X-Risk Daily

The attacks marked the first time data centres have been deliberately targeted for air strikes in a conflict, establishing commercial cloud infrastructure as a legitimate military target and fundamentally reshaping the security calculus for planned AI facilities in politically volatile regions.

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed the strikes were against data centres supporting "the enemy's" military and intelligence activities. The justification reflects growing awareness that the U.S. military used Anthropic's AI model Claude—which runs on AWS—for intelligence assessments, target identification, and battle simulations during the Iran strikes. The boundary between commercial cloud computing and military operations has largely vanished, as the Pentagon's Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability runs on the same commercial infrastructure serving civilian customers, according to Fortune.

The physical damage was substantial. The strikes took out two of three availability zones in the UAE region (ME-CENTRAL-1), while AWS confirmed structural damage, power disruption, fire, and water damage from suppression systems. Outages were reported by Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, Emirates NBD, First Abu Dhabi Bank, payments platforms Hubpay and Alaan, data cloud company Snowflake, and the massive ride-hailing platform Careem. Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan noted the attack as "a very savvy move" that puts data centres into the same targeting category as oil refineries and power grids.

The strikes carry profound implications for AI infrastructure development in the Middle East. The Stargate project—a joint venture planning to invest up to $500 billion in AI infrastructure by 2029—has already established a 1GW cluster in Abu Dhabi expected to go live in 2026. Sam Winter-Levy, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Rest of World that physical attacks are "only going to become more common moving forward as AI becomes more and more significant". Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps released a video threatening the "complete and utter annihilation" of the under-construction Stargate facility if the US attacks Iranian power infrastructure, marking an unprecedented escalation where AI infrastructure becomes a proxy in international tensions.

Security analysts worry this precedent will be adopted by other adversaries, forcing Western militaries and technology companies to account for a much wider array of vulnerable infrastructure in future conflicts. Zachary Kallenborn, a researcher at King's College London, told Fortune that "if data centres become critical hubs for transiting military information, we can expect them to be increasingly targeted by both cyber and physical attacks". The timing is particularly problematic given the concentration of planned AI training facilities in politically volatile regions, with data localisation mandates requiring cloud providers to build physical facilities in markets that may lack geopolitical stability.

The Trump administration moved toward a mandatory pre-approval regime for advanced AI systems on 7 May, with National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett telling The Hill that the White House is studying an executive order requiring frontier models to undergo safety review before release. The proposal marks a sharp reversal of the administration's previous deregulatory stance and has triggered bipartisan alarm over its constitutional implications and competitive consequences.

The policy shift follows a tense White House confrontation with Anthropic over its Mythos model, which the company released in limited form on 7 April to a small group of organisations including Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and major financial institutions. Mythos demonstrated the ability to identify decades-old security vulnerabilities at scale, prompting Vice President JD Vance to convene an emergency call with AI chief executives in April, warning that such capabilities could enable cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. The administration subsequently blocked Anthropic's plan to expand Mythos access to approximately 70 additional organisations, with National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross leading the government's response. The intervention came despite—or perhaps because of—the model's defensive potential: Mythos is designed to help organisations patch vulnerabilities before adversaries exploit them, yet unauthorised users gained access through private channels shortly after the limited release.

The proposed FDA-style licensing system has drawn fierce criticism from unexpected quarters. Policy analysts at the American Enterprise Institute note that the FDA analogy is fundamentally flawed: unlike pharmaceuticals, AI systems are dynamic, their risks uncertain and difficult to measure, and their behaviour shifts between testing and deployment. Critics warn the regime could function as a "kill switch" for innovation and expression, with the government potentially lacking legal authority for such prior restraint absent clear statutory authorisation. White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles issued a statement on 6 May emphasising that the administration "is not in the business of picking winners and losers," though sources told The Daily Signal that multiple draft executive orders remain under active debate, with significant internal disagreement over the strength of proposed vetting processes.

The controversy unfolds as Washington and Beijing weigh official AI discussions ahead of an upcoming US-China summit. According to Bloomberg, conversations are exploring restrictions on model access—a potentially more tractable coordination mechanism than development limits. Meanwhile, the administration continues to grapple with the fraught fallout from the forced departure of former AI czar David Sacks, whose light-touch regulatory philosophy dominated policy until Mythos upended the White House's approach. The resulting policy disarray has left the US without a coherent framework for evaluating frontier capabilities as they emerge, forcing reactive responses to each new model release—precisely the dynamic safety researchers have long warned against.

The Iranian position, described by officials as "realistic and positive," emphasises ending hostilities and reopening the Strait of Hormuz before substantive nuclear negotiations, according to Al Jazeera.

The diplomatic manoeuvring follows a two-month conflict that began on 28 February, when US and Israeli forces struck Iranian nuclear facilities. According to Axios, the framework under negotiation would commit Iran to enhanced IAEA inspections and a moratorium on underground enrichment facilities, with the duration of any enrichment freeze actively contested—Iran has proposed five years while the US seeks 20. The sticking point remains Iran's 440-kilogram stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity, close to the 90 percent threshold required for weapons-grade material. While some sources told Axios that Iran may agree to remove highly enriched uranium from the country—a reversal of its previous position—Iranian officials have publicly maintained that the nuclear programme is "non-negotiable" at this stage.

