Iran Strikes Leave Amazon Availability Zones 'Hard Down' In Bahrain and Dubai (bigtechnology.com) 193
Iranian strikes have reportedly knocked out key AWS availability zones in Bahrain and Dubai, leaving parts of both regions effectively offline for an extended period and forcing Amazon to urge teams and customers to shift workloads elsewhere. "These two regions continue to be impaired, and services should not expect to be operating with normal levels of redundancy and resiliency," an internal Amazon communication memo reads. "We are actively working to free and reserve as much capacity as possible in the region for customers, and services should be scaled to the minimal footprint required to support customer migration." Big Technology reports: With the war now nearing its sixth week, Iran has made Amazon infrastructure in the Gulf an economic target and is now eyeing its peers. Amazon's Bahrain facilities have been hit multiple times, including a Wednesday strike that caused a fire. And its facilities in the UAE also sustained multiple hits. The IRGC is threatening multiple other U.S. tech giants, including Microsoft, Google, and Apple.
Amazons infrastructure in Bahrain and Dubai each have three 'availability zones' or clusters of compute. Both Bahrain and Dubai have a zones that are "hard down" and and "impaired but functioning," per the internal communication. "We do not have a timeline for when DXB and BAH will return to normal operations," the internal post said.
Amazons infrastructure in Bahrain and Dubai each have three 'availability zones' or clusters of compute. Both Bahrain and Dubai have a zones that are "hard down" and and "impaired but functioning," per the internal communication. "We do not have a timeline for when DXB and BAH will return to normal operations," the internal post said.
Please sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, please, please! We're winning too much! I don't know what to do.
Re:Please sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Very few people support the Islamic Republic regime. We all know it's a disgusting regime.
However, we can still criticize the completely stupid reasons the USA started this war and the absolutely incompetent way it is being prosecuted by the USA.
Re: (Score:1)
Very few people support the Islamic Republic regime.
actually, right now the overwhelming majority of the iranian population does, and i don't see how anyone's opinion from elsewhere in the world is relevant. it's called "rally the flag", and it's what tends to happen when foreign powers kill your leaders, children and generally bomb you for no reason. somehow they thought iranians would cheer them on or throw their arms up into the air ...
We all know it's a disgusting regime.
who is "we all" and how do you know? honestly, i don't really know many details about their philosophy or government styl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know many Iranians. Not a single one of them supports the regime. And they tell me anti-regime sentiment is widespread within Iran.
There were many videos of Iranians inside Iran celebrating when Khamanei was killed.
Yes, probably now there's a rally-round-the-flag effect because the US and Israel have been hitting civilian infrastructure and Iranians don't like that. But you should not confuse Iranians angry about their neighbours being killed and civilian infrastructure destroyed, with support for
Re: (Score:2)
I know many Iranians. Not a single one of them supports the regime.
how many of them are actually in iran? if you're talking about a few expats in london or ny i can believe that.
There were many videos of Iranians inside Iran celebrating when Khamanei was killed.
in iran? i doubt that. do you have a link? killing khamenei was like killing the pope, the whole shia community is aghast.
here's a video of actual iranians in iran, it's just a few hours old: https://t.me/DDGeopolitics/180... [t.me]
these videos just keep coming in, i can show you many others if you want. they demonstrate for the regime every day, even under attack. these are very brave and dignified peopl
Re: (Score:1)
None of the Iranians I know are in Iran, but many have friends and family there.
Here [iranintl.com] is a link of people celebrating Khamanei's death.
There are no doubt pro-regime demonstrations. When such a vicious regime demands a supportive demonstration, people will comply.
Note that many Iranians are secular. Persian culture predates Islam by centuries, if not millenia, so when you say that killing Khamanei was like killing the Pope... that really doesn't matter to secular Iranians, who only saw him as a vicio
Re: (Score:2)
Here [iranintl.com] is a link of people celebrating Khamanei's death.
really. that news site is based in london, funded with saudi money, and their openly stated stance is pro-monarchist, opposed to the islamic republic and allegedly pro-israel. :-) the videos are blurred out and it's not really clear what they represent, or when that happened. really crappy job.
