Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
The Internet The Military

Iran Now Threatens Fees for Subsea Internet Cables in the Strait of Hormuz (cnn.com) 341

Posted by EditorDavid from the scared-strait dept.
Iran's government "wants to charge the world's largest tech companies for using the subsea internet cables laid under the Strait of Hormuz," reports CNN. Their article also notes that Iran's state-linked media outlets "have vaguely threatened that traffic could be disrupted if firms don't pay." Lawmakers in Tehran discussed a plan last week which could target submarine cables linking Arab countries to Europe and Asia. "We will impose fees on internet cables," Iranian military spokesperson Ebrahim Zolfaghari declared on X last week. Iran's Revolutionary Guards-linked media said Tehran's plan to extract revenue from the strait would require companies like Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon to comply with Iranian law while submarine cable companies would be required to pay licensing fees for cable passage, with repair and maintenance rights given exclusively to Iranian firms. Some of these companies have invested in the cables running through the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf, but it's unclear if those cables traverse Iranian waters.

It's also unclear how the regime could force tech giants to comply, as they are barred from making payments to Iran due to strict US sanctions; as a result, the companies themselves may view Iran's statements as posturing rather than serious policy. Still, state-affiliated media outlets have issued veiled threats warning of damage to cables that could impact some of the trillions of dollars in global data transmission and affect worldwide internet connectivity... Iran's threats are part of a strategy to demonstrate its leverage over the Strait of Hormuz and ensure the survival of the regime, a core objective for the Islamic Republic in this war, said Dina Esfandiary, Middle East lead at Bloomberg Economics. "It aims to impose such a hefty cost on the global economy that no-one will dare attack Iran again," she said.
The article notes that subsea cables "carry vast internet and financial traffic between Europe, Asia and the Persian Gulf," and that targetting them "would affect far more than internet speeds, threatening everything from banking systems, military communications and AI cloud infrastructure to remote work, online gaming and streaming services."

CNN spoke to Mostafa Ahmed, "a senior researcher at the United Arab Emirates-based Habtoor Research Center, who published a paper on the effects of a large-scale attack on submarine communications infrastructure in the Gulf." Armed with combat divers, small submarines, and underwater drones, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) poses a risk to underwater cables, Ahmed said, adding that any attack could trigger a cascading "digital catastrophe" across several continents. Iran's neighbors across the Persian Gulf could face severe disruptions to internet connection, potentially impacting critical oil and gas exports as well as banking.

Beyond the region, India could see a large proportion of its internet traffic affected, threatening its huge outsourcing industry with losses amounting to billions, according to Ahmed... Any disruption could also slow financial trading and cross-border transactions between Europe and Asia, while parts of East Africa could face internet blackouts. And if Iran's proxies decide to employ similar tactics in the Red Sea, the damage could be far worse.

Iran Now Threatens Fees for Subsea Internet Cables in the Strait of Hormuz More | Reply

Iran Now Threatens Fees for Subsea Internet Cables in the Strait of Hormuz

Comments Filter:

  • Rent-seeking (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Woeful Countenance ( 1160487 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @03:55AM (#66148441)
    IF this is true, it's a perfect, real-world, textbook example of rent-seeking. The classic example is putting a chain across a river used for commerce; this is exactly the same, updated for modern technology. Excellent! Economics students take note!

    • Re:Rent-seeking (Score:5, Interesting)

      by martin-boundary ( 547041 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @06:07AM (#66148585)

      IF this is true, it's a perfect, real-world, textbook example of rent-seeking. The classic example is putting a chain across a river used for commerce; this is exactly the same, updated for modern technology. Excellent! Economics students take note!

      You're wrong on this one. The Internet was designed by DARPA precisely for this kind of situation, namely routing around damage to the network because of war damage.

      The end effect of attempting to cut cables and prevent repair ships from... ahem... repairing the cables in Hormuz during a war or otherwise is that traffic will be transparently diverted to other cables in the network.

      Nobody will notice, except for the neighbouring Gulf states, who will probably see traffic slowdowns, as their other connections must take the packets, and _possibly_ (but that's a long shot) more expensive Internet pricing.

      Literally nobody in the rest of the world will notice any sustained slowdowns on packets. This is completely unlike the oil price hikes, which will remain for at least as long as the US and Israel keep inflaming the region.

      • Re:Rent-seeking (Score:5, Informative)

        by HiThere ( 15173 ) <{charleshixsn} {at} {earthlink.net}> on Monday May 18, 2026 @07:29AM (#66148759)

        That design assumed a dispersed network. The networks have gotten increasingly concentrated. If there's only one connection, you can't route around it.

