This was not "a free attack". The goal was and is preventing the world's leading terror organization from acquiring nuclear weapons, especially when they already have the missiles to carry them. It's just a bad situation and the decisions are difficult. Even now, the IRGC continues attacking their erstwhile allies. Those would likely be nukes if they'd had them.

We haven't surrendered anything to them. It's an open secret that the U.S. has been moving oil out of the Strait all along. Of course, all the IRGC does is attack civilian ships because it is unable to do anything against the U.S. Navy, and knows it would face immense pain if it directly attacked American military vessels. Last time the IRGC tried, it lost half a dozen oil tankers that were sitting ducks in the Strait. The only language these people understand is violence. An MoU was signed this summer, but the IRGC had a point to make and resumed attacks shortly after.

And containment hasn't worked well at all. Iran has been building underground facilities for more than two decades. It is very clear that they want to be a nuclear power, and we can't let that happen. The moment you grant Iran any kind of ceasefire or sanction relief, that money goes straight into funding weapons and terrorism.

Well, obviously.

> You don't need missile defense at all because you won't be a target.

No, you don't need it because you have offsite backups. And this is completely disconnected from whether you use AWS or DIY.

> you won't be a target.

Of missiles, maybe in this particular conflict, sure. But running a DC is not your core business, so which DC is more likely to be subject to burglary, power outages, diesel shortages (Amazon will have better negotiators than you), fire suppression, hell, private fire departments if needed, etc…

Was missiles or copper thieves the biggest threat, even there, in 2020? Would AWS or every small company be better at protecting against the latter?

It's true that you are less likely to be a target than a state-sponsored tech megacorp's data centers, but the risk is still present.

If your organization runs on servers in your basement you should have a contingency plan for flooding, fire, copper thieves, diesel shortages, etc… etc… etc…

Or are you basically saying that the only safe place is outsourcing your ops to a mid sized operator? Too small and nobody will pay for the every day risks. Too big and it's a war target? Ok, let's continue that plan. Now military users move their workloads to the mid sized operators for the exact same reason you did. Oh no, we're back at square 1.

A plan of putting all your eggs in one basket is never good. And it's completely orthogonal to AWS vs the non-AWS options.

Pretty basic stuff.

> If you don't know what Wildberries is

Not exactly esoteric knowledge. But it's also not the same thing. Wildberries could not "back up" their inventory to an offsite location with the footprint of a suitcase.

> If your organization runs on AWS then you should have a contingency plan for the data center being destroyed by drones. Is that on your risk management plan?

Sure, if you discard ALL other risks, that happen every day, leaving only war as the remaining risk to manage, then your risk management plan makes sense.

But the other risks are still there. Your DC operator going bankrupt and having their power cut is a risk that didn't go away.

Sure, fewer customers per location, but the critique here is of customers who chose AWS, the fair comparison is NOT against those who chose to be in 6 different non-AWS DCs, but against those who chose to be in ONE non-AWS DC. Decentralized aggregated across customers or not, the customers who chose unluckily still lose data.

I get your main point, but just wanna point out that AWS is one of the largest military contractors in the world. They hold multi-billion dollar contracts from the DoD, USAF, CIA, and more. An estimated $4B a year in military spending goes to AWS

For one thing, regardless of what the US did, they did not launch the attack that damaged the datacenters. That attack was provoked by US actions, but the attack was an intentional and voluntary act by Iran/IRGC. I don't think any of the usual settings for liability for the acts of others really apply here, but I'm not a lawyer.

You'd also need to find a court of competent jurisdiction. The US is out because of soveriegn immunity. The Military Claims Act prohibits claims that "arise from action by an enemy or result directly or indirectly from an act of the armed forces of the United States in combat" [1]. The Federal Tort Claims Act bars "any claim arising in a foreign country" as well as "any claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard, during time of war" [2] and precedent recognize a state of war without a declaration.

The courts in the country where the data centers were attacked might not be interested in addressing conduct of the US that didn't happen in their country. The courts in Iran are likely to consider the attack on the data center a legitimate act of war and not a tort; anyway good luck collecting against the US with a judgement from an Iranian court.

Amazon might have a better time making a claim against Iran, in the court where the attacks took place, but good luck collecting a judgement. Maybe a case in the International Court of Justice, but those have to be submitted by a country and involved countries must consent.

[1] https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/sub... chapter section 2734 (b) (3)

[2] see page 28 and 29 of https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R45732/...

Putin is launching and provoking wars, not the EU.

> you will probably still blame America

No, we would blame Putin, because he's the blameworthy party.

As for Iran, Trump (and Trump voters by extension) is the blameworthy party. I don't even think any other R would have been dumb enough to go at Iran like this.