There are no doubt pro-regime demonstrations. When such a vicious regime demands a supportive demonstration, people will comply.
really. so if they demonstrate it has to be because the "vicious regime demands it", foregone conclusion.
know what, let's just wait a bit and see! they surely will overthrow the vicious government they hate so much an
Re: (Score:3)
really. that news site is based in london, funded with saudi money, and their openly stated stance is pro-monarchist,
"That news site" happens to be very popular inside of Iran.
The monarchist talking point ignores critical context and is generally intended to sway low information readers. While there are monarchists who mean it the majority speaking of kings and chanting related slogans are not actually calling for literal return of monarchy. It is a mix of trolling / speaking against the illegitimate regime, nostalgia for the past and generally wanting a new system. Not even RP wants a monarchy and if there is one the
Re: (Score:2)
Iranians that support the regime, support it's campaign of brutality that has been affecting so many Iranians for the last 50 years. Most Iranians in the West escaped or left because of this. But many have family and friends there and know first hand of the sufferings the people have endured.
It's an evil regime, no question about it. They aren't heros. They are people that enjoy mass hangings, torture, rape, and a long list of atrocities that have been long documented.
(that being said.. that doesn't mean th
Re: (Score:2)
in iran? i doubt that. do you have a link? killing khamenei was like killing the pope,
LOL Khamenei wasn't even qualified to be an ayatollah. A fact he himself admitted. All pretenses went out the window when they picked Mojtaba to inherent the throne as puppet of the IRGC mafia state.
the whole shia community is aghast.
Reza Pahlavi is a Shia. I'm sure he was devastated and heartbroken over the demise of the Zahhak.
here's a video of actual iranians in iran, it's just a few hours old: https://t.me/DDGeopolitics/180 [t.me]...
these videos just keep coming in, i can show you many others if you want. they demonstrate for the regime every day, even under attack. these are very brave and dignified people, they're indeed royally pissed but not precisely with their government atm, and they will not yield.
There is a massive selection bias in the information coming out of Iran. The only people who have working Internet are certified regime loyalists/propogandists. Everyone else is blocked. There are some with Sta
Re: (Score:2)
no can do. it appears they don't need any nukes to kick ass ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
which terrorism? doesn't have iran the right to "defend itself"? rhetorical question.
let's see:
- support of hamas? albeit being labelled a "terrorist organization" (and albeit having carried out some actions that might be considered such), hamas is actually lawfully covered by the un resolutions as a resistance organization fighting an ongoing genocide. actually, every single signatory to the un has the obligation to support such resistance and prevent genocide, and iran is one of the very few countries tha
Re:Please sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, choke on an Iranian nuke.
Please, choke on Bibi's circumcised missile. He's been saying "TWO WEEKS" for several decades.
The former Supreme Leader who was assassinated by America & Israel *specifically* said that Iran was not pursuing nuke weapons and that such were un-Islamic.
Did he mean it? I don't know but I do know that, just like Iraq, no WMDs have been found despite regular inspections.
That's a statement that no good Christian or Jewish leader has ever made and Israel's leaders get very coquettish when asked point blank if they have nukes.
Re: (Score:3)
The way to stop nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is to disarm Israel. They have somewhere between 100 and 200 nukes, and multiple ways to deliver them (aircraft, missiles, submarines). They also have the "Samson Option", where if Zionism is on the brink of extinction they are threatening to launch them indiscriminately. Europe is within their range, by the way.
Re: (Score:2)
"All I can say is, I hope the Iranians murder you and your family first, before my family murders them."
Happy Easter to you too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
then why did the iranians rally around it after the leader was killed? you seem to believe the propaganda machine instead of logic, and calling people's regime "disgusting" after blowing up a girls school is pretty fucked up, not just disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
> then why did the iranians rally around it after the leader was killed?
They didn't. They celebrated in the streets when Khamanei was killed. [iranintl.com]
Re: Please sir (Score:2)
Re: Please sir (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the US didn't start the war, Israel did. Trump was just too weak to avoid getting dragged into it, and now he doesn't know how to end it.