        OTOH, SpaceX might reap large increases in business, because they would be the only route that wasn't broken. (I don't think Iran has orbital capability.)

        • Re:Rent-seeking (Score:4, Informative)

          by martin-boundary ( 547041 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @08:05AM (#66148801)

          These kinds of undersea maps [fiberatlantic.com] used to be posted regularly on this site.

          They only show the sea cables of course, there are lots of buried land connections everywhere too. The world is way more connected than it was in the 1990s, when the Hacker Tourist [wired.com] went around chasing fibre.

          In this particular case (Hormuz), the impacted Gulf states have 1) plenty of money to pay, 2) plenty of redundant connections with neighbouring countries, and 3) as you rightly point out, Starlink is also an option.

          Iran has a few satellites itself, and gets help from Russian intelligence. That's how they've managed to pinpoint and bomb all the US military bases hidden inside the Gulf states.

      • You're wrong on this one. The Internet was designed by DARPA precisely for this kind of situation, namely routing around damage to the network because of war damage.

        Might want to go look at the global internet connectivity map. Whilst communication to other parts of the world that routed through that area would divert it would still cut that area off from the rest of the world.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by znrt ( 2424692 )

      reparations seeking, in this case.

    • Careful what you ask for. If cables in Irans exclusive economic zone perhaps some rational if standard assessment. IIRC 13 miles from shore common. However internet service providers can also charge Iran hefty connection fees so could bounce back and forth. If Iran does not reciprocate then get shut out. IRGC probably wants shakedown funds over high bandwidth. Getting to greedy this early before a peace deal might backfire with building support for countering.

  • Iran is going to lose access to the gulf (Score:5, Interesting)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @04:09AM (#66148459) Journal
    Beyond worrying about who is good/evil (hint: it's both), it's more rational to look carefully and analyze the situation.

    Iran is likely going to lose access to the gulf. Their reactions to events manage to piss off everyone, even their allies [wsj.com].

    If you are a small country and start annoying everyone in the world, then the world is going to do something about you, even if they are also annoyed with America.

    • Re:Iran is going to lose access to the gulf (Score:4, Informative)

      by chefren ( 17219 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @04:22AM (#66148467)

      With 92 million inhabitants, Iran is hardly a small country..

      • Re:Iran is going to lose access to the gulf (Score:5, Interesting)

        by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @04:47AM (#66148495) Journal
        With a GDP of $300 billion, it's not a powerful country.

        The reality is that no country can fight against the rest of the world alone (including the US). Iran needs allies to win, and the IRGC in particular is toxic to allies.

        • Power is related to military size not GDP.

          • Re:Iran is going to lose access to the gulf (Score:4, Insightful)

            by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @04:59AM (#66148511) Journal
            Military size is limited by GDP.

            The IRGC has been importing foreign fighters because they aren't supported by their own population.

          • Re: Iran is going to lose access to the gulf (Score:5, Insightful)

            by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @06:46AM (#66148659)
            A powerful military, without a similarly powerful GDP to support it, doesnt stay powerful for very long. It used to be that a military could survive on plunder, but that time is centuries gone. Nowadays, a powerful army relies on an industrial base, and a modern industrial base relies on a willing hard working population. When you neglect the underlying GDP, you get Russia or North Korea. Dangerous? Yes. Powerful? Hmm. Nowadays the best Russia can do is to kill/maim 2 million young of their own men, and a few hundred square kilometers of low value territory is all they have to show for it. Iran will fare even worse. They dont have much conventional military anymore, weve stomped their economy and cut off most of their oil revenue. Now were just waiting for it all to take effect. This is a form of siege warfare. There will never be a big massive decisive victory on either side. The people currently in control of Iran will probably claim a win for simply surviving, although their ability to influence world events will be mostly gone, which IMO is the real reason the US is doing this. Enlightened people everywhere will wring their hands for all sorts of reasons. War is ugly.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Malc ( 1751 )

          Yet somehow they've demonstrated the limits of US power. Donald Trump is now stuck between a rock and a hard place.

          • Yet somehow they've demonstrated the limits of US power.

            The US has decided to try to siege Iran. The limits haven't been reached, more like a nice little tickle.

            Donald Trump is now stuck between a rock and a hard place.

            Yes, he's walking a narrow, difficult path. Success is difficult and failure could be disastrous.

            • What you call 'limits' that have not been reached is a ground war and certain deaths of thousands of Americans. It's pretty easy to say that should be the next step if you aren't one of them.
              • I haven't heard anyone say that the next step should be a ground war. There are a lot of people in the world, so maybe someone said it.

