A senior Iranian security official has warned that Tehran could target American-linked artificial intelligence facilities, data centers and communications infrastructure across the Persian Gulf if the United States resumes military operations, escalating tensions as Washington and Tehran remain divided over nuclear enrichment and the future of their fragile ceasefire.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran has threatened to destroy American-linked data centers, artificial intelligence facilities and telecommunications infrastructure across the Persian Gulf if the United States launches another military offensive, raising the possibility that renewed hostilities could extend beyond conventional military and energy targets to critical technology infrastructure.
Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and a former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, issued the warning during a televised interview over the weekend. He said Tehran had deliberately excluded certain technology and communications facilities from its previous military operations but would reconsider those restrictions if fighting resumed.
The warning comes as the United States maintains a naval blockade of Iranian ports and negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program remain unresolved. Although major combat operations have subsided since earlier fighting, both governments continue exchanging threats while attempting to negotiate terms for a more lasting settlement.
According to reporting on Rezaei’s televised remarks, the Iranian official identified American-linked digital infrastructure in the United Arab Emirates and around the Strait of Hormuz as potential targets. He estimated the value of the facilities at more than $2 trillion, although that figure has not been independently verified.
“We have not yet included these assets among our targets. But if war breaks out, many of these cables, data centers, artificial intelligence facilities, and numerous other sites will be destroyed,” Rezaei said.
The statement represents a warning rather than a confirmed military operation. Iranian authorities have not publicly released a detailed list of facilities selected for attack, and there has been no independent confirmation that Tehran has finalized operational plans involving specific American technology installations.
Nevertheless, Rezaei’s remarks underscore Iran’s willingness to broaden its threatened response beyond military installations and energy infrastructure if the conflict escalates again.
An attack on telecommunications cables, data centers or related digital facilities could disrupt services used by financial institutions, government agencies and businesses throughout the region. Such infrastructure supports cloud computing, electronic communications, commercial transactions and other systems essential to modern economies.
The Persian Gulf has attracted substantial investment in artificial intelligence and cloud computing facilities, particularly in the United Arab Emirates, where American technology companies have pursued partnerships involving data storage, computing capacity and advanced AI development.
Those investments have made the region increasingly important to the international technology industry. They have also introduced new security concerns because facilities associated with American companies could become targets during regional conflicts, even when located outside U.S. territory.
Rezaei suggested that Iran’s military had retained capabilities during the war that began Feb. 28 and could deploy them if the United States resumed attacks. He did not provide independently verifiable details about those capabilities or identify which specific weapons might be used against technology infrastructure.
His warning was also reported by The Associated Press, which said Rezaei had threatened regional data centers and communications cables while criticizing Washington’s latest response to Iranian proposals for ending the conflict.
The Iranian official described the American response as insufficient and said Tehran needed clarification on several outstanding issues before negotiations could advance.
According to Iranian state media, Rezaei maintained that Washington had accepted some of Tehran’s conditions but had not adequately addressed others. The government has not publicly disclosed a comprehensive agreement establishing terms for ending the war.
The dispute reflects continuing disagreements over Iran’s nuclear program, U.S. economic restrictions and maritime activity in the Strait of Hormuz.
The waterway remains a central concern because it connects major Persian Gulf oil producers with international markets. Disruptions to shipping and energy exports have contributed to higher fuel costs and uncertainty across global commodity markets.
Although international vessels continue transporting oil through the strait, Iranian exports remain constrained by the American blockade, which Washington has maintained as a means of pressuring Tehran.
The blockade has become one of the principal obstacles to a lasting agreement, with Iran seeking relief from economic restrictions while the United States demands substantial changes to Tehran’s nuclear activities.
Vice President JD Vance outlined the administration’s position in an exclusive Reuters interview published Oct. 6, stating that Iran must meaningfully reduce its uranium enrichment capacity before Washington would agree to end the conflict.
Vance questioned why Iran continued enriching uranium to levels far above those ordinarily required for civilian nuclear power generation.
“If you don’t want a nuclear weapon, then why do you need 60% enriched fuel? And if you want to show commitment to not building a nuclear weapon, don’t build highly enriched fuel. That’s a very basic threshold issue,” Vance said. “I think if they want to show a commitment to not building a nuclear weapon, they would do something meaningful on their enrichment capacity.”
Uranium enriched to 60% uranium-235 is considerably closer to weapons-grade material than the low-enriched uranium commonly used in civilian nuclear reactors. Weapons-grade uranium is generally enriched to approximately 90%, although producing a functioning nuclear weapon also requires additional technical capabilities.
Western governments have repeatedly expressed concern that Iran’s enrichment activities could shorten the time needed to produce weapons-grade material. Iranian officials deny seeking nuclear weapons and maintain that their country’s nuclear program serves peaceful purposes.