Of course Israel doesn't want it to end, they want to keep bombing Lebanon and annexing parts of it to build their Greater Israel.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the US didn't start the war, Israel did.
To be fair, this is why we founded the nation of Israel in the British partition of Palestine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bombing people doesn't really help them.
I see Israel has started its usual tactics of destroying all the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, in preparation for annexing part of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are advocating that the US get rid of it's nukes?
That's my takeaway from your statements...
Winners and losers (Score:2)
Actually the big winners are pretty clear: Netanyahu and Putin. And they are NOT tired of winning yet. Especially not on America's dime. And speculators with insider information. They also won too much and are still winning.
I'm not sure who the biggest losers are yet. Obviously the Iranians are leading candidates, especially any moderate Iranians running loose in Iran. They were probably the most targeted victims the day after the war started.
My growing concern is with Xi's plans to get in on the winning. W
Re:Please sir (Score:5, Insightful)
You sure you want this regime to win?
Win what? Remind me again what this war is about?
Re:Please sir (Score:4, Insightful)
Which regime? The current Iranian one, the one running is Israel or the one running the US right now? They are all kinda crap quite honestly. At this point Israel's and Iran's leaders are probably competing for body count. Iran it is is its own people and Israel its the Palestinians, which they treat as scum.
Re: Please sir (Score:3)
AIUI, the aim of Operation Epstein Amnesia is to bring peace and justice to the world.
The Epstein files (Score:2)
Re: Please sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran is "vulnerable" and "weak"? Really? It just took out a $750M E-3 Sentry AWACS using missiles and drones that probably cost it a total of a couple of million bucks. It downed an F-15E and an A-10. It damaged a Black Hawk helicopter.
The stakes for the Islamic Republic regime are existential. If it survives, it wins. And in the entire history of warfare, the number of regime changes achieved via air attacks alone is precisely: ZERO.
That means boots on the ground. In a country of 90 million that can probably rustle up 1 million troops to defend itself. You really think the USA is going to go there?
The end result will be the survival of the Iranian regime, which over the next 5-10 years will rebuild its missile and drone capabilities and probably double down on building nukes. And it will never trust the USA again, having been attacked while in the middle of negotiations.
Meanwhile, the USA has a significantly depleted Patriot arsenal and other weapons and is going to suffer enormous economic shocks. And Russia's loving the increased oil prices (except thankfully, Ukraine is hitting its ability to export oil, but still... it will end up benefiting Russia.)
Re: (Score:1)
America doesn't have infinite patience though...choose wisely...
Re: (Score:2)
Let me add that when LBJ went into Vietnam, its population was about 40M, and he put 500,000 troops in. Iran's population is over 90M, and the Idiot and the Drunk have 15,000 read to go.
Re: (Score:2)
You fucking PoS. I note you're here, and not enlisting to invade Iran.
And no, you think 500,000 troops can control a county of 40M? Who REALLY DO NOT WANT YOU THERE? IT'S THEIR FUCKING COUNTRY.
How 'bout we take over the government, and send troops to MAGAland, and see how you feel about it.
Re: Please sir (Score:5, Informative)
Again: I do not want Iran to win. But it will win, because you (and the current American government) completely miss the point.
Iran wins by having its regime survive. And the survival of that regime is not in doubt. At least, not unless the USA invades with ground troops and is willing to take thousands to tens of thousands of casualties.
Do you really want that to happen? Do you think the American public wants it to happen?
Also, please provide citations for "regular Iranians" taking over police stations. The Iranian regime has shown it's willing to act with the utmost brutality, and 50M unarmed civilians cannot win against 1M armed troops.
Re: Please sir (Score:5, Informative)
"Normal Iranian people despise their theocratic "leadership". Those 1 million Iranian troops will be no match for the 50 million Iranians standing up to them. You can already start to see it in places where the regular people have taken over police stations and begun to arm themselves for what's coming."
I think you misunderstand the amount of support the mullah's have, and the nature of the support.