                The question was whether the limits of US power have been reached. The answer is: no.
                • Ok so what should Trump do next then to excercise US Military power if not a ground war? Send Musk's robots to go in and destroy all their nuclear secrets? Even better question, why do you think Trump would sit and look like an idiot getting trounced rather than use these measures immediately?

                  • An air campaign with very little risk to the attacking forces could leave Iran's infrastructure and oil production almost completely destroyed in a matter of days. They'll still not have nukes and won't have any capacity to recover any semblance of a normal life for their citizens for many years to come and they'll have no means to rebuild other than continuing to sell oil to the Chinese at a discount, assuming they could meaningfully re-hydrate their extraction capabilities. Even if China showered them w

                    • That's the problem. Trump wants the infrastructure. Plus if he destroys everything, Iran's leaders won't care. They are partaking on a religious mission. Everyone who dies is going to a wonderful place. Trump would just be hurting a nation full of innocents and also himself.

                    • Re: (Score:3)

                      by Malc ( 1751 )

                      And they will still threaten the Straits of Hormuz and thus cause economical problems for the rest of the world, including the US. We're in the age of cheap drones. Ukraine chased off the Russian navy. It looks like the US navy is scared to get involved in opening of the straits and protecting shipping.

                  • I think Trump should resign. But..

                    The goal should be to remove the IRGC from power. They are unpopular in Iran, but have all the weapons. American can likely be friends with Iran if the IRGC is gone.

                    As next steps, the siege of Iran is a good idea. No killing, no blowing things up. Put Iran into timeout. The biggest drawback to the siege/blockade approach is that the IRGC has been executing protestors in the meantime. So there's no perfect approach.

                    While in siege mode, get as many [youtube.com] antidrone systems as [youtube.com]

        • With a GDP of $300 billion

          That is nominal GDP based on a very weak currency.

          In PPP terms, Iran's GDP is about $1.2T, about the same as that of Illinois or the Netherlands.

          • PPP is useless because it's almost always used for rhetorical effect, like you've done here, not for elucidating economic facts. All you have shown here is that Iranians has low labor costs ($200 a month), so PPP is higher. PPP matters for things that rely on the cost of labor.

            PPP doesn't matter when you want to import weapons precursors.

            The price of lead for bullets doesn't change just because your PPP is different.

    • Unless Iran actually does get obliterated they can't "lose access". The Gulf (while not theirs technically) is very much theirs in terms of military firepower. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks if a torpedo sinks a boat or someone cuts a subsea cable. This kind of extortion can be done quite easily if carefully managed by a "small nation" (1/3rd of America both in terms of population and in terms of land mass, and significantly larger than any European country, just FYI) and so far they have been managin

    • I thought you were talking about Israel for a second
      • Israel, on the other hand, has strengthened their alliance with the gulf kingdoms.

        If The Gaza stabilization force is effective [wikipedia.org], they will strengthen alliances with even more countries. That's a slowly developing situation but worth keeping tabs on.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by znrt ( 2424692 )

          Israel, on the other hand, has strengthened their alliance with the gulf kingdoms.

          you mean with the uae, that sparkling and posh financial hub in the desert likely soon to become a failed state. the other gulf kingdoms are no less greedy, but seem way smarter and realistic. their whole existence and prosperity is postulated on the illusion of american protection which just not only evaporated, but has revealed to be a magnet for serious trouble. only the uae still insists all in, likely because they're already so deeply compromised that they don't see a way out and just opt for doubling

          • their whole existence and prosperity is postulated on the illusion of american protection which just not only evaporated,

            America just delivered big on the security promises by attacking the enemy of the gulf states.

            You seem to be confused, thinking that Saudi Arabia didn't want the US to attack Iran. There's a reason Iran attacked them.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by znrt ( 2424692 )

        beat me to it. :-)

    • I partially agree with you, but would like to bring something to your attention. I would say about five countries in the Middle East have been formenting a great deal of trouble for the others, along with a number of terrorist organisations. There is no particular reason to assume that the Middle East will deal with one problem and not the others. Yes, Iran has infuriated a great many countries, none of which (individually) can do much but could collectively act.

      We could well see a genuine Middle East Union of nations that simple says enough is enough and clears the deck of all warring parties in the region -- and may well tell the US government that it needs to calm the F down or face a few reprisals of its own. Of course, if it does, then the subcontinent will likely join in - India and Pakistan are closely tied to Iran, and I shouldn't need to tell you both are armed with nuclear weapons. This is something the US also needs to consider, if it tries to invade Iran - you don't need missiles to attack a nation that's on the same landmass you're in, you just need trucks and an unsecured route.

