8 ms·
Iran warns U.S. tech firms could become targets as war expands
- tim-tday 7mo ago[flagged]
- weregiraffe 7mo ago[flagged]
- mothballed 7mo ago[flagged]
- dmix 7mo ago> and from there they can grind on for decades with no victory to anyone. I see that as unlikely, at most they might try to temporarily secure the edges of the strait of hormuz with ground troops. Which is far a different scenario than operating 500 FOBs, huge airbases, and a giant greenzones in major cities like Iraq/Afghanistan or even Vietnam.
- everyone 7mo agoHistory is positively littered with examples of powerful empires embarking on a "quick" "easy" campaign then ends up taking years or decades.
- dmix 7mo agoI don't expect this administration to care about the Iranian people when it comes down to it, which is the only scenario they'd ever commit to something like that. They will likely only care about American objectives like destroying their navy/combat capabilities and make some deal with an IRGC leader to let them save face for an exit.
- tyg13 7mo agoThe belief in "72 virgins" (not 52) is not a common belief amongst Muslim men. It's basically a Western misconception, likely inspired by a specific translation of Osama bin Laden's 1996 manifesto.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- dttze 7mo ago[dead]
- mrcsharp 7mo agoI thought it was 72.
- dexzod 7mo agoIt is buried way down in the article. Iran issued this statement after us/Israel targeted Iranian banks.
- bikesharing 7mo ago[dead]
- aerodog 7mo agowhat percentage of inference globally happens from datacenters in middle east and israel?
- lm28469 7mo agoIdk about inference but the bulk of VPN providers you see ads for on every other youtube video are Israeli
- SimianSci 7mo agoPointlessness of this war aside, I fail to see how the situation is materially different than it was prior to the war begining. Iran has generally been an active and persistant threat for many US firms long before this war began, and I have a hard time thinking they have had the restraint and the resources to collect together an arsenal of zero-day exploits they have yet to unleash. To me, this just reads as empty threats intended more for the potential economic fear it can produce.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- joe_mamba 7mo ago>Pointlessness of this war aside It's only pointless as long as you ignore their legitimate attempts of building nukes. If you don't want them to have nukes, then military action is the only way to stop them unfortunately. Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage, so might as well do everything you can to prevent that before it happens, now that Russia is too busy to lend them a hand. >Iran has generally been an active and persistant threat for many US firms long before this war began I doubt this. Iran's leadership, like any dictatorship, just wants to be left alone to subjugate its people and enjoy the masses of wealth and power they have. When you're in such a privileged but fragile position, you don't go around poking the hornet's nest looking to start a fight with the biggest military in the world, because it would mean your end. But Iran will probably retaliate now that they got attacked. OR, it will be a false flag to justify boots on the ground. IDK.
- the_gastropod 7mo agoThe "legitimate attempts of building nukes" as claimed by the same folks who, ~9 months ago said "Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated, and suggestions otherwise are fake news" (https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-facilities-have-been-obliterated-and-suggestions-otherwise-are-fake-news/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa...).
- surgical_fire 7mo agoIf they warn, then I doubt they can do it. If they could do it, they would do it first and brag about it after. And I say this as someone on team Persia on this conflict.
- Jtsummers 7mo agoThe warning is a way to get companies to apply pressure to their governments. The attacks that follow (if they follow) will demonstrate that this was serious. They've already hit airports, hotels, ships, and US military bases so there's no reason to think that a corporate office in the region is safe when the US military isn't able to block all the attacks against its own facilities.
- zetanor 7mo agoOh no, Iran, please don't destroy our giant public-private surveillance apparatus!
- ritlo 7mo agoI've seen another headline today suggesting the UK might drop to a 3-day workweek to conserve fuel. Like damn, between reduced work-weeks and the prospect of wrecking our government-entwined spyvertising parasites, maybe the war was a good idea...
- jmyeet 7mo agoThis is an interesting issue: what constitutes a valid military target? Traditionally that meant armed forces, their bases, their supplies and so on. But the line has gotten awful blurry. Tech companies have become entwined with the state and are fundamnetal parts of both domestic and foreign policy. Targeting of military strikes is an obvious example [1][2]. I believe that in the very least these companies have risen to the level of defense contractors so Palantir is at least as valid of a target as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman or Boeing. Is that sufficiently valid? I don't know. But I don't think you can plead ignorance about what your tech platform is being used for, particularly if you're Palantir. You are helping a military force kill people and are deciding which people. You can't wash your hands of that. [1]: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ [2]: https://www.business-humanrights.org/es/%C3%BAltimas-noticias/palantir-allegedly-enables-israels-ai-targeting-amid-israels-war-in-gaza-raising-concerns-over-war-crimes/ https://www.business-humanrights.org/es/%C3%BAltimas-noticia...