In Iraq Saddam Hussein was supported by a political party. The members of his part liked him, but he represented a regime and a source of power. The supporters of Khamenei also probably view it that way. In his immediate circle. But beyond that he represents Islam itself to a substantial portion of the masses.
While the city folk have grown tired of the regime, and want to go back to living a more Western lifestyle like they heard Iran had in the 1970s, the country folk are often bound to a strong tradition of supporting the mullahs, and listening to them and "imitating" then as their religion teaches them to.
Just like there are many ignorant people in other countries that support crazy regimes (some argue the US is one of these countries), there are many ignorant people that will support the mullah's.
The entrenchment of the mullah's didn't start in the 1970s.. it has a very long history. 1979 was only a culmination of that.
So yes. Many of the 50 million are tired and hate the regime. But a strong segment of the populace considers it their absolute religious duty to support the mullahs. These segments of the population have often risen up themselves and taken matters into their own hands when someone was deemed an "enemy of Islam" (their version of it). The fanaticism runs deep in them.
This isn't going away with a few bombs.
A more realistic way this would play out is if some military commander took charge (like Reza Shah did in 1925) and forcibly Westernized the country imposing strong limitations on the mullah's and punishing any that openly oppose.
But it's unclear if such a dictator exists today. And surely that would bring about new problems.
I hope I'm wrong and the IRGC, and the Basij, and the army, and the whole religious establishment's strong grip on the government can be weakened. But the situation doesn't seem that way right now.
Re: (Score:2)
You're repeating false propaganda. Iran was in compliance with the Nuclear nonproliferation treaty as well as the JCPOA. Iran never talked about "exterminating the Jews" and instead talked about regime change for the oppressive Israeli regime, unless you think Israel talking about the same kind of "regime change" for Iran means mass extermination.
Re: Please sir (Score:4, Insightful)
I’m a bit confused and maybe you can clear this up. Why does Iran need to be “sidelined”?
Re: Please sir (Score:5, Insightful)
You’re so close to getting it. Look in the mirror motherfucker.
Re:Please sir (Score:4, Informative)
it's called operation "epstein fury" for a reason ... or was it "epic fail"? idk anymore ...
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Please sir (Score:5, Insightful)
You sure you want this regime to win? Consider what happens if we pull out now and the current regime remains in power. What happens next year? What about the year after? You really think that everything is gonna return to the way it was before? And, was everything really that peachy keen before?
This reasoning is flawed. The same logic could easily be used to justify genocide. When I read your post, I read it as:
"You've killed 5% of [insert group of people]. Do you really want to stop now? Because if you do, the ones who are left will hate you for the rest of your lives, and will find ways to attack you for decades. The only reasonable choice is to nuke the entire country."
Because literally, you could justify turning Iran to glass with your same logic. This is why decent human beings do not even consider starting a war without a concrete strategy, including:
Regardless, criticizing the U.S. going into the war in the first place is not letting the current government of Iran win. Hell, insisting that the U.S. exit the war is not letting the government of Iran win. Their country took a lot of damage, and it will take years to rebuild. At best, it would be a draw.
Try tuning out the constant blather of misinformation, distraction, and entertainment that's streaming from the current US administration. Yes, I know it's hard to do. The stuff is designed to hack into your brain and drain your IQ. Ignore that stuff and pay attention to what's actually happening. This thing is being executed by the military planners, not the elected hacks.
On orders from the elected hacks, with justification from the elected hacks, and exit criteria specified by the elected hacks, assuming it has been specified at all.
Sometime in the next 10 years, China is seriously considering throwing down with the US. They want to be top dog and we're not ready to give up the top spot yet. When they do, Russia and Iran will definitely be on their side. If they can.
Unclear. What is clear is that if China decides to go to war with the world, their economic output will go away, so they have a lot to lose by doing so. Russia and Iran have every excuse to be abusive neighbors, because they have nothing to lose, and this is the fault of decades of failed foreign policy by the United States.
We're making sure that they can't.