      Equally, this is a war that has been going on for the past 4,000-5,000 years now without showing much sign of anyone coming to their senses. This might not be enough to push everyone else over the edge. Precisely because several nations with a vested interest are indeed nuclear armed, there may well be a realpolitik view that kicking the collective arses of all of the power abusers in the region carries unacceptable escallation risks.

      My hope is that the current wars being fought, all of which are mindboggingly expensive and stupid beyond all possible definitions of sanity, have a similar result as WW1 and WW2 - to push the world governments into saying that they will not tolerate this continued juvenile delinquency, but this time decide to do something effective about it.

      The world has become vastly more destabilised with the wars since the 1990s, and I think there's just a glimmer of realisation amongst some of the politicians that they might well have pushed their luck too far.

      • Re:Iran is going to lose access to the gulf (Score:5, Insightful)

        by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @08:45AM (#66148877) Journal
        For me, I was willing to tolerate the current Iranian regime, even when they shout "death to America," until they started shooting down their own protesters. And nothing "small" like Kent State. We don't have polling in Iran, so it's impossible to be sure, but all indications are that the Iranians are ready for a government change, but are being held hostage.

        The IRGC needs to go. The world will be a better place when they lose power.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by shilly ( 142940 )

          But this attempt at regime change has patently failed. You have not accounted for the executional incompetence of the Trump admin. Previous admins have been able to effect many regime changes, including in Iran, but they weren't idiots. This lot, though... they were so stupid they were taken by surprise by Iran's closure of the Straits because they didn't want to believe what they were being told by their own military analysts.

    • Iran has demonstrated they can take 1/5 of the global economic output off the table and there is fuck all anyone can do about it.

      We haven't quite got to the point where we are willing to use nuclear weapons for the sake of convenience. As terrible as we can be we aren't really willing to let Trump genocide an entire country and I don't think the rest of the world is either. And nothing else would allow us to stop them from closing the straight.

      Trump gave them something better than a nuclear bomb. He

  • Overland cables, anyone? (Score:3)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @04:19AM (#66148463)

    I wonder when it's gonna start making more sense to start opting for land routes for new cables, when possible. The bad actors can still try to attack them, of course, but they'll be easier to monitor and repair. When conflict erupts, you could probably protect a land cable reasonably well with drones.

    • I wonder when it's gonna start making more sense to start opting for land routes for new cables, when possible. The bad actors can still try to attack them, of course, but they'll be easier to monitor and repair. When conflict erupts, you could probably protect a land cable reasonably well with drones.

      It'll start making more sense when it starts making more sense.

      What I mean is that companies do whatever is the most profitable, and you can therefore judge what is most profitable by what they do. Undersea cables will be used where they're used until they're less profitable than overland cables with longer routes. Yes, sabotage plays into that. But so far that inflection point hasn't been reached.

  • Shame if something happened to those cables.

  • You gotta give credit where its due (Score:3)

    by Slashythenkilly ( 7027842 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @04:31AM (#66148479)
    Kill our leader. Bomb our civilians. Sink our ships. Try to negotiate then resume military campaign. Now you want something? How about a middle finger, threaten your allies with drones, missles, sanctions, and some lego videos insulting your incompetent leadership. Respect.

  • War of choice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rumagent ( 86695 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @05:25AM (#66148525)
    American foreign policy is now: ‘Walks into a restaurant, squats down, takes a massive dump, and insists that the other guests clean it up because it is their problem now.’

    • Almost like they learned nothing from that asshole Kissinger and Vietnam. You can’t win against someone who is willing to die for their cause.

      • Oh yes, you can win against somebody willing to die for their cause. Plenty of examples, both classical & modern.  You kill all of the enemy .... call it what you will: massacre, genocide , holocaust, obliteration  ... . Dead men don't return fire, while the living write history.

  • A guy that bears an uncanny resemblance and always begins his sentences with you may remember me is proposing some type of monorail over the Strait of Hom- er Hormuz, that's right.

  • At least three countries (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HnT ( 306652 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @06:57AM (#66148689)

    The very idea and narrative that Iran has any claims to that part of the ocean is completely wild, at least 2-3 other countries are right there and have the same theoretical right and claims, even before we get into international and maritime laws.

    And once you understand that this straight is not in any way, shape or form a personal property of the Iranian bloodregime, you also understand the extent to which this bloodregime is holding pretty much the entire world hostage based on absolutely nothing.

    The bloodregime and the IRGC absolutely have to go, no discussion about it, and it is in the interest of the entire world at this point. Whether you like or hate the cheetoman or the Isrlis. The multifaceted statesponsored Iranian terror absolutely has to end, it has been going on for far too long without checks or balances.