Tehran has also insisted that its right to enrich uranium cannot be eliminated through negotiations. Iranian representatives have indicated that technical details may be negotiable but have rejected American demands that would effectively prohibit domestic enrichment.
Those conflicting positions have complicated diplomatic efforts since the provisional peace arrangement negotiated in June collapsed shortly after its announcement.
Washington and Tehran have continued exchanging proposals through intermediaries, but neither government has announced a comprehensive settlement addressing enrichment, sanctions and the blockade.
The continuing uncertainty has prompted both sides to emphasize their military capabilities while publicly expressing interest in negotiations.
President Donald Trump attempted to reduce speculation about an imminent American offensive last week after reports suggested the administration was considering renewed strikes against Iran before the November congressional elections.
An Oct. 7 report by The Atlantic described discussions within the administration about possible military action, including preparations for additional operations against Iranian targets.
Trump responded the following day by stating that the United States would not launch new attacks before the Nov. 3 midterm elections.
In an Oct. 8 Truth Social statement, the president said diplomatic discussions were continuing and claimed that substantial amounts of oil were moving through the Strait of Hormuz despite the blockade.
“We are having productive discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran. I want to make it clear to everybody that, while Iran is in very bad condition, both Economically and Militarily, and while the Blockade will remain in full force and effect, with Oil flowing in Record Numbers of Barrels through the Hormuz Strait (22 Million Barrels, last night alone, with not one barrel coming from, or going to, Iran!), we will not be attacking Iran at any time prior to the Midterm Elections to be held in the United States on November 3rd. IRAN WILL NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON! President DONALD J. TRUMP”
The president’s statement offered a temporary assurance against additional military action while maintaining the administration’s economic pressure on Tehran. His claim concerning the volume of oil transported through the strait was not accompanied by independently verified shipping figures.
Trump also reiterated that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a central American objective, regardless of the timing of further military operations.
During a White House Columbus Day celebration Friday, the president adopted a more forceful tone when discussing the unresolved conflict.
“It’s gonna be over soon, one way or the other,” Trump said during his remarks. “We can do it either way, very simple, but one way or the other it’s gonna be over very soon.”
The remarks, circulated in video footage of the event, did not clarify whether Trump expected negotiations to produce an agreement or whether he was considering military action after the elections.
The combination of diplomatic assurances and warnings of possible escalation has contributed to uncertainty among governments and businesses operating in the Gulf.
For Iran, the continued blockade remains a major source of economic pressure. For Washington, Tehran’s refusal to accept substantial enrichment restrictions remains an obstacle to ending the war.
The dispute also has consequences for the global economy, particularly because the conflict has disrupted oil transportation and increased energy costs.
Higher fuel prices have become a political concern for the Trump administration as Republicans defend their congressional majorities in the midterm elections. The White House has pursued several measures intended to increase global fuel supplies while continuing diplomatic efforts involving Iran.
At the same time, the security of the Gulf’s growing technology sector has become increasingly relevant to the broader conflict.
American technology companies have expanded their presence in the region through agreements involving data centers, cloud infrastructure and artificial intelligence research. Gulf governments have promoted those investments as part of efforts to diversify their economies beyond oil and natural gas.
The value of these facilities extends beyond their physical construction because they support commercial services and digital operations used throughout the Middle East and internationally.
However, the $2 trillion valuation cited by Rezaei has not been supported by publicly disclosed evidence, and it remains unclear whether his estimate refers to physical infrastructure, associated investments or a broader calculation of American technology assets in the region.
His statement also did not distinguish between facilities directly owned by American companies and projects involving regional partners or multinational investors.
That uncertainty matters because digital infrastructure often involves multiple operators, customers and national jurisdictions. Damage to a facility associated with an American company could affect services provided to businesses and residents of the host country.
The threat therefore raises questions about potential consequences for Gulf governments that have invested heavily in technology partnerships while attempting to avoid direct involvement in the U.S.-Iran conflict.
No government has publicly confirmed that the facilities described by Rezaei have been attacked in connection with his latest warning.
The remarks nevertheless demonstrate how Iran may seek to increase the potential cost of renewed American military operations by identifying economically important infrastructure outside the traditional battlefield.
With negotiations still underway, the United States and Iran remain divided over the terms required to end the conflict. Washington continues demanding meaningful nuclear concessions, while Tehran seeks changes to the blockade and recognition of its claimed right to enrich uranium.
Trump has ruled out new American attacks before Nov. 3 but has not made an equivalent commitment extending beyond the midterm elections.
Rezaei’s warning introduces another potential consequence should hostilities resume: attacks affecting the digital infrastructure supporting the Gulf’s growing technology economy.
For now, the threatened destruction remains hypothetical, but the public warning underscores the risk that a renewed military confrontation could expand to communications networks, artificial intelligence facilities and other civilian infrastructure while diplomatic efforts remain unresolved.
Original article
Comments