This is an interesting issue: what constitutes a valid military target?
Traditionally that meant armed forces, their bases, their supplies and so on. But the line has gotten awful blurry. Tech companies have become entwined with the state and are fundamnetal parts of both domestic and foreign policy. Targeting of military strikes is an obvious example [1][2].
I believe that in the very least these companies have risen to the level of defense contractors so Palantir is at least as valid of a target as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman or Boeing. Is that sufficiently valid? I don't know.
But I don't think you can plead ignorance about what your tech platform is being used for, particularly if you're Palantir. You are helping a military force kill people and are deciding which people. You can't wash your hands of that.
[1]: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
[2]: https://www.business-humanrights.org/es/%C3%BAltimas-noticia...
Pretty sure if they were capable of that then they would just do it instead of threatening to do it. Nobody in the middle of an existential war threatens to attack more - they just attack with everything they've got.
After all, they already bombed an AWS data center in 2 countries who were not participating in the war.
Oh no, Iran, please don't destroy our giant public-private surveillance apparatus!
It is buried way down in the article. Iran issued this statement after us/Israel targeted Iranian banks.
If they warn, then I doubt they can do it.
If they could do it, they would do it first and brag about it after.
And I say this as someone on team Persia on this conflict.
what percentage of inference globally happens from datacenters in middle east and israel?
If I were an opponent of the U.S., my short-list of companies to threaten (regardless of ability to carry through) would be the list of donors to Trump's ballroom. In Trump's febrile mind, only chumps pay taxes but there is some care for the people currently handing him money that's his to spend as he wishes.
Not surprisingly, pretty much every company mentioned in this article is on that list.
Do they mean the US Tech firms that are already an extension of the state(s) that initiated this conflict and have been terrorizing the world?
Pointlessness of this war aside, I fail to see how the situation is materially different than it was prior to the war begining.
Iran has generally been an active and persistant threat for many US firms long before this war began, and I have a hard time thinking they have had the restraint and the resources to collect together an arsenal of zero-day exploits they have yet to unleash. To me, this just reads as empty threats intended more for the potential economic fear it can produce.