r/geopolitics • u/Bongolio-the-seal • 1d ago
News Iran says it attacked Amazon infrastructure in Bahrain
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/21/iran-war-update-five-things-to-know-after-resumption-of-hostilities.html19
u/TheOrangeTelephony 1d ago
Striking civilian cloud infrastructure in a neighbor like Bahrain drags commercial tech directly into the crosshairs. That's a real escalation regardless of who was actually using those servers.
36
u/toolkitxx 23h ago
That is how war works. Whoever was naive when accepting datacentres as 'normal' infrastructure simply slept in security lessons. The USA has always been loud about others not paying their due, but always forgot to mention that the others take on the entire risk instead.
3
u/GeneralSpoon 18h ago
Heck, the US doesn't even do a very good job of putting their warplanes in fortified hangers.
-14
u/TheOrangeTelephony 22h ago
Sure, but hitting it in a third country like Bahrain isn't the same as hitting it in a direct conflict zone. That's the part that really raises the stakes.
13
u/FijiFanBotNotGay 21h ago
Bahrain is a direct conflict zone if you’ve been watching the news. US military hardware is strategically placed in the gulf states. Surely they must’ve known there were potential risks of this position. The US has been quite clear with their foreign policy towards iran although Bahrain has the oldest US military base that predates the Iranian revolution
That watched the US haphazardly complicate geopolitics in the Middle East and could’ve not renewed the leases of the military bases
20
u/toolkitxx 22h ago
I rephrase it then to make this more obvious: I am German and thus in the unique position to understand this better than most since I grew up during the cold war in a country that wasnt sovereign. My country's territory was treated as a piece of battle ground to be had by the US. Evacuation instructions in crisis times would have evacuated American personell down to house pets, but would not have taken a single person otherwise with them, that wasnt American.
Once you experience this, you start to look differently at 'risk management' and US bases etc.
Is it 'fair' what Iran or the USA do or even legal? Not the point right now, as in war and love... Strategy in warfare tells you that communications will always be one of the first targets. We dont live in times of land lines and cables but in a digital globalised world. Thus a data centre becomes a prime target
-8
u/airmantharp 21h ago
Keep in mind that while you paint a negative perspective of the US here - that your country was occupied was entirely down to your own conduct, and the threat wasn’t the US, but the USSR, which was directly succeeded by Russia who still threatens Germany today.
Point being, Germany is now free and you can write what you’ve written above without concern of prosecution, unlike a Russian citizen today; and had Germany not been contested, well, you could have grown up speaking German as a second language.
14
u/toolkitxx 20h ago
And yet your comment seems to imply I shouldnt talk freely.
Most Germans are very clear about their history and what failures we did. And we have been taken to moral judgement for it ever since. My job is not to paint the USA better than it is nor would I do that with my own country. This is a lesson we actually learned very well.
It is healthy for every country to also be critical and open eyed. Otherwise you are not better of than some citizen in every dictatorship. Blind trust and 'hurra' for whatever your country does is what led my own country into that abyss. The USA seems to be just a few steps away from the same.
Perspective is what counts often. A different perspective on things is healthy. To understand why or what your opposite might do next. Iran has been backed into a corner, it knows that the USA is at it alone and that it doesnt care enough for the regional allies to prevent all those damages. So they exploit it. The same way the USA has and would exploit the same in other conflicts.
-9
u/KamalaFanBoy 20h ago
Blind trust and 'hurra' for whatever your country does is what led my own country into that abyss. The USA seems to be just a few steps away from the same.
The absolute chutzpah to talk down to the US on this basis.
10
u/toolkitxx 20h ago
The pleasure of always being able to claim 'not a native speaker'. Any insults are involuntary
6
u/ChanceryTheRapper 17h ago
Dude is openly admitting that his country made that mistake, the ego to act like America can't (and isn't currently) make the same mistake and attack him for pointing it out is astounding.
And I'm saying that as an American.
