Iran threatens attacks on Nvidia, Microsoft, Intel, and other US tech firms in the Middle East

[midian182]

In brief: The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has threatened to attack several US tech companies in the Middle East if Iran continues to be targeted by America and Israel. The IRGC said attacks could begin today and has advised employees and residents living near the facilities to evacuate the area.

Days after Iran warned that offices and infrastructure belonging to US companies involved in military technology in the Middle East would be targeted, the IRGC updated its threat on Telegram.

The 18 companies the IRGC threatened, accusing them of actively participating in terrorist plots, include Nvidia, Intel, HP, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Meta, Cisco, Oracle, IBM, Dell, Palantir, Tesla, and Boeing.

Reporter: "Iranian government threatened a bunch of U.S. companies in the region today."
President Trump: "With what? What did they threaten them with? BB guns or? They don't have much left to threaten."

– RedWave Press (@RedWavePress) March 31, 2026

"Since the main element in designing and tracking terror targets are American ICT and AI companies, in response to this terrorist operation, from now on the main institutions effective in terrorist operations will be our legitimate targets," the IRGC message reads.

The IRGC also warned employees of the named companies to leave their workplaces immediately to save their lives, while anyone within a one-kilometer radius of the facilities should go to a safe place. The attacks could begin today (April 1) at 8pm Tehran time, according to reports.

Several of the names called out by the IRGC have major operations in the Middle East, especially in Israel and the Gulf. Intel's Israel operation alone employed about 11,000 people across four locations as of 2024. Microsoft has said it has nearly 3,000 employees in Israel, with offices in Herzliya, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Nazareth, while Google has more than 2,000 staff in its Tel Aviv and Haifa offices.

Intel IDC9 building in Haifa, Israel

Nvidia's footprint is also substantial: Reuters reported in January that the company had around 5,000 employees in Israel, and Nvidia's own office directory lists multiple sites in Israel as well as Dubai.

Apple continues to recruit in Israel, Meta lists a Tel Aviv office, IBM Research says it operates labs in Haifa, Givatayim, and Be'er Sheva, and Cisco not only has an office in Netanya but also lists offices across the Middle East. Local Israeli media said Cisco employed roughly 800 people in Israel late last year.

The IRGC's mention of the role that AI is playing in the war is an accurate one. When the bombings against Iran first began, it was reported that Anthropic's Claude AI model was used in early operations, including intelligence analysis and scenario planning tied to targeting.

One expert said that AI making recommendations for what to target is much quicker in some ways than "the speed of thought."

Permalink to story:

Iran threatens attacks on Nvidia, Microsoft, Intel, and other US tech firms in the Middle East

 

[ScottSoapbox]

A consequence beyond morality for helping make weapons that kill many people. Perhaps there are downsides to endless war.

 

[OortCloud]

He invaded a country with zero preparation or thought to the long term consequences relying only on Fox presenter/oily secondhand car salesman/Secretary of War Crimes Pete Hegseth for advice and it's gone about as badly as you would expect. When it all starting turning to sh1t he expected the rest of the world to bail him out (which they wont do because all other leaders around the world with the exception of Netanyahu and Putin despise him). Now he's going to Taco and threaten to quit NATO. Not only is he a horror of a human being, he's also deeply stupid and fails at everything he attempts.

Operation Epic Fury or Operation Epic Fail?

 

[m4a4]

How desperate must you be to threaten to lash out at civilian tech structures like this? Especially after you blatantly lied about your missile technology/range, and your nuclear weapons progress, and who knows what else. They're just making the one-sided "war" seem more justified day by day.

The more they show how rogue and unhinged they are, the more I hope these radicals in charge get taken out and stability returns to the area in who knows how long. Especially after seeing so many displaced Iranians/Persians celebrate strikes on their country...

 

[maxxcool7421]

How desperate must you be to threaten to lash out at civilian tech structures like this? Especially after you blatantly lied about your missile technology/range, and your nuclear weapons progress, and who knows what else. They're just making the one-sided "war" seem more justified day by day.