    • Re:At least three countries (Score:5, Insightful)

      by evil_aaronm ( 671521 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @10:47AM (#66149127)
      If you follow American doctrine as practiced by the current regime, might makes right. If America can blast fishing boats in the Caribbean, and abduct foreign leaders, Iran can claim administrative rights over the Strait. At least until someone challenges them militarily.

      The bloodregime and the IRGC absolutely have to go, no discussion about it, and it is in the interest of the entire world at this point.

      I could make the same claim about Trump's regime, too.

  • sure (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @07:03AM (#66148707) Journal

    Lawmakers in Tehran discussed a plan last week which could target submarine cables linking Arab countries to Europe and Asia.

    Make sure you all meet in one place to discuss it some more ...

  • Didn't the IRGC already cut access... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @07:29AM (#66148761)

    to the internet for its citizens?

    Why would the rest of the world care if Iran was cut off from the internet?

    The Arab gulf countries can get Internet via Saudi Arabia

    It would be much easier than putting in new oil and gas pipelines across the peninsula. (Which may have to be done anyway.

  • why not? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by glatiak ( 617813 )

    I deplore these sorts of things, but the reality is that they have been savagely and repeatedly attacked by the US and Israel and have had a lot of damage inflicted on their country. Measures of control are clear attempts by them to reduce the threat and generate some funding to rebuild. And hopefully there will be no more, but given the players and the complete lack of adults in the room, the danger of a Gotterdammerung moment for the Middle east still hangs over the world. And if they had actually had a w

  • It's also unclear how the regime could force tech giants to comply, as they are barred from making payments to Iran due to strict US sanctions; as a result, the companies themselves may view Iran's statements as posturing rather than serious policy.

    That sounds like a them problem. Just because the US has sanctions against companies making payments to Iran doesn't mean Iran can't levy charges and take action if those do not get paid. US law only applies to the US, not the rest of the world. It will be for those companies targetted to find a way to pay the bill.

  • fee 0.002 cents per kb

  • While it is pretty much infeasible to dig a canal through Oman's mountains, it's (relatively) easy to lay cables over them. So cables coming from within the gulf will make landfall in Dubai, traverse the peninsula, and go again into the water at Fujaira.

  • Israel & USA screwed up (Score:3)

    by FudRucker ( 866063 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @10:50AM (#66149147)
    They should have left well enough alone

    Iran is Israel's Nemesis

  • Fees least of our problems (Score:3)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @11:32AM (#66149241) Journal

    Plutocrats: "Fees?! Oh shit, there goes my profit!"

    We grunts: "War?! Oh shit, there goes my life!"

  • Could get a lot messier for Iran (Score:3)

    by PinkyGigglebrain ( 730753 ) on Monday May 18, 2026 @01:28PM (#66149497)

    Mess with people's oil most people will just go "meh". grumble a bit about paying more for Petrol but still pay. For the most part it doesn't have any noticeable impact on people's lives beyond fsck'g their monthly budget a bit. It only impacts those who pay the bills.

    Mess with their Internet, cut off their Facebook, Twitter, etc. and you impact everyone who uses the Internet. Businesses, banks, all genders, old and young . That will piss off more people because it will impact everyone who uses the Internet in some way in an immediate and personal way. Enemies and Allies alike. Granted for the overwheling majority of Internet users it won't even be noticed. For those in the area served by the cables it will only add a couple of extra microseconds to their connection latency at worst in most cases as their traffic gets routed around the damage. But everyone will know that Iran is directly threatening something they care about and relies on.

    Iran just made a direct threat to the Internet. All the other cable damage so far have been "Ooops, so sorry, we didn't intend to damage that cable by dragging our anchor across 100 miles of sea floor in an area we knew there was a cable". This is Iran declaring intent to damage those cables. I'm kind of reminded of that scene in Blazing Saddles where the new Sheriff points his gun at his head and warns that if anyone tries anything he'll shoot himself.

    If Iran goes "Pay us or we will cut these cables!". The rest of world should just cross their arms, give Iran a look of pity at their stupidity and say "Go ahead". Then if Iran does intentionally cut a cable the response should be to completely cut Iran off from the Internet. And I mean COMPLETELY, as in any traffic to or from Iran gets redirected to /dev/null, air strikes on their satellite up links and overland relays so they can't even route their traffic through a sympathetic neighbor. Let their business and banks suffer, let their people be deprived of their social media. Sit back and see how long the current government stays in power.

    They want to threaten the Internet, fine. But they can't complain then Internet says "No packets for you!".

    Probably completely impracticable for various financial, legal, moral. and social reasons but interesting to think about.

Slashdot Top Deals

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.

Close