- Jtsummers 7mo ago> Traditionally that meant armed forces, their bases, their supplies and so on. That definition actually isn't traditional, it's recent and was created due to what was seen in both the World Wars last century. Fire bombing Dresden? Not a legitimate military target by modern definitions (parts of Dresden perhaps, but not the way the attack was conducted). The rockets fired at the UK by the Germans almost blindly? Not legitimate by today's standard. Prior to the Geneva Convention, there was much less debate about legitimacy, it was just done.
- lm28469 7mo ago> This is an interesting issue: what constitutes a valid military target? Everything that hurts the only thing the orange retard cares about, the stock market, they've been pretty clear about it I think
- bawolff 7mo agoIs a cyberattack a military action? Like if you take over a control system to open a dam, sure i'd buy that as counting. But say ddos'ing a website? Its hard for me to picture that as counting as an armed attack. > Traditionally that meant armed forces, their bases, their supplies and so on. But the line has gotten awful blurry. Tech companies have become entwined with the state and are fundamnetal parts of both domestic and foreign policy. Targeting of military strikes is an obvious example The idea of having private companies form part of your defense industrial base isn't new. I would assume the same rules apply to tech companies contributing as a factory making dual use products for the war effort would.
- bawolff 7mo agoPretty sure if they were capable of that then they would just do it instead of threatening to do it. Nobody in the middle of an existential war threatens to attack more - they just attack with everything they've got. After all, they already bombed an AWS data center in 2 countries who were not participating in the war.
- jzb 7mo ago"Nobody in the middle of an existential war threatens to attack more - they just attack with everything they've got." That sounds like a poor strategy. Expend all of your resources in one grand gesture rather than trying to push your enemy's internal factions to curtail or end the fighting? Unlike the current US administration, Iran is playing a long game - one in which it has been isolated in many ways. Indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets is not going to win it many friends; putting pressure on the tech companies that have been buddying up to the administration and may have some sway, on the other hand, is a cheap strategy that could pay off. Iran understands that the only language that seems to matter with Trump's backers is profit; threaten that and you may have some success. The fact that Iran has already done some damage to AWS data centers makes it seem likely they could do so again if they tried. I don't know for certain, I'm not a military intelligence expert, but the strategy of "throw the kitchen sink at it" seems like a sure loser.
- bawolff 7mo agoI guess i should say, nobody holds back out of being nice. If they hold back its because of some strategic benefit, such as rationing the weapons for the long haul. What is the strategic benefit here of not attacking? The warning is unlikely to change us behaviour by itself, at most it might just get america more on alert. > Iran is playing a long game Doesn't seem like it. Attacking semi-neutral gulf states and mining the strait are desperation moves. They are things that sacrafice the long term but you still do them because if you dont fix the short term there won't be a long term. > Indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets is not going to win it many friends Which has played out in practise... part of the reason why the usa is getting such limited push back internationally (basically just some strongly worded letters) is nobody really like iran because of how they have conducted themselves historically. They have had no issue with fairly indiscriminate attacks so far in this war, i doubt they are going to start now. > The fact that Iran has already done some damage to AWS data centers makes it seem likely they could do so again if they tried. The threat here seemed to be cyberattacks and/or physical attacks on US based infrastructure. Nobody doubts that iran can fire drones/missiles at their next door neighbour (although some reason to doubt they can keep it up). Attacks on us soil and/or cyberattacks are a different story.
- beloch 7mo agoIf I were an opponent of the U.S., my short-list of companies to threaten (regardless of ability to carry through) would be the list of donors to Trump's ballroom. In Trump's febrile mind, only chumps pay taxes but there is some care for the people currently handing him money that's his to spend as he wishes. Not surprisingly, pretty much every company mentioned in this article is on that list.
- eunos 7mo agoNah it's foolish to think only that it's just Trump war.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- O1111OOO 7mo agoDo they mean the US Tech firms that are already an extension of the state(s) that initiated this conflict and have been terrorizing the world?