The more they show how rogue and unhinged they are, the more I hope these radicals in charge get taken out and stability returns to the area in who knows how long. Especially after seeing so many displaced Iranians/Persians celebrate strikes on their country...

and stealing oil is better? killing civilians for oil is better? were just as bad... the robber baron in charge even told the UK on live air to 'steal irans oil'...

google : trump tells uk take the oil

 

[maxxcool7421]

Onto the topic. DO IT!

I would love to see nvidia/MS/intel get hit so as to illustrate how far behind we are in cyber defenses, how for decades de-relgulation by team red has made the US vulnerable financially and infrastructure wise with stockholders preventing upgrades to power transmission and generation or defenses along with manufacturing and shipping as well.

Hell, as iran id ask china or russia for a single low yield tactical warhead and detonate it in the straight making it impassable for 30 years..

 

[pnntmp]

Iran's regime is practically dead (a good part of it in the literal sense).

The so called IRGC is just groups of lunatics mostly acting on their own independently, as the command structure is wiped out.
Using phrases like "The IRGC said .. " is misleading, it implies that structure is still intact and operational as a whole, which is obviously not the case.

 

[obsidian76]

How desperate must you be to threaten to lash out at civilian tech structures like this? Especially after you blatantly lied about your missile technology/range, and your nuclear weapons progress, and who knows what else. They're just making the one-sided "war" seem more justified day by day.

The more they show how rogue and unhinged they are, the more I hope these radicals in charge get taken out and stability returns to the area in who knows how long. Especially after seeing so many displaced Iranians/Persians celebrate strikes on their country...

Defence contractors facilities and personnel are not 'civilians' during wartime and such facilities are legitimate military targets under the laws of war, unlike the schools and hospitals struck by the US et al from day one of this illegal war of aggression. GN recently reported that JH has come out in full support of Trumps Iranian misadventure.

 

[m4a4]

Defence contractors facilities and personnel are not 'civilians' during wartime and such facilities are legitimate military targets under the laws of war, unlike the schools and hospitals struck by the US et al from day one of this illegal war of aggression. GN recently reported that JH has come out in full support of Trumps Iranian misadventure.

Yeah, I already said they're desperate. Their usual shields didn't work. But hey, at least they also have you defending their poor terrorist regime's flailing around.

Remind me, how many of their own civilians and children have they executed in the past year alone? Have we reached 6 digits yet during the state-imposed internet blackout?

 

[obsidian76]

Yeah, I already said they're desperate. Their usual shields didn't work. But hey, at least they also have you defending their poor terrorist regime's flailing around.

Remind me, how many of their own civilians and children have they executed in the past year alone? Have we reached 6 digits yet during the state-imposed internet blackout?

Because of course pointing out your factual error must mean I am taking sides.

Instead you resort to the old 'you are with me or you are against me accusation' how predictable, how very George Dubbua. Nuance not a strong point?

 

[m4a4]

Because of course pointing out your factual error must mean I am taking sides.

Instead you resort to the old 'you are with me or you are against me accusation' how predictable, how very George Dubbua. Nuance not a strong point?

No, your biased language gave you away

So, how many?

 

[obsidian76]

No, your biased language gave you away

So, how many?

Biased against what?

The Internet blackout has lasted 33 days according to netblocks.

As wrong as having the death penalty is, or governements gunning down its own citizens protesting its actions is (we just make protest virtually illegal here in Blighty) The crime of launching a war of aggression is still regarded as one of the worst crimes a nation state can commit, right up there with genocide.

Can you tell me how many countries Iran has invaded since 1945, how many wars it has started?

 

[m4a4]

Biased against what?

Willing to overlook all that Iran has done, lied about, and is willing to do just to paint the actions against them as some misadventure.

The Internet blackout has lasted 33 days according to netblocks.

I mean, I was asking about how many executed woman and children. They even recently executed an athlete after a forced confession.