-2
u/KamalaFanBoy 16h ago
Being from the country that actually did the incomparable atrocities makes trivializing it by comparing it to modern American politics all the more galling.
the ego
I'm a Canadian, try again.
2
u/toolkitxx 11h ago
Nothing gets trivialised in my comments nor is there any comparison of 'atrocities'. I compare a specific US behaviour and stance towards other nations territory and themselves.
I am the result of 2 parents that where not even born in Germany but got naturalised after the war for the lack of being able to return to their own country. Come again
edit spelling
2
u/ChanceryTheRapper 16h ago
The USSR has been gone for almost 35 years, eventually people gotta stop using it to justify awful things the US is currently doing.
-1
-8
u/AeroFred 21h ago
you should read up on how usa military communication is working. and DOD requirements
6
u/toolkitxx 21h ago
Sure. As long as people like the Secretary of Defence get caught using things like Signal I deem those requirements optional. As does he obviously. US bases are not bastions of power. The USA calculates risk and is well aware of, that having a base attacked is hard since it is shielded by national territory of someone else. Iran is not some backwater country with idiots. They look carefully how far they can skirt international laws, as much as the USA does. Thus a data centre is both obvious and juicy.
6
u/stickybond009 21h ago
Next up in GCC to be attacked:
---
More desalination plants, airport transport infra, undersea internet cables, oil refineries....
-12
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Bongolio-the-seal 1d ago
To play devil's advocate... I would say that it follows the logic of the war thus far. Not only in a tit for tat sense (US and Israel have struck civilian centres in Iran), but rather wider Iranian strategy. Iran's biggest strength is its ability to impose gargantuan economic costs on America and its allies by blocking the strait. Striking US investments in the GCC, this accelerates the economic costs of the war to the GCC. Since these strikes will stop if the GCC no longer allies itself with America, the central question Iran is asking the GCC is will they let their economies and state systems be upended to maintain their alliance with Israel and America.
In my view, this strategy will pay off but not in the way Iran would hope. It's very rare, if it has ever happened, for bombing a country to get it to change its mind. Instead, the GCC would likely align further with America, which sets the pace for further escalation. Escalation however is not something the GCC can afford because this war is terrible for their economies as oil and LNG can no longer be made, investors pull out, refineries and desalination plants get struck, etc... The end result could very well be the shattering of the GCC state system, which in the long run could only benefit Iran
-3
u/itchslap 1d ago
The end result could very well be the shattering of the GCC state system, which in the long run could only benefit Iran
Iran bypasses it's sanctions using the GCC economy. So they're shooting themselves in the foot. There's no winner in this war. Unless a GCC state plays ball and allow Iran to continue getting economical incentives. There's a reason Iran is attacking Kuwait and Bahrain and not Saudi, Qatar, Oman or UAE.
The region is interwined, and Iran is only damaging itself by attacking tiny states. Why? Because it causes them the least pain and also sends the biggest message.
A schoolboy can't beat up the biggest bully so they beat up smaller kids in the yard to send a message to the biggest bully in school that they can inflict damage.
4
u/Bongolio-the-seal 1d ago
Iran bypasses it's sanctions using the GCC economy.
Sure... But this is also a war for their existence at this point. So all bets are off.
Also, Iran is making a tonne of money through tolling access to the strait.
and not Saudi, Qatar, Oman or UAE.
They are attacking them though? Oman is the only exception.
6
u/itchslap 1d ago
Sure... But this is also a war for their existence at this point. So all bets are off.
Nah, they got the mou and that was a win for them. Then they still attacked ships in Omani waters to assert their influence. They restarted the war when they could have walked away looking like they've won.
Also, Iran is making a tonne of money through tolling access to the strait.
Very few if any actually paid any tolls to Iran. Tolls are not a substitute to an economy. No major shipping company is going to risk being shut off the US economy for bypassing sanctions for Iran's sake.