The U.S. is going after Russia? Seems like this war is creating a huge surplus of oil revenue for Russia, now that the entire Middle East is cut off from the rest of the world. It is making Iran weaker and Russia stronger. At best, it's a draw, but more likely, it's a huge mistake.
One would hope that the U.S. is going after Iran's drone factories, which does hurt Russia a little bit, particularly in their war against Ukraine, but given that this is likely to basically erase all of the consequences of Russia starting that war with Ukraine, not to mention massively damaging the relationship between the U.S. and its NATO allies, effectively making Russia *massively* more powerful on the world stage than it was before this disastrously incompetent war began, it's hard to see this war as having any meaningful upside.
This has nothing to do with Israel.
Nobody ever thought it did.
You think that the world is suffering right now? Imagine having to deal with all the current sh&t, but simultaneously dealing with China invading Taiwan and Uncle Sam trying to prevent it. Missiles flying everywhere. Oil and gas shut down. Half the worlds shipping offline. TSMC chip manufacturing permanently and totally offline. God only knows what else. Better to deal with those two things in serial rather than in parallel.
Not going to happen. TSMC is building
Re: (Score:1)
What Iranians fear the most, is the US backing off (ie. the TACO) and then the regime cracking down twice as hard.
In fact, the regime has been doing exactly that as the US has been bombing. Many political opponents, protesters, and even minorities that have nothing to do with this but are often scapegoated are getting arrested, tortured, and executed. Right now this is happening.
Re:Please sir (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
North Korea has nukes and we haven’t done a thing to them. As a matter of fact we’re still technically at war.
Re: (Score:2)
>The same Iran indiscriminately bombing it neighboring countries, holding the world to ransom, and threatening to destroy the drinking water of it's neighbours.
Yeah, they are doing all of this as a RESPONSE to Israel and the US doing it FIRST! Goodness, you need to learn to read some news.
Re: (Score:2)
now imagine Iran got nukes...
Attacking nuclear facilities is at least moderately rational. Various countries have done that half a dozen times over the past few years. Attacking drone manufacturing and storage might also be reasonable.
But...
What does an illegal decapitation attack have to do with nukes? Do you think the new supreme leader is going to somehow be more rational than the last one? There is a fundamental difference between going after clear military targets to prevent Iran from developing weapons that threaten their nei
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think the new supreme leader is going to somehow be more rational than the last one?
That's the simplicity of the system I already outlined for you up above. Just repeat until one is. Iran will run out of irrational ayatollahs long before America runs out of bombs.
If by simple, you mean simplistic, then yeah. What you're forgetting is that every time a bomb kills someone's mother, father, brother, sister, wife, son, or daughter, another America hater is born. So there's likely to be an endless supply of irrational leaders, so long as they are put into power by someone bombing the previous leader along with random military targets.
The only regime changes that are ever really positive long-term are regime changes led by the people of a country against their leaders.
Re: (Score:2)
oh, i know. i just read that starting next year german males aged 17-45 will need explicit permission to leave the country for more than 3 months. it's coming, they are all pushing for world war and it's going to get very nasty pretty soon. i guess the ponzi scheme needs to be recycled. it's not even the military planners, it's the bankers.
otoh i totally understand your concern if another power becomes hegemonic, be it china, russia, iran or whatever. but guess what, it is us (as in "we, the west") who have
Re:Please sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, I do not want the Islamic Regime to win this war.
But Iran will beat the USA. Not because the US military is bad. It isn't; it's the best in the world.
The problem is that the USA will lose because its political leadership is completely incompetent. It had no idea how Iran would react. It thought this would be Venezuela II. Even though any armchair general could have predicted that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz to cause economic pain, Trump seems to have been caught by surprise.
The US political leadership has no plan, no clear goals, no strategy, and no clue who they are dealing with. They are going to put their own soldiers' lives at risk and are going to totally botch this shitshow.
The real winners in this are Russia and China. A weakened USA is just what they want, and it's just what they are going to get.
Re: (Score:2)
Go back through history and you'll find that the generals we remember and celebrate are those who thought out of the box, it's never been a pure game of
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah. The US military is the best in the world for massive high-tech conventional wars.