As wrong as having the death penalty is, or governements gunning down its own citizens protesting its actions is (we just make protest virtually illegal here in Blighty) The crime of launching a war of aggression is still regarded as one of the worst crimes a nation state can commit, right up there with genocide.

Can you tell me how many countries Iran has invaded since 1945, how many wars it has started?

No wars, but your point is moot when you take into consideration how many terrorist groups they've funded and enabled.
So in that case can you tell me how many countries have been the primary funder of terrorism, sprinted to making nuclear weapons (above 5% enrichment is unnecessary, letalone past 60% in secret underground bunkers), and openly called for the death of whole countries?
And can you tell me, with 100% confidence, that Iran wouldn't immediately use a nuke once they got their hands on one? And wouldn't keep trying to (secretly) build a nuke if the current (type of) regime is left in power?

I would hope that we can all agree that having such an unhinged terrorist regime in the world is something that nobody wants, especially a nuclear-armed regime. Even if publicly we are against the optics of the current US administration doing it...


Regardless, I will maintain that targeting civilian tech structures is desperate. And will imply that what they're willing to target doesn't have any military strategic value.

 

[obsidian76]

Regardless, I will maintain that targeting civilian tech structures is desperate. And will imply that what they're willing to target doesn't have any military strategic value.

This is becoming circular, the companies mentioned are not 'civilian tech structures' they are 'defence contractors' supplying the US military with warfighting capabilities which makes them legitimate military targets under the laws of war, just as companies that make bullets, bombs and missiles are.

Is threatening to target an enemy nations military infrastructure and supply lines, desperate? Maybe, but it is legitimate and legal.

On the matter of Nuclear weapons I will say the following, the only way a country can avoid becoming prey for nuclear armed states is to possess them themselves something both Iran and Ukraine failed to learn. (contrast this with the DPRK)

The US, Russia and Israel are nuclear armed states waging wars of aggression on states that do not have nuclear weapons.

If the US was really motivated to prevent Iran getting nukes, why did it tear up the JCPOA? instead the issue has been used as a convinent cassus belli.

 

[m4a4]

This is becoming circular, the companies mentioned are not 'civilian tech structures' they are 'defence contractors' supplying the US military with warfighting capabilities which makes them legitimate military targets under the laws of war, just as companies that make bullets, bombs and missiles are.

Then we'll agree to disagree. Since one could rope anything into the excuse that they're "supporting the military" if one really tries to in this digital age. Again, whatever structures they'd be targeting have no military value. It's not like they hold munitions...

On the matter of Nuclear weapons I will say the following, the only way a country can avoid becoming prey for nuclear armed states is to possess them themselves something both Iran and Ukraine failed to learn. (contrast this with the DPRK)

The US, Russia and Israel are nuclear armed states waging wars of aggression on states that do not have nuclear weapons.

If the US was really motivated to prevent Iran getting nukes, why did it tear up the JCPOA? instead the issue has been used as a convinent cassus belli.

Nuclear deterrence only works for SANE countries. Avoiding the question tells me that you do think they would use it regardless of the consequences, you just don't like those optics.

And why did they stop believing Iran was holding up their end of the deal? Gee, I wonder. Maybe it was all the lying and secretly building the capabilities to enrich past 5%? Keep in mind that an offer of free uranium for civilian nuclear reactors was already rejected by Iran. I wonder why they want to enrich their own?


Anyways, it seems like you'd rather post about optics than admit that Iran might not be the good and trustworthy actor here. I don't see this conversation moving anywhere anymore...

 

[JMGuy]

This is becoming circular, the companies mentioned are not 'civilian tech structures' they are 'defence contractors' supplying the US military with warfighting capabilities which makes them legitimate military targets under the laws of war, just as companies that make bullets, bombs and missiles are.

Is threatening to target an enemy nations military infrastructure and supply lines, desperate? Maybe, but it is legitimate and legal.

