Iran rattles Gulf AI dreams
With American B-2 bombers pummeling Iran this weekend, and Iran attacking a U.S. base in Qatar Monday, the region is suddenly looking like an inhospitable place for U.S. tech companies planning enormous new data centers in the Gulf to power artificial intelligence.
For Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the multi-billion-dollar deals announced in May during President Donald Trump's trip to the region are a vital step in their strategic plans to diversify their economies away from oil. For the American AI companies, these deals deepen connections with countries that are already major investors in U.S. data centers, and give the companies access to abundant, cheap energy.
But the past weekend's strikes on Iran, and Tehran's reprisal, underscore a possible downside: Once they're built, giant projects critical to the U.S. AI buildout could easily become targets for retaliation.
Those projects include plans by OpenAI, Nvidia, Cisco, Softbank and the Emirati G42 company to build a data center campus in the UAE with a capacity of 5 gigawatts — enough to power Miami. And the state-backed Saudi Arabian AI company Humain intends to buy at least 18,000 chips from Nvidia for building 'AI factories,' part of a landslide of tech deals including a $5 billion partnership with Amazon and a $10 billion collaboration with AMD.
Matt Pottinger, who served as a deputy national security adviser in the first Trump administration, said, 'The idea that we can build our largest data centers in the Middle East within easy drone and missile striking range of Iran and its proxies suggests to me that some people working for President Trump haven't done their homework. The joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear weapons program in recent days only reinforces this point.'
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said Monday, 'The President is fully committed to these deals and looks forward to continued prosperous relations with our Gulf partners.'
To offset the increased cost of protecting AI infrastructure in the Gulf, Pottinger suggests that Congress demand American companies building data centers in the region contribute $3 billion a year to pay for their defense.
'The U.S. has spent $6 billion in the last two years on airstrikes, naval deployments and use of advanced munitions to defend against Iranian proxies attacking U.S. interests in the Gulf region,' Pottinger said, pointing to Iran-backed Houthi rebels attacking sites including U.S. ships in the Red Sea.
Three billion dollars would be small change for some of the largest tech companies; Nvidia had the world's second-highest market cap of $3.5 trillion on Monday. A spokesperson for the company declined to comment over the weekend. OpenAI, Cisco and Oracle did not respond to requests for comment.
Until this past week, critics of the AI deals focused on less kinetic concerns. Congressional Democrats, including Senate Intelligence Vice Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Senate Armed Services ranking member Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), pointed in a statement in mid-May to the risk of U.S. technology leaking to China or otherwise leaving American soil. They wrote, 'we could become as reliant on the Middle East for AI as we are on Taiwan for advanced semiconductors – and as we used to be on the Middle East for oil.'
Warner and Shaheen's offices did not reply to questions on the deals.
The House Select China Committee, chaired by Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), wrote on X in May that the data center plans 'present a vulnerability for the CCP to exploit.' Moolenaar did not reply to a request for comment over the weekend.
The White House, on the other hand, has defended the deals, even after Israel's airstrikes on Iran began on June 13. White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks told Bloomberg last week that the U.S. risked losing the tech race if it didn't expand to the Gulf: 'When we think about our goals here with respect to AI, we want the American tech stack to win. … We want to be the partner of choice in the world.'
At an energy forum held by the Atlantic Council in Washington last Tuesday, OpenAI's head of global affairs Chris Lehane told POLITICO the U.S. gains a strategic benefit by pulling the Gulf's economic powers into its orbit over China's.
In a speech to the same forum, Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, called for restraint. 'The United Arab Emirates stands for dialogue, for de-escalation and diplomacy,' he said, before turning to his country's priority, AI: 'To realize the full power of AI, we must give it the power it needs,' he added.
Dania Thafer, a lecturer at Georgetown University and founder of the Washington-based Gulf International Forum, said Iranian attacks on U.S. installations in the UAE and Saudi Arabia could challenge their visions of becoming tech superpowers. 'This is why they have been working hard to de-escalate,' she said.
So far, it's not clear how far Iran will go in response to U.S. and Israeli strikes.
Iran reportedly warned Qatar ahead of Monday's strike, minimizing harm. But the disruption in the region is already immense. Air traffic is interrupted across the Gulf including over the UAE. Iran's parliament also reportedly endorsed closing the Strait of Hormuz that runs between the UAE and Iran and serves as a critical corridor for some 30 percent of the world's oil shipments.
