Big tech in the Middle East conflict: data, AI, and cloud infrastructure as battlefield

The wars of the 20th century were shaped by oil, sea routes, and physical military bases. By 2026, a new layer of infrastructure has emerged—data, algorithms, and cloud computing—playing a decisive role in how war is waged. The conflict in the Middle East involving the United States, Israel, and Iran illustrates that warfare is no longer confined to physical space, but extends across the broader technology ecosystem.

Digital infrastructure becomes a military target

In early April 2026, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) carried out an attack on Amazon Web Services’ data center in Bahrain and the UAE as part of the “True Promise 4” campaign. The operation marked the first time a commercial cloud infrastructure was struck with munitions in a national-level military action.

Drone and cruise missile strikes caused significant damage to servers and cooling systems, disrupting services across the Gulf region. The disruption spread to banking, logistics, and other digital infrastructure in countries dependent on AWS.

IRGC also published a list of 18 U.S. technology firms—including Oracle, Microsoft, Google, Palantir, and Nvidia—along with evacuation warnings within a 1 km radius around those facilities. The message, according to the article, is that digital infrastructure has been placed on the list of legally legitimate military targets, and that when technology companies participate in defense systems, their assets enter the battle space.

Algorithmic warfare: AI accelerates targeting and decisions

If cloud infrastructure is described as the “hardware” of next-generation warfare, the article frames artificial intelligence (AI) as the “software control.” In the 2026 conflict, AI systems are used to process data from satellites, electronic signals, and human intelligence in real time.

The Maven Smart System, operated by Palantir, is described as a centerpiece of this process. The article states that AI enabled analysis and target listing at unprecedented speed, including strikes on more than 1,000 targets in the first 24 hours and over 2,000 targets in four days. It also says human target verification time dropped to roughly 20 seconds, shifting the human role from decision-maker to supervisor of machine processing.

Admiral Brad Cooper, head of United States Central Command (CENTCOM), is quoted describing the advantage as an AI system that can “screen vast amounts of data in seconds” to make faster decisions than opponents.

Faster processing increases risk and complicates accountability

The article also highlights the risks of high-speed systems. It cites an airstrike in Minab, Iran, that hit a school, with casualties estimated at 165 to 175, attributing the outcome to outdated intelligence data.

It argues the issue is not a single error but the structure of the system: when decisions are distributed among algorithms, contractors, and military commanders, accountability becomes harder to assign. A legal assessment by Oxford Global Society is cited, stating that the traditional accountability framework has lost force in AI warfare because there is no single entity responsible for the final decision.

OpenAI and the Pentagon: financial pressure and market reaction

One of the most controversial developments described in the article involves OpenAI. After Anthropic rejected terms of cooperation with the U.S. military regarding autonomous weapons and mass surveillance, OpenAI reportedly partnered with the Pentagon.

The article links the move to financial pressures. It estimates OpenAI lost about $50 billion in 2025, expects losses of about $14 billion in 2026, and suggests losses could reach up to $115 billion by 2029 due to rising compute costs. To sustain operations and valuation, the article says the company needs large, stable capital, and that defense budgets provide scale and continuity.

It states that the Pentagon contract enables the U.S. military to deploy OpenAI’s AI technology across many military scenarios with few meaningful limits.

Impact on consumer and enterprise markets

The article reports strong market reactions within 48 hours of the decision: uninstallations of ChatGPT rose by 295%, and about 2.5 million users announced they stopped using the service.

It also contrasts this with Anthropic’s stance. The article says Anthropic used its “no military use” position to expand market share: enterprise API market share rose from 12% to 32%, while OpenAI fell from 50% to 25%.

Nearly 900 employees from Google and OpenAI also signed a letter opposing the use of AI for mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, according to the article.

Palantir and Oracle: defense-focused business models

Unlike OpenAI, the article says Palantir and Oracle do not face internal disputes over direction because they have clear roles as defense contractors.

Palantir’s government contracts and Maven Smart

Palantir provides a data analytics platform to the U.S. military and allies, with contracts described as worth tens of millions of dollars for each system. The article states that Palantir’s Maven Smart System has been designated by the U.S. Department of Defense as the battlefield data storage and command-control system.

It reports that in 2025, Palantir’s government revenue rose 55% to $1.8 billion. It also says Palantir, together with Anduril, is developing software for the Golden Dome air-defense system, valued at several billions of dollars in Phase 1, with expectations of revenue growth beyond initial forecasts through 2028.

Oracle’s Pentagon data and Cloud One contract

Oracle is described as one of four companies licensed to store the most sensitive tactical data for the Pentagon. In February 2026, the U.S. Air Force awarded Oracle a contract worth $88 million under the Cloud One program.

The article says Cloud One allows the military to run operations on Oracle’s AI Database 26ai to execute “Agentic AI” processes, including the ability to autonomously perform military actions in cyberspace and logistics.

Capital flows from the Gulf and the convergence of interests

The article argues that technology is supported in part by capital from Gulf sovereign wealth funds. It states that Saudi PIF, ADIA, and Mubadala of the UAE are investing heavily in AI, data infrastructure, and dual-use technology.

In 2025, the article says these Gulf funds deployed a record $126 billion across all sectors, accounting for 43% of total sovereign wealth fund capital globally. It adds that investments focused on data centers, satellites, and military AI systems.

It notes that Mubadala established a joint venture to produce AI drones and took stakes in defense technology companies. It also says PIF invested in gigawatt-scale computing infrastructure to build long-term AI capacity.

Broader impact: a two-way relationship between Big Tech and conflict

Putting the factors together, the article describes a two-way structure: large technology firms both provide infrastructure and algorithms for security and warfare, and then become targets when that infrastructure is militarized. It frames this co-evolution as a result of technology becoming the operating backbone of modern security systems, concluding that no organization controlling technology remains neutral in 21st-century high-tech warfare.