On the matter of Nuclear weapons I will say the following, the only way a country can avoid becoming prey for nuclear armed states is to possess them themselves something both Iran and Ukraine failed to learn. (contrast this with the DPRK)

The US, Russia and Israel are nuclear armed states waging wars of aggression on states that do not have nuclear weapons.

If the US was really motivated to prevent Iran getting nukes, why did it tear up the JCPOA? instead the issue has been used as a convinent cassus belli.

Gonna have to disagree myself as well. You’re leaning heavily on the idea that “defence contractors are legitimate targets,” but you’re overstating how that actually works in practice under international law.

Even under the Geneva Conventions, something doesn’t become a lawful target just because it’s connected to the military in some way. The standard is specific: it has to make a direct and effective contribution to military action, and its destruction has to provide a clear military advantage.

That distinction matters here. A company like Microsoft providing technology—even advanced AI that may be used in targeting—doesn’t suddenly make the entire company, or all “civilian tech infrastructure,” a legitimate target.

At most, you could argue that specific, clearly defined systems—for example, infrastructure directly tied to real-time military targeting—might meet that threshold. But that’s a narrow, case-by-case argument, not a blanket justification.

The vast majority of what you’re grouping under “defence contractors” remains civilian in nature: shared cloud infrastructure, offices, employees, and systems with mixed or indirect use. Those don’t lose protection just because part of the company supports military functions.

So when you say these are “legitimate military targets,” you’re skipping over the core legal constraint: modern tech companies are dual-use by default, and international law does not permit treating them as wholesale military objectives.

And stepping back from the legal framing, this still ties into the broader issue you’re downplaying. The behavior of Iran’s regime—externally through proxy groups and internally through repression—is what drives the wider conflict environment in the first place.

So no, this isn’t just about “nuance” or legal technicalities. It’s about not stretching those legal concepts to justify broad targeting claims that don’t actually hold up under the same laws you’re citing.

As for Donald Trump’s handling of the situation, it’s hard to view it as coherent strategy. Whether it’s poor execution or something more self-serving, the result comes across as inconsistent and opportunistic rather than deliberate and effective.

 

[obsidian76]

Then we'll agree to disagree. Since one could rope anything into the excuse that they're "supporting the military" if one really tries to in this digital age. Again, whatever structures they'd be targeting have no military value. It's not like they hold munitions...


Nuclear deterrence only works for SANE countries. Avoiding the question tells me that you do think they would use it regardless of the consequences, you just don't like those optics.

And why did they stop believing Iran was holding up their end of the deal? Gee, I wonder. Maybe it was all the lying and secretly building the capabilities to enrich past 5%? Keep in mind that an offer of free uranium for civilian nuclear reactors was already rejected by Iran. I wonder why they want to enrich their own?


Anyways, it seems like you'd rather post about optics than admit that Iran might not be the good and trustworthy actor here. I don't see this conversation moving anywhere anymore...

Your doing an awful lot of reading between the lines there as I never claimed or implied that the Iranian government were good and trustworthy.

This conversation was going nowhere as soon as you engaged in whataboutery. But I felt I should give you the benefit of the doubt.

But there is a silver lining, Trump might really pull out of NATO now, so he can withdrawal the 10k Yanks based in my country. As an added bonus, we can close Diego Garcia!

 

[m4a4]

Your doing an awful lot of reading between the lines there as I never claimed or implied that the Iranian government were good and trustworthy.

This conversation was going nowhere as soon as you engaged in whataboutery. But I felt I should give you the benefit of the doubt.

But there is a silver lining, Trump might really pull out of NATO now, so he can withdrawal the 10k Yanks based in my country. As an added bonus, we can close Diego Garcia!

Considering your deflections, beating around the bush, and your own whataboutisms, yes, I did read between the lines. And yet you still didn't set the story straight here. How odd.

And if you think that's a silver lining (losing the backing of the world's most powerful military, objectively), it's no wonder why you couldn't.