Karen Young, a senior research scholar and Gulf specialist at Columbia University, said she was surprised Iran targeted an American base in Qatar, calling the nation Iran's 'best friend' in the region. The two also share the world's largest gas field. Even though it appears to be a symbolic strike — the Defense Department said there were no reports of U.S. casualties — the attack on Qatar could be an indicator of more to come that could undermine some core assumptions about the Gulf business climate.
Young said the global boom in AI sparked by the release of ChatGPT in late 2022 overlapped with a strategic shift among Gulf countries, led by UAE and Saudi Arabia. Those countries shifted away from regional rivalries and turned to diversifying their economies away from oil — and American industry was eager to partner in the process.
Conflict with Iran 'is the ultimate threat' to that shift, Young said.
'You start seeing the way Iran likes to fight wars — through hijackings, hostage taking, civilian attacks,' she said — tactics that undermine the idea of the Gulf as a stable and prosperous hub to the world. 'It doesn't work without foreigners, without technology partnerships,' she said.
State AI law moratorium survives
A spending bill provision preventing states from enforcing their AI laws for 10 years unexpectedly survived procedural objections in the Senate late Saturday, meaning it now needs to find enough Republican support to stay in the reconciliation process.
Many Republicans — and Democrats — widely expected the moratorium to be nixed by the Byrd rule, which prohibits provisions from being included in spending bills if they are extraneous to budgetary matters. However, Senate Republicans reached a compromise in early June meant to abide by the Byrd rule by conditioning state eligibility for federal broadband funding on compliance with the moratorium.
As POLITICO's Morning Tech team reports, child safety advocates are up in arms over the moratorium surviving the weekend. The provision has also generally faced pushback from state attorneys general, as well as Democrats and a handful of Republicans. In fact, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) previously indicated he would work with Senate Democrats to introduce a floor amendment removing the provision. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) reiterated her opposition to the moratorium in an X post Monday, calling it a 'poison pill.'
The moratorium would prospectively impact every corner of the country, as all 50 states have either passed or introduced AI legislation to address deepfakes, data collection, copyright, and other issues.
Hollywood opposes bill on noisy streaming ads
Two major entertainment trade groups are opposing a proposal that would force streaming platforms to turn down the volume on ads.
The Motion Picture Association and Streaming Innovation Alliance — which together represent the likes of Disney, Amazon and Netflix — are urging California lawmakers to drop a bill that would prohibit streamed ads from being louder than the content they accompany. In a memo obtained by POLITICO's California Decoded team, the groups argue the requirement would particularly burden smaller platforms due to the technical costs associated with implementing audio controls. They also claim that streaming platforms are already looking into ways to voluntarily lower volumes.
Democratic state Sen. Tom Umberg introduced SB 576 in February after the senator's legislative director complained that unexpectedly loud streaming ads were waking up his daughter. Congress passed a federal law known as the CALM Act in 2010 to set volume standards for television ads, but it doesn't cover streaming platforms.