The broader context deepens the stakes. Iran's nuclear infrastructure has been significantly degraded by airstrikes, with Natanz 75 percent damaged and the deeply buried Fordow facility—Iran's main site for 60 percent enrichment—only 30 percent compromised. Yet the International Atomic Energy Agency has been unable to verify the status or location of Iran's uranium stockpile since the conflict began, creating what the IAEA describes as the most significant verification blackout in its history with Iran. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi has warned that the 440-kilogram stockpile, if further enriched, could yield enough fissile material for up to ten nuclear weapons.

Whether Iran's latest signals represent tactical positioning or genuine flexibility remains uncertain. The proposed memorandum of understanding would initiate a 30-day negotiation period to resolve the Strait of Hormuz blockade, lift sanctions, and establish nuclear limits. If those talks collapse, the US has indicated it could restore its naval blockade or resume military action. Tehran's insistence on phased negotiations—ending the war first, addressing the nuclear programme later—reflects long-standing concerns that any interim agreement could leave Iran vulnerable to renewed attack, a fear reinforced by the February strikes that occurred while indirect talks were underway. For observers tracking nuclear risk, the proposal offers a fragile diplomatic corridor, but one shadowed by verification gaps, infrastructure damage, and the enduring question of whether either side can deliver binding commitments that survive political pressure at home.

Go deeper: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation analysis on Iran's 60% enriched uranium stockpile

On 10 May, Iran's Revolutionary Guard issued a direct threat to attack US sites in the Middle East if Iranian tankers come under fire, following US strikes on two Iranian tankers in the Gulf of Oman on 9 May. The Revolutionary Guard stated that "any attack on Iranian tankers and commercial vessels will result in a heavy attack on one of the American centres in the region and enemy ships." According to ABC News, Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' Aerospace Force Gen. Majid Mousavi warned that Iranian missiles and drones "are locked on American targets in the region and aggressor enemy ships" and are "awaiting the command to fire."

The tanker strikes occurred within a broader pattern of escalating military exchanges. NPR reported that US forces fired on two Iranian oil tankers after exchanging fire with Iranian forces in the Strait of Hormuz overnight, with the attacks casting doubt on a month-old ceasefire. The incidents followed clashes on 7 May, when US and Iranian forces traded fire in the strait, with each side claiming the other initiated the attack. President Trump downplayed the exchange as "just a love tap," insisting the ceasefire remains in effect.

The escalation comes as the Trump administration awaits Tehran's response to its latest proposal for a peace deal. Al Jazeera reported that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the administration was still expecting a response from Iran on its latest proposal for a more lasting end to the war, while the Washington Post noted that Iran said the US proposal is still under review. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said his country has been in contact with the US and Iran "day and night" in an effort to extend the ceasefire and reach a peace deal, indicating that diplomatic channels remain open even as military tensions escalate.

The military confrontation occurs against the backdrop of a wider Strait of Hormuz crisis. Since 13 April, the US has blockaded Iranian ports while Iran has effectively closed the strait—a waterway that normally supports 20% of the world's oil trade. According to Lloyd's List Intelligence, Iran has created a government agency known as the Persian Gulf Strait Authority to formalize control over the channel, raising concerns about international shipping with hundreds of commercial vessels bottled up in the Persian Gulf. The Gulf of Oman remains a critical maritime chokepoint for global energy supplies, and military exchanges in the region carry substantial risk of broader conflict between the US and Iran, potentially drawing in regional allies and adversaries.

Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan interpreted this language as suggesting potential nuclear weapon use, describing it as "not a path we should be walking very far down." The remark represents one of the most explicit nuclear threats in decades of US-Iran confrontation, made against a backdrop of deteriorating military conditions in the strait and growing domestic pressure on the administration.

The comment came as approximately 20,000 American sailors remained exposed aboard vessels in the Persian Gulf's narrow shipping channels, unable to provide two-way traffic through areas cleared of mines. According to CBS News, two US destroyers transited the Strait of Hormuz on 4 May after navigating a sustained Iranian barrage of missiles, drones, and small boats, though defensive measures successfully intercepted incoming threats. The operation, dubbed "Project Freedom," was subsequently suspended on 6 May to allow more time for peace negotiations—a decision that underscored the administration's recognition that sustained operations in the strait remain untenable.

Military analysts note the US is "one inch away from catastrophe" if Iran successfully hits a ship—an eventuality deemed inevitable if forces remain in contact with Iranian capabilities long enough. The administration has backed itself into a position where it has built public expectations of risk-free operations without articulating a strategic rationale that would justify higher casualties. The Washington Post reported that President Trump threatened on 6 May that US bombing would resume "at a much higher level" if Iran did not agree to his latest peace plan. This leaves commanders without clear guidance on acceptable risk to mission or risk to force, while the threat of nuclear escalation now hangs over tactical decisions in one of the world's most critical maritime chokepoints.

The situation reflects a broader strategic impasse following the February 2026 US-Israeli strikes that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and triggered Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz. A fragile ceasefire has held since 7 April, with Pakistan mediating negotiations, but talks have repeatedly stalled over demands for zero uranium enrichment and control of the strait. With hundreds of ships and as many as 20,000 seafarers trapped in the region and global oil prices soaring, the intersection of tactical vulnerability and nuclear rhetoric marks a dangerous escalation in the crisis.