Anyways, Iran should think twice before attacking civilian tech structures.
And people like you shouldn't carry their water. Especially since they can reach you (even though they originally denied having the range).
So, good day.

 

[obsidian76]

Gonna have to disagree myself as well. You’re leaning heavily on the idea that “defence contractors are legitimate targets,” but you’re overstating how that actually works in practice under international law.

Even under the Geneva Conventions, something doesn’t become a lawful target just because it’s connected to the military in some way. The standard is specific: it has to make a direct and effective contribution to military action, and its destruction has to provide a clear military advantage.

That distinction matters here. A company like Microsoft providing technology—even advanced AI that may be used in targeting—doesn’t suddenly make the entire company, or all “civilian tech infrastructure,” a legitimate target.

At most, you could argue that specific, clearly defined systems—for example, infrastructure directly tied to real-time military targeting—might meet that threshold. But that’s a narrow, case-by-case argument, not a blanket justification.

The vast majority of what you’re grouping under “defence contractors” remains civilian in nature: shared cloud infrastructure, offices, employees, and systems with mixed or indirect use. Those don’t lose protection just because part of the company supports military functions.

So when you say these are “legitimate military targets,” you’re skipping over the core legal constraint: modern tech companies are dual-use by default, and international law does not permit treating them as wholesale military objectives.

And stepping back from the legal framing, this still ties into the broader issue you’re downplaying. The behavior of Iran’s regime—externally through proxy groups and internally through repression—is what drives the wider conflict environment in the first place.

So no, this isn’t just about “nuance” or legal technicalities. It’s about not stretching those legal concepts to justify broad targeting claims that don’t actually hold up under the same laws you’re citing.

As for Donald Trump’s handling of the situation, it’s hard to view it as coherent strategy. Whether it’s poor execution or something more self-serving, the result comes across as inconsistent and opportunistic rather than deliberate and effective.

I reject the accusation that I was downplaying the nature of the Iranian governments behaviour. I was challenging the idea that the tech companies facilities in the middle east that are mentioned in the article were 'civilian' and not legitimate targets.

 

[obsidian76]

Considering your deflections, beating around the bush, and your own whataboutisms, yes, I did read between the lines. And yet you still didn't set the story straight here. How odd.

And if you think that's a silver lining (losing the backing of the world's most powerful military, objectively), it's no wonder why you couldn't.

Anyways, Iran should think twice before attacking civilian tech structures.
And people like you shouldn't carry their water. Especially since they can reach you (even though they originally denied having the range).
So, good day.

Lol. Every accusation is a confession. Cheerio

 

[JMGuy]

I reject the accusation that I was downplaying the nature of the Iranian governments behaviour. I was challenging the idea that the tech companies facilities in the middle east that are mentioned in the article were 'civilian' and not legitimate targets.

Ok. Reject it. I’m not trying to put you in a box or argue against your motives.

The remainder of the point still stands: it’s more than a stretch to call tech companies legitimate military targets under international law. They are, largely, civilian. Doing business with the U.S. military does not automatically make one a military target under international law. Bombing a tech company corporate office, because the parent company engages with the military, would not be considered legitimate.

That is all. Cheers

 

[Endymio]

He invaded a country with zero preparation or thought to the long term consequences

Who told you something so ridiculous? The consequences -- both short, medium, and long term -- is that Iran no longer possesses ballistic missile manufacturing nor uranium reprocessing capability. In this war, Iran has proven -- for the 30th time in 30 years -- that it's willing to attack any and all civilian targets, even in nations having nothing to do with the conflict. They're not a nation we want to possess nuclear-tipped ICBMs.

I also find it outrageously ironic that the same people who said nothing when Biden more than doubled the price of gasoline -- raising it all the way to a national average of $5.04, an increase of more than $2.50/gas, and a price that remained elevated for years -- are now complaining bitterly about a one-month spike of 90 cents. It's even more absurd when one realizes that all those oil tankers backed up in the Strait of Hormuz will eventually hit the market, causing a glut that'll drop prices to well below the levels from before the war.