Ukraine is probably the best in the world for drone warfare.
Iran is far superior to the USA when it comes to retaining strike capabilities under enormous pressure from a stronger foe.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a meaningless statement. The politicians frame the engagement, but that has always been the case in all wars everywhere. Read Clausewitz. There are parameters and objectives. If a general can't deliver within these parameters, it means he's not good enough.
Same if your boss is telling you to build some accounting software, and you complain that it's impossible and he should let you build a flight simulator instead.
Re:Please sir (Score:5, Informative)
The USA is getting weaker in the following ways:
1. It's pissed off most of its allies who will be much less likely to help them out in future. We all helped out after 9/11 and in Afghanistan. That ain't happening in future with the attitude from the Trump regime.
2. The USA is sabotaging its own economy, first with ridiculous sanctions and second by blowing up the world economy with this war.
3. The USA may have an impressive industrial base, but dig deeper... pretty much every supply chain in the USA has some dependence on China or some other country, and alienating those countries is not a good strategy.
4. The weakening of democracy in the USA and its contempt for the international order is emboldening countries like China and Russia. They feel much less constrained by a weakened and disengaged USA. As for oil, the USA is allowing Iranian tankers through! So China will get its oil anyway, because Trump is afraid to block it and make oil prices spike even higher.
Re: (Score:2)
1. It's pissed off most of its allies who will be much less likely to help them out in future. We all helped out after 9/11 and in Afghanistan. That ain't happening in future with the attitude from the Trump regime.
Trump has pissed off a lot of allies and created a lot of bad sentiment. This doesn't change anything. If shit really hit the fan our allies would assist just the same given it would likely be in their direct interests to do so.
2. The USA is sabotaging its own economy, first with ridiculous sanctions and second by blowing up the world economy with this war.
I will agree the issue with traffic thru hormuz is a drag on the worlds economies.
3. The USA may have an impressive industrial base, but dig deeper... pretty much every supply chain in the USA has some dependence on China or some other country, and alienating those countries is not a good strategy.
What country is being alienated to a relevant extent? Is there an actual issue with the supply chain caused by present day alienation? If not how is the USA getting weaker when there is no impact?
Re:Please sir (Score:4, Informative)
Trump has pissed off a lot of allies and created a lot of bad sentiment. This doesn't change anything.
Bad sentiment, seriously? Trump directly and voluntarily damaged our economies (with tariffs). Trump threatened our national security, more than once! Trump denied us needed help for our friend Ukraine!
I personally see the USA to have POTENTIAL to be a FRIEND AGAIN one day in the future (which I hope is soon -- I'd love to feel secure and visit the USA again, or visit the students I send there as myself an academic with active collaborations with some of your top 5 institutions). But politically/militarily cannot consider the USA to be a friend right now as per definition of friendship which implies reciprocity. We haven't had evidence of reciprocity lately, while he have had evidence of duplicity, and even evidence we need to be careful.
our allies would assist just the same given it would likely be in their direct interests to do so.
1. What allies? My news last week says Trump threatened again to with draw from NATO. You say we're allies again this week?
2. Let's see these direct interests: Iran has demonstrated they are not stupid. They aren't at war with the world, they are at war against whoever bombs them, or helps the bombings happen. It's in the European NATO country's BEST INTEREST to remain NEUTRAL in this war, and avoid becoming a target.
The facts that show EU countries intend to remain neutral:
* Several EU country already signalled they won't help. Spain DENIED the USA flying over their airspace with military aircraft.
* France sent an aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean to secure the European interests; then refused to use it to secure Ormuz, and making the point to say they're not at war with Iran. Obviously! France has ONE aircraft carrier. We don't want to have it pinned in Ormuz, when we are in a hybrid war with Russia!
This war is already costing us militarily. We (France) are helping friends in the middle east, using OUR anti-missile resources to defend their ground. We spent years of stock, and we can't make those missiles very fast. Soon we will have depleted our stock of anti-air missiles and no way to restore stocks in less than a decade, while Russia is out there at our doorstep...
