These data centers are CoLoed by AWS but not owned by them - the actual DC is owned and operated by UAE's G42 and Etisalat.
Edit:
I also disagree with the takeaway in this article.
If dual use civilian infrastructure can be viewed as a valid target and compartmentalization of relations is no longer viewed as a justification for neutrality, we have returned to the era of total war.
Iran's argument is that the UAE+Qatar are combatants because they have based American troops despite also allowing IRGC basing and bypassing of sanctions.
If this logic (which imo is very flawed) makes the UAE+Qatar valid targets and combatants, then the US is justified in striking Iran as Iran has been directly aiding and abetting Russia's invasion of Ukraine with troops in Crimea conducting drone strikes [0] and providing ballistic missiles to Russia to strike Ukraine [1].
By extension, this means all foreign relations have to be bipolar, which means admitting we are in a de facto World War (something which Fiona Hill has brought up literally hours before the Iran War began [2]).
Edit: can't reply
Imagine the degree of fall out if say Estonia allowed Ukraine to use their country to set up a base and they started attacking russian infrastructure or Kaliningrad from there
And for once I would agree with russia
Does that include the US and EU [3] providing lethal targeting and geoint capabilities to Ukraine as well as rearming Ukraine?
Because to Iran, Ukraine providing defensive capabilities to Gulf States has now made it a direct combatant against Iran [4].
This is why Iran's strikes across West Asia (including Cyprus) was so destabilizing. If providing dual use capabilities means you should be viewed as a combatant despite also abetting Iran well before the US scaled up it's presence in the late 1990s, then we need to accept we are in a World War.
Neutrality in a war is a complex matter. The basic principle is that a neutral country must make a serious attempt to defend their borders from both parties. To convince both parties that nobody is using the territory of the neutral country to attack them. Because if someone is attacking you from another country, you are eventually allowed to fight back, if the other country is not capable of stopping the attacker.
The exact line between neutrality and being a combatant is necessarily vague. If you allow aircraft from one party to fly through your airspace on combat missions against the other party, you are definitely a combatant. If you allow fuel tankers supporting such aircraft in your airspace, you are almost certainly a combatant. If you let surveillance planes from one party to fly through your airspace while supporting offensive operations, you are probably a combatant. If you only provide intelligence and material support to the party you favor, you are probably not a combatant.
If you allow fuel tankers supporting such aircraft in your airspace, you are almost certainly a combatant. If you let surveillance planes from one party to fly through your airspace while supporting offensive operations, you are probably a combatant.
This is not the norm for a definition of a combatant, and if we adopt the norm Iran has created, then we have to accept that in reality the US and EU have been at war with Russia, Iran, and North Korea since 2022 as the US and EU provide targeting intel and resupply munitions for Ukraine and Iran+NK provide lethal munitions and boots on the ground to Russia for their war in Ukraine.
Edit: cannot reply
because the attacks do not take place from US and EU territory, but all from Ukrainian territory
This is not the justification Iran is using, as has been seen with the standards they are using with regards to Ukraine [0].
Iran has made a foreign policy decision that any nation that provides dual use, lethal, or defensive capabilities against Iran makes them an active combatant.
It is this implication that is so destabilizing globally.
Compartmentalization of foreign relations and not treating dual use technologies as implying directly aiding in combat are sacrosanct becuase the alternative means total war.
Or, becuase you are Dutch, let me put it this way - if Iran is justified in striking Emirati G42's dual use civilian assets for aiding and abetting the US, then Russia has the precedent to strike the Netherlands for directly aiding and abetting Ukraine's lethal offensive capabilities via dual use technology transfers and fundraising [1].
And if we accept Iran's position to be correct (which I do not think it is), then all of NATO has already been in a state of war with Iran since 2022 when Iran began deploying IRGC boots in Crimea [2] to conduct drone strikes on Ukraine.
Not really, because the attacks do not take place from US and EU territory, but all from Ukrainian territory. And they are very careful about never so much as giving the impression that this is not the case.
This is not the norm for a definition of a combatant, and if we adopt the norm Iran has created, then we have to accept that in reality the US and EU have been at war with Russia, Iran, and North Korea since 2022 as the US and EU provide targeting intel and resupply munitions for Ukraine and Iran+NK provide lethal munitions and boots on the ground to Russia for their war in Ukraine.
There are no definitions, only established usage. It has been well established, most recently in the Ukraine war, that intelligence and material support do not mean direct involvement in a war. Assassinations, cyberattacks, and sabotage are also allowed to some extent.
Active involvement in combat operations is another story. You can't make your troops immune to counterattacks by placing them in a third country that is nominally neutral. If they are actively involved in the war, they are a legitimate target, as is the infrastructure supporting them.
There is no exact definition of what counts as active involvement. Not the least because wars tend to be situations, where everyone is acting in bad faith.
Imagine the degree of fall out if say Estonia allowed Ukraine to use their country to set up a base and they started attacking russian infrastructure or Kaliningrad from there. I'm fairly sure russia would see that as Estonia having joined the war.