post of the day
THE FUTURE IN 5 LINKS
Stay in touch with the whole team: Aaron Mak (amak@politico.com); Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@politico.com); Steve Heuser (sheuser@politico.com); Nate Robson (nrobson@politico.com); and Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@politico.com).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nvidia Gains as Trump AI Push Fuels Investor Optimism
Nvidia (NVDA, Financials) rose about 1.7% on Thursday after the Trump administration unveiled a broad artificial intelligence strategy aimed at expanding U.S. dominance in the sector with a heavy focus on deregulation and infrastructure growth. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 5 Warning Signs with NVDA. The 25-page America's AI Action Plan includes 90 policy proposals to streamline data center construction, boost AI tool access for U.S. allies, and eliminate federal rules that hinder AI development; specific regulations targeted for repeal were not disclosed. David Sacks, the White House's AI czar, said the U.S. is in an AI race; the plan includes measures to counter China's influence in international governance bodies and proposes reviewing Chinese AI models for alignment with state censorship. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the strategy sets the technological gold standard globally. The initiative promotes building more U.S. data centers; it also introduces fast-track permitting and opens access to federal land. Environmental oversight will be relaxed; the Environmental Protection Agency is reportedly preparing to reverse a key emissions finding a move that could limit future climate regulations. The AI rollout comes amid growing power demands and rising emissions. Google's 2024 sustainability report cited a 48% increase in greenhouse gas emissions since 2019; the surge was largely attributed to energy-intensive AI infrastructure. Despite promising that AI will complement human labor, the plan arrives as companies increasingly turn to automation. Job cuts from Recruit Holdings (owner of Indeed and Glassdoor), Salesforce, and others have been linked directly to AI deployment. Some analysts see the rollout as investor-friendly. Wedbush analyst Dan Ives called it a watershed moment and a big step forward in the AI arms race. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Atlantic
17 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Death of Democracy Promotion
On April 29, 1999, precision-guided NATO bombs tore through the brick facades of two defense-ministry buildings in Belgrade, the capital of the rump state of Yugoslavia. The targets were chosen more for symbolic reasons than operational ones: The American-led coalition wanted to send the country's authoritarian government, at that time engaged in a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, a clear message that human rights weren't just words. They were backed by weapons. For decades, the ruins of the buildings, on either side of a major artery through central Belgrade, were left largely untouched. Tangled concrete and twisted rebar stuck out of pancaked floors. Serbian architects fought to preserve the destroyed buildings; the government has treated them as a war memorial. At the time of the 1999 NATO bombings, Aleksandar Vučić, Serbia's minister of information, was tasked with denouncing the West and backing his country's despot, Slobodan Milošević. Today, Vučić has risen in the ranks to become Serbia's president—an apologist for Russia who attacks the press, has been accused of nurturing close ties to organized crime, and is rapidly dragging his country toward authoritarianism. Vučić is not Milošević—he has not led his country into genocidal wars or faced judgment for war crimes at The Hague—but until recently, he might have expected that his authoritarian style would make relations with Washington rocky. That time is past. Instead of harshly condemning Serbia's abuses, America's president, Donald Trump, will build a Trump Tower Belgrade on top of the defense buildings' ruins. 'Belgrade welcomes a Global Icon,' the slick website for Trump Belgrade proclaims. 'TRUMP. Unrivaled Luxury.' The contract for the project has been signed with Affinity Partners, Jared Kushner's investment firm, which is largely funded with billions of dollars in cash from Saudi Arabia. This story is the material expression of the second Trump administration's turn against a long-standing tradition of Western democracy promotion—and of an embrace of conflicts of interest from which the world's despots can only take inspiration. The authoritarians who govern small countries such as Serbia no longer need to fear the condemnation, much less the bombs, of the American president when they crack down on their opponents, enrich themselves, or tighten their grip on power. On the contrary—the American flirtation with similar practices emboldens them. With Trump's unapologetic foreign policy in his second term, American democracy promotion is effectively dead. Prior to the Soviet Union's collapse, Western diplomats cared far more about whether a dictator was an ally or adversary to the Soviets than about the quality of a country's elections or its respect for human rights. If diplomats from Washington or London pushed too hard for democracy, there was a credible risk that a Western ally could defect and become a friend to Moscow. Once the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the world's despots no longer had so much cover; Western diplomats could now push harder. New norms developed, which led to a rapid surge in the number of competitive, multiparty elections. Human rights were no longer just an aspirational buzzword. Some countries lost foreign aid or were shunned by the international community if their government committed atrocities. This pressure to adopt democracy and protect human rights was never applied equally. Powerful countries, such as a rising China, became largely immune to Western cajoling. And strategically important countries, such as Saudi Arabia, in many cases got a free pass, facing little more than rhetorical condemnation while presidents and prime ministers continued to shake hands and ink major arms deals. Meanwhile, in smaller countries, such as Togo, Madagascar, or the former Yugoslavia, the post–Cold War push for democracy and human rights often came not just with lip service, but also with teeth. After all, the White House could