What is going to happen if some country decides to help the USA in this war? Apart from direct retaliations from Iran...
* this country designates itself as a target for local terrorism. European countries have populous Iranian communities and won't take that risk easily.
* if European countries send troops to Iran, Europe would be making themselves vulnerable to the Russian front. We're not that stupid! We need our entire military in Europe to remain dissuasive against Russia.
If shit really hit the fan
What is your scenario "shit really hits the fan" where NATO countries would benefit in helping the USA? Let's speculate:
(1) somehow Iran manages to retaliate against the USA on American ground (since they can't send troops, maybe a couple of missiles, or through terrorism).
1. Would Trump invoke NATO Article 5? Really, with his ego? Then would anyone trust him with help right now? Or is he going to impose 200% more tariffs (like he threatened Spain two weeks ago) if he doesn't get exactly the amounts of troops he wants, or the amount of money he demands, or whatever goes through his mind that morning?
2. Can you provide any reason why we would actually risk our lives for a war we didn't choose, we were not even be INFORMED OF a minute in advance? I don't see any benefit for any to enter this mess.
3. We (non-USA part of the world) are at PEACE with Iran right now. Why would we want to become their target?
4. USA is constantly playing Big Boy. What sort of help does Goliath needs against David?
4.1 Do you really think European countries will send troops in Iran? We have democracies, we typically have 4+ political parties in a constan
Re: (Score:2)
Bad sentiment, seriously? Trump directly and voluntarily damaged our economies (with tariffs). Trump threatened our national security, more than once! Trump denied us needed help for our friend Ukraine!
So? I think what Trump is doing is embarrassing, dangerous and counterproductive yet unless he starts invading Greenland or Canada or sells F-35s to Russia or some truly crazy shit nothing substantive is going to change because the existing architecture serves everyone's interests. FFS Europeans are still sending cash to America to buy military equipment not at a discount but at a healthy war profiteers markup. There is a lot of noise but nothing as of yet has fundamentally changed.
1. Would Trump invoke NATO Article 5? Really, with his ego? Then would anyone trust him with help right now? Or is he going to impose 200% more tariffs (like he threatened Spain two weeks ago) if he doesn't get exactly the amounts of troops he wants, or the amount of money he demands, or whatever goes through his mind that morning?
I'm not sure I underst
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Did you mean to ask would Trump respond in good faith to an invocation of Article 5 by European allies?
The opposite. My NATO argument was whether, in the case of an attack against the USA:
(1) Trump would invoke NATO, an alliance he was never trustful in.
Say, why on earth wouldn't Trump just use a red phone and tell UK or Germany or Japan prepare themselves "just in case" because USA will be launching an operation against Iran in a week of time? This level of distrust of Trump in USA's long-time allies is appalling and does not make me think he would ask for help from them.
(2) Whether NATO partners would take
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the US to win there has to be regime change.
For Iran to win, they merely need to get the US to quit attacking them. Then they can continue their purge of opponents and terrorizing the population. They get to keep their power. Which is all they want. And then they can plot a terrorism campaign against the west.
Right now the US is looking weak for reacting against every threat that Iran makes to the gulf states. And the US's inability to secure the Strait. And it's fumbling with it's European allies (that
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is going win this war.
We all lose.
Physical death and destruction in the Middle East. Economic destruction in the rest of the world.
The Middle East will take years to recover (if ever).
The rest of the world will be permanently scarred.
It's truly a World War (III).
Re:Please sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone loses in this war. Imagine if instead of spending $200 billion to bomb poor brown people, we spend the money on helping people in this country?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you expect to win against people who are willing to die for their cause?
Re: (Score:2)
To paraphrase a general, by ensuring they do die for their cause, and we don't.
Our job isn't to die for our country, but to make them die for theirs.
That said, it's expensive and hard, and best avoided when possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So genocide then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Please sir (Score:5, Informative)
200 Billion?! that's nothing...
Trump has requested a 1.5 TRILLION dollar War (Defense) Department budget for 2027. That is a 500 BILLION increase over the 1 TRILLION dollar Defense Department budget he requested for 2026.
