.
I think the threats from Iran are causing the Saudis to not strike Iran. The Saudis don't want their infrastructure blown up by missiles from Iran.
AMZN could have for example bought a "Gepard" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard) - easily shoots down cruise missiles and drones. Just a couple millions would have saved billions.
That would imply two things:
One> An executive has to care about a cost center, then proceeds to invest in prevention instead of looking like a hero after, instead of putting off a fire an getting a promotion or bonus. Which is nigh impossible.
Two> Our tech overlords try to push for our cyberpunk present to at least look kinda cool. Which they also refuse todo.
So you’re saying American corporations should start having their own military divisions.
(I realize it’s a stretch from what you’re suggesting but if you think about it, not really)
I'm not saying they should. I'm saying they unavoidably would https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47981423 , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47776031
it may surprise you just how well equipped corporate security divisions can be.
government contractors may be embedded in high stakes situations.
There are plenty of comparable systems in US bases that nevertheless were frequently hit.
Dog-pod grids:
<https://diamond-age.bib.bz/security-measures-adopted-by-atla...>
Yawn. The less Amazon the better. Wake me up when they start paying taxes.
oh no haha don't target the data centers that are destroying our climate that would make me soooo mad ;)
What?
Good!
Soo.. Is this bullish for the stock price or nah?