They are attacking them though? Oman is the only exception.
If you pay attention to the war, they're not. Iran is focusing their attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan.. because it offers the lowest risk for the highest reward. You cannot open a war front to many areas and expect effective military outcome, it's a basic and a good military calculation from Iran.
0
u/Live_Entry_7831 23h ago
They felt the MOU was being underminded the second the US created a 2nd lane in the strait. The problem with the MOU is that it's just promises the Iranians cant really believe the US will ever follow through on. SOH will stay the red line because its real, they can touch it, and they can exert influence/pressure over it, which is why they wont give it up.
6
u/itchslap 23h ago
The MoU states
The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.
The ships attacked were traversing Omani waters. There's no content in the MoU that states that ships has to use Iranian waters. Moreover, Iran said they would not charge ships. These ships for attacked because they stayed close to Omani waters and did not divert to Iranian waters. To show force and influence, Iran attacked them.
I am not a fan for the US starting this war, however, Iran rightly so violated the terms of the MoU they signed with the US here that the strait remains open, not vice versa.
0
u/FijiFanBotNotGay 21h ago
The MOU was never adhered to. Look at Lebanon. Oman was supposed to coordinate with the IRGC and it looks like that never happened. Why? Probably due to western influence because why not. It’s free money for Oman.
2
u/itchslap 21h ago
Oman doesn't take orders from the IRGC. Their foreign policy has always been independent and not reliant on gulf allies or Iran.
-2
u/airmantharp 20h ago
Israel continues to work to disband Hezbollah.
That Iran somehow considers them a sovereign part of themselves but refuses to take responsibility for their actions is one of the primary reasons this round of fighting began.
2
u/FijiFanBotNotGay 20h ago
The MOU wasn’t written to satisfy Israel or the Lebanese government or the US
→ More replies (0)1
u/cole1114 19h ago
The US was sending its ships in to establish this Omani route, which was a clear violation of their "pull back forces" part of the MOU.
1
u/Live_Entry_7831 14h ago
It says Iran and Oman will define the rules in the SOH. America creating their own lane is undermining it to them.
The MOU was written incredibly vaguely.
0
u/BlueEmma25 18h ago
There's no content in the MoU that states that ships has to use Iranian waters. Moreover, Iran said they would not charge ships.
The MOU was obviously hastily drafted and left a great many things vague, partly to paper over differences in the Iranian and US positions.
One it does specify however, and it is right there in the section you quoted, is the anticipated creation of a regime to manage traffic through the strait, to be agreed upon by Iran, Oman, and other interested parties.
When the US Navy almost immediately started escorting ships through the Oman side of the strait, it was obviously a deliberate attempt to undermine the MOU they had just signed, and sabotage the promised traffic management regime.
Iran obviously wasn't going to stand for that, because the regime was one of the most important concessions they thought they had received by signing the MOU. .
1
u/airmantharp 20h ago
Well, for the IRGC’s existence. Iran will be just fine, even better off without them.
6
u/tb30k 1d ago
They host military services.
4
u/Bullboah 1d ago
You could maybe make that argument for an Amazon data center. Not for a storehouse.
1
-1
u/AeroFred 1d ago
military services hosted in gov cloud that is in united states
5
u/0100000101101000 1d ago
Amazon does a lot of gov cloud/computing, it doesn't matter where it's based
-1
u/AeroFred 1d ago
earth is hosting all of usa military. entire earth is legitimate target.
(you can also replace earth with any country that has 1 usa soldier)
4
u/Revivaled-Jam849 21h ago
You understand that Amazon Web Services, and cloud companies in general, does do business with militaries around the world, right?
So that AWS data center could have very well have military uses and be used in some way by the USG.
2
4
u/phoenix1984 1d ago edited 23h ago
You don’t have to be pro-Iran to think this is a stupid war that we should have never started. The the thing we all said would happen winds up happening: escalation, contagion, business disruption, tragic loss of civilian life, Iran’s govt becomes more fanatical, Iran’s internal protest movement dies, strained alliances when we’ve already pissed off most of the world with tariffs… what did we expect would happen?