He has proposed a 10% reduction in domestic services budgets (Veterans, Medicare, Housing, Infrastructure, Parks, etc.) -amounting to 73 BILLION dollars to go along with it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not all for just this war.
None of it is for this war. It is in addition to the special appropriation he has requested to pay for this war. The 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS is for the next war(s) that he is planning to drag us into.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone loses in this war. Imagine if instead of spending $200 billion to bomb poor brown people, we spend the money on helping people in this country?
Since Russia invaded Ukraine their allies have been dropping like flies. Assad's Syria is no more. Russian influence in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Africa, Venezuela and Cuban are in decline. Even Transnistria is being cut off.
Thanks to the Israelis and now the US the Islamic revolutions power projection is being severely attrited in the region. Russia can't do shit to help Iran who provided it with tens of thousands of drones to kill and terrorize Ukrainian civilians for years. Lebanon is asserting itself ag
Re: (Score:3)
Russia can't do shit to help Iran
Oh, I dunno. A little bit of intelligence and satellite photo assistance and poof there goes a very expensive AWACS.
It's obvious to everyone that Russia is helping Iran with intelligence at the very least, and possibly even with air defenses... how is it that an F-15E was shot down now, a month into the war?
I agree that leaving the war unfinished will be a disaster. However, finishing it is going to take the lives of thousands to tens of thousands of American soldie
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is protecting Khamenei's son as well.
Re: (Score:2)
What obligation does the USA have to protect Israel?
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like the current wanna-be theocracy of trumpistan?
What's the difference between the wife-beating drunkard who quotes a religious text to justify murdering people and the "mullahs", who do the same?
Dirty 30's anyone? (Score:3)
President Jimmy Carter under estimated the support the Ayatollah could muster, burned his own political capital in supporting the Shah, miscalculated the importance of the clerics to Iranian culture (especially in rural and the lower class), and ultimately unprepared for the Iranian Revolution, Absolutely bungled it, and the result was he lost backing of his own party, and haunted the remainder of his presidency.
It's like 2026 is 1978 all over again. And we have people in charge that are incapable of learni
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, like you care about Iran at all. And the Christian mullahs thank you for your support.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/0... [nytimes.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's one of the stupidest, most ignorant statements I've seen today.
1. The US and UK OVERTHREW a democratically-elected government of Iran in 1953, and installed the dictatorship of the Shah.
2. Bombing everyone, indiscriminately, committing war crimes, does NOT endear the populace to you.
3. They want their own country. They do NOT want to be owned by the US.
Raises hand ... (Score:3)
Maybe Amazon can use drones to deliver things ... -- oh, wait. :-)
Some orgs likely already moved their workloads (Score:2)
And (Score:2)
Nothing of value has been lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly web services for people in the Middle East. All part of the plan when launching this special military operation. Grind down every sign of civilization you find to dust.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly web services for people in the Middle East.
Shouldn't have relied on Amazon to begin with.
could have been different? (Score:2)
i wonder if bezos hadn’t kissed trump’s ring, would iran have chosen a different company to hit?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Amazon provides services to the military.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, AWS provides logistics to military and intelligence and has for quite a while.
It's tough to argue, "these aren't military targets, we just rent the equipment and provide services to the military for hundreds of billions of dollars."
Which is probably what people will argue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the IRGC cares whether a particular US company is pro- or anti-Trump. The fact that it's American is adequate
If you disbelieve that, explain why they have been targeting countries that don't have US troops on their territory - Azerbaijan, Iraq, Lebanon, even Turkey
Your digital assets are safe (Score:2)
Your digital assets are safe, as long as the data centers exist.
It was a PRIME target! (Score:4, Funny)
I will show myself out...
Given domestic production ... (Score:1)
Bahrain and Dubai
Given domestic production levels and an interruption of international deliveries from Amazon, Bacon and Liquor prices must be sky rocketing.
how does it affect the war effort (Score:2)
Curious to understand how this might adversely affect the war effort. AWS has to be in the mix for something related to the US operations.
Epstein? (Score:2)