And for once I would agree with russia. So Iran has - in my opinion - a legitimate claim that if the USA uses other countries to launch their aircraft from that those countries have effectively joined the war.
These data centers are CoLoed by AWS but not owned by them - the actual DC is owned and operated by UAE's G42 and Etisalat.
Edit:
I also disagree with the takeaway in this article.
If dual use civilian infrastructure can be viewed as a valid target and compartmentalization of relations is no longer viewed as a justification for neutrality, we have returned to the era of total war.
Iran's argument is that the UAE+Qatar are combatants because they have based American troops despite also allowing IRGC basing and bypassing of sanctions.
If this logic (which imo is very flawed) makes the UAE+Qatar valid targets and combatants, then the US is justified in striking Iran as Iran has been directly aiding and abetting Russia's invasion of Ukraine with troops in Crimea conducting drone strikes [0] and providing ballistic missiles to Russia to strike Ukraine [1].
By extension, this means all foreign relations have to be bipolar, which means admitting we are in a de facto World War (something which Fiona Hill has brought up literally hours before the Iran War began [2]).
Edit: can't reply
Does that include the US and EU [3] providing lethal targeting and geoint capabilities to Ukraine as well as rearming Ukraine?
Because to Iran, Ukraine providing defensive capabilities to Gulf States has now made it a direct combatant against Iran [4].
This is why Iran's strikes across West Asia (including Cyprus) was so destabilizing. If providing dual use capabilities means you should be viewed as a combatant despite also abetting Iran well before the US scaled up it's presence in the late 1990s, then we need to accept we are in a World War.
[0] - https://www.csis.org/analysis/chapter-8-extending-battlespac...
[0] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/24/iranian-milita...
[1] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-12/iran-is-s...
[2] - https://xcancel.com/FrankRGardner/status/2027098560647348410
[3] - https://www.csis.org/analysis/chapter-8-extending-battlespac...
[4] - https://www.kyivpost.com/post/72965
Is the DC one of the availability zones of an AWS region?
Neutrality in a war is a complex matter. The basic principle is that a neutral country must make a serious attempt to defend their borders from both parties. To convince both parties that nobody is using the territory of the neutral country to attack them. Because if someone is attacking you from another country, you are eventually allowed to fight back, if the other country is not capable of stopping the attacker.
The exact line between neutrality and being a combatant is necessarily vague. If you allow aircraft from one party to fly through your airspace on combat missions against the other party, you are definitely a combatant. If you allow fuel tankers supporting such aircraft in your airspace, you are almost certainly a combatant. If you let surveillance planes from one party to fly through your airspace while supporting offensive operations, you are probably a combatant. If you only provide intelligence and material support to the party you favor, you are probably not a combatant.
This is not the norm for a definition of a combatant, and if we adopt the norm Iran has created, then we have to accept that in reality the US and EU have been at war with Russia, Iran, and North Korea since 2022 as the US and EU provide targeting intel and resupply munitions for Ukraine and Iran+NK provide lethal munitions and boots on the ground to Russia for their war in Ukraine.
Edit: cannot reply
This is not the justification Iran is using, as has been seen with the standards they are using with regards to Ukraine [0].
Iran has made a foreign policy decision that any nation that provides dual use, lethal, or defensive capabilities against Iran makes them an active combatant.
It is this implication that is so destabilizing globally.
Compartmentalization of foreign relations and not treating dual use technologies as implying directly aiding in combat are sacrosanct becuase the alternative means total war.
Or, becuase you are Dutch, let me put it this way - if Iran is justified in striking Emirati G42's dual use civilian assets for aiding and abetting the US, then Russia has the precedent to strike the Netherlands for directly aiding and abetting Ukraine's lethal offensive capabilities via dual use technology transfers and fundraising [1].
And if we accept Iran's position to be correct (which I do not think it is), then all of NATO has already been in a state of war with Iran since 2022 when Iran began deploying IRGC boots in Crimea [2] to conduct drone strikes on Ukraine.
[0] - https://www.kyivpost.com/post/72965
[1] - https://www.dutchdefencecluster.com/
[2] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/24/iranian-milita...
Not really, because the attacks do not take place from US and EU territory, but all from Ukrainian territory. And they are very careful about never so much as giving the impression that this is not the case.
There are no definitions, only established usage. It has been well established, most recently in the Ukraine war, that intelligence and material support do not mean direct involvement in a war. Assassinations, cyberattacks, and sabotage are also allowed to some extent.
Active involvement in combat operations is another story. You can't make your troops immune to counterattacks by placing them in a third country that is nominally neutral. If they are actively involved in the war, they are a legitimate target, as is the infrastructure supporting them.
There is no exact definition of what counts as active involvement. Not the least because wars tend to be situations, where everyone is acting in bad faith.
Imagine the degree of fall out if say Estonia allowed Ukraine to use their country to set up a base and they started attacking russian infrastructure or Kaliningrad from there. I'm fairly sure russia would see that as Estonia having joined the war.
And for once I would agree with russia. So Iran has - in my opinion - a legitimate claim that if the USA uses other countries to launch their aircraft from that those countries have effectively joined the war.