 

[abactuon]

And it's in vain. They do nothing there, take money from the local budget and employ members of the local elite.
The missiles will be wasted. It is necessary to destroy sewers in large cities.
Formally, there is not much difference between these objects, but in the second case the effect should be much greater.

 

[J spot]

Who told you something so ridiculous? The consequences -- both short, medium, and long term -- is that Iran no longer possesses ballistic missile manufacturing nor uranium reprocessing capability. In this war, Iran has proven -- for the 30th time in 30 years -- that it's willing to attack any and all civilian targets, even in nations having nothing to do with the conflict. They're not a nation we want to possess nuclear-tipped ICBMs.

I also find it outrageously ironic that the same people who said nothing when Biden more than doubled the price of gasoline -- raising it all the way to a national average of $5.04, an increase of more than $2.50/gas, and a price that remained elevated for years -- are now complaining bitterly about a one-month spike of 90 cents. It's even more absurd when one realizes that all those oil tankers backed up in the Strait of Hormuz will eventually hit the market, causing a glut that'll drop prices to well below the levels from before the war.

You listen to war propaganda, it's silly when people repeat obvious lies meant to hide how disastrous things are going (like in Vietnam, until it can't be hidden anymore). That we won in two days, we wiped out Iran's nuclear program (June), we destroyed 90% of their launcher (don't know their true numbers and likely hit mostly decoys, Israel continues to get pounded every day), and on and on and on. Or even that they're running out of missiles, early in the war, when almost all the missiles they had used were a missile model from 2014.

You literally think they will tell you if one of our planes got shot down rather than make an excuse.

Then your other point, unfortunately the US, and definitely Israel target civilian areas, without any warning. Iran is targeting legitimate military targets, and they typically warn the people, telling them to get out. (The weaker country typically have to do things by the law.) There's no point in targeting civilians. For Israel is a different story, since they want to collapse the whole Iranian society, set it back by decades.

Note: Iran is making more money now during than war, than before, with the sanctions.

 

[Endymio]

You listen to war propaganda, it's silly when people repeat obvious lies meant to hide how disastrous things are going ... Israel continues to get pounded every day), and on and on and on. Or even that they're running out of missiles.

Enjoy your fantasy. Out here in the real world, Iran no longer possesses a navy, an air defense system, or ballistic missile production facilities. Their missile attacks have tapered off more than 90% since the first days of the war, and their drone attacks are down more than 80%:

Data: Tracking Iran’s missile and drone attacks on Gulf states

NBC News is counting the number of missile and drone strikes on Iran’s neighbors each day.

www.nbcnews.com

unfortunately the US, and definitely Israel target civilian areas, without any warning. Iran is targeting legitimate military targets, and they typically warn the people, telling them to get out.

It's nice that you support a terorist regime with such propaganda, but Iran has struck dozens of civilian targets, and never given "beforehand warning".

"Witness recounts moments after Iranian strike on apartment in Ramat Gan"

Witness recounts moments after Iranian strike on apartment in Ramat Gan

A witness described the moment an apartment in Israel was struck during an Iranian missile attack before dawn. (Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS,MAGEN DAVID ADOM)

www.kalb.com

"A missile strike by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s authorities on the Israeli city of Beit Shemesh that killed nine civilians – including four teenagers – must be investigated as a war crime, Amnesty International said"

Israel: Iran’s missile strike that killed nine civilians ‘must be investigated as a war crime’ – new investigation

A missile strike by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s authorities on the Israeli city of Beit Shemesh that killed nine civilians – including four teenagers – must be investigated as a war crime, Amnesty International said in a new investigation. The strike, just before 2pm local time on 1 March on...

www.amnesty.org

There's no point in targeting civilians. For Israel is a different story, since they want to collapse the whole Iranian society

Oops again!

"...The Iranian government's desire to destroy Israel is a foundational element of its state ideology, established following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This stance is expressed through official rhetoric, strategic military planning, and the support of regional proxies..."