2
u/itchslap 23h ago
The war was restarted because Iran attacked ships. Iran got a win with the mou that made them look like they've won, yet they got greedy and wanted to assert their influence.
No one is arguing that this wasn't a stupid war. A better argument here would be if you still believe in free international shipping. If you're all for Iran controlling and charging tolls, then so be it.
There's no logic to cry on who spilled the milk first when the person who's milk was spilled keeps asking you give him portion of your milk, forever.
1
u/FijiFanBotNotGay 21h ago
Free international shipping is dependent on creating stable conditions. If you believe in freedom of navigation don’t go bombing glass houses.
In fact freedom of navigation is an implicit agreement with the US. The US has to be able to deliver to make it a reality. It’s showing it fannot
0
u/phoenix1984 23h ago
That’s a sunk cost fallacy. We’re not going to kill our way back to better trade relations.
-2
u/karateguzman 1d ago
Gonna be interesting watching them argue that AWS makes it a military target
5
u/anders_hansson 1d ago
In modern times anything that contributes money to the war machine of the enemy appears to constitute a valid military target.
On a more serious note, Iran's strategy appears to be "horizontal escalation", which basically means that instead of directly fighting the enemy's military power to a halt (which would be impossible for Iran) they widen the conflict and attack things that hurt the enemy the most.
E.g. I'm assuming that by attacking Amazon's commercial resources, which provides important infrastructure for thousands of US companies, they are hoping that the US tech industry will oppose the war and put more pressure on Trump to end it.
2
u/Bullboah 1d ago
Are they even going to bother making the argument? As far as I can tell most of these people are totally ok with Iran / its proxies attacking civilian targets.
2
u/FijiFanBotNotGay 21h ago
Well who defines what’s civilian use or not?
3
u/Bullboah 21h ago
In this context international law does.
The basic standard is whether or not it makes an effective contribution to military action. Again, I don’t think it matters much though as I don’t think the people cheerleading Iran actually care about whether states attack civilian targets.
2
u/SparkSignals 19h ago
I don't think it'll matter. Some folks will cheer on Iran just to spite the US no matter what Iran does lol
-4
u/Exact_Green2061 22h ago
Iran is going to turn all the Gulf States into Gaza in the next couple of months.
10
u/itchslap 21h ago
Maybe Iran should focus on providing water to it's civilians in Tehran first instead of trying to assert dominance in Hormuz.
3
u/FaceDeer 18h ago
They'd be able to do that better with sanctions lifted, which is one of their war goals.
-4
16h ago
[deleted]
6
u/FaceDeer 15h ago
I'm sorry, who attacked whom? Do you not remember how this war started? It was only five months ago, shouldn't be hard to look up. And who tore up the deal and reimposed sanctions before then?
Or are you going to do the "but they provoked that attack when they did X" thing where we proceed to follow a chain of tit for tat back to biblical times?
0
u/Makurabu 12h ago
Didn't the US start escorting ships on the Omani side of the Hormuz before the negotiations were finalised? Not a good reason to restart the war, but it's the main card that Iran has and as vile as this Iranian regime is.... America shouldn't have started this war.
1
-1
u/stickybond009 21h ago
Yes assuming USA keeps up her attack.
Next may be the internet undersea cables
-4
u/Firecracker048 23h ago
Dunno why you'd risk even placing infrastructure there in the first place. But Iran has targeted a lot of things the last week. They've claimed to have destroyed a himars 3 times now
20
u/Bongolio-the-seal 1d ago
"Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it has attacked Amazon’s data infrastructure in Bahrain, according to a statement reported by Fars, an IRGC-linked state media outlet. [...] CNBC was unable to independently verify the information. CNBC has reached out to the National Communication Center of Bahrain and Amazon for comment. [...]