afford to lose the goodwill of Madagascar in a dispute over values; its geopolitical priorities would suffer little downside. Moreover, weak countries such as Madagascar depended on foreign aid, such that Western governments wielded far more leverage in them than they did in larger, more self-sufficient countries. For a while, then, small-time despots faced a credible threat: Go too far, rights defenders could hope to warn strongmen, and a Western ambassador could soon be knocking on the palace door. None of this is to say that Western powers were always on the side of the angels. During the Cold War, Western governments made lofty speeches about democracy and human rights while funding coups and arming politically convenient rebels. The CIA played a role in overthrowing popularly legitimate governments, such as those of Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, and Salvador Allende in Chile. Even after the Cold War, Western governments have cozied up to plenty of friendly dictatorships, in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea. And yet, particularly in the last 30 years, Western pressure and foreign aid have been significant forces for global democratization. Dictators and despots knew that the world was paying attention, which gave them pause before they turned their guns on their own people. Foreign aid became tied to the verdicts of election monitors, which drastically expanded operations after the end of the Cold War. With funding from the United States and other Western governments, opposition parties, journalists, and civil-society organizations received training on how to bolster democracy. And when political transitions toward democracy took place, as in Tunisia after the Arab Spring, billions of dollars in support flowed in. Partly because of these shifting international norms, the expansion of political freedom was so abrupt after the end of the Cold War that many believed democracy, having won the ideological battle against rival models of governance such as fascism and communism, had become an inexorable force. But the democracy boom under Bill Clinton gave way to failed wars under George W. Bush and inaction under Barack Obama. Bush, who justified wars in Afghanistan and Iraq partly under the guise of a democracy-and-freedom agenda, inadvertently discredited the notion of values-based 'nation building.' A widespread perception among American adversaries took root that democracy promotion was just a code word for 'regime change carried out by American troops.' This gave dictators political cover to boot out international NGOs hoping to bolster democracy and human rights, branding them as mere precursors for a heavy-handed invasion. Obama, picking up the pieces of that failed foreign policy, downplayed the grand vision of a more democratic world as a guiding principle of American diplomacy, even as countries across the globe began to pivot toward authoritarian rule. Now the world is steadily becoming less democratic. According to data from Freedom House, the world has become more authoritarian every year since 2006. Trump's second term may provide the most potent autocratic accelerant yet. In his first term, Trump routinely praised dictators, including in a memorable moment when he boasted about exchanging 'beautiful letters' with North Korea's tyrant. President Joe Biden, with his much-touted Summit for Democracy, tried to recenter democracy as a core principle of the State Department, but that effort was overtaken by successive geopolitical emergencies in Ukraine and Gaza. Now, with his return to power, Trump has gone further than before to fully uproot democracy promotion from American foreign policy. The list of dismantled initiatives is long. In the first months of the second Trump administration, Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency not only slashed America's foreign-aid machinery, effectively destroying USAID, but also targeted the National Endowment for Democracy: a bipartisan grant-making organization established under Ronald Reagan to strengthen democratic values abroad. The Trump administration has effectively kneecapped Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, outlets that have aimed to provide news and information to those living under oppressive regimes. Once viewed as bulwarks against authoritarian censorship, these platforms are now overseen by Trump acolyte Kari Lake. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently announced an overhaul of the State Department that effectively eliminates programs that work toward peace building and democracy. As an extra gift to the world's despots, on July 16, Rubio signaled that America will no longer stand in the way of election rigging: Washington will condemn autocrats who use sham election-style events to stay in power only if a major American foreign-policy interest is at stake, the secretary made clear, and from now on, American comments on foreign elections will be 'brief, focused on congratulating the winning candidate and, when appropriate, noting shared foreign policy interests.' The world's worst dictators can rest assured that the next American diplomat to come knocking on their palace doors is more likely to be looking for property rights than human rights. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, which always have had a free pass, might not notice the difference. But brutal regimes in less-noticed parts of the world have now gotten the memo that the Trump White House is indifferent to democracy and human rights, and they are acting accordingly. Cambodia has cracked down on journalists while courting American military officials. Tanzania's leader recently arrested his main rival and charged him with treason. Indonesia's president has begun changing laws, militarizing the country, and undermining the principle of civilian rule. Nigeria's president made a power grab that critics say was blatantly illegal. And El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, who had faced international criticisms for egregious human-rights abuses, isn't just absolved from American pressure—he's become a much-celebrated friend of the White House, lauded because of his gulags. Already, in regions such as Southeast Asia, brave pro-democracy reformers find themselves newly vulnerable and isolated. In Myanmar, pro-democracy forces fighting the country's military dictatorship long benefitted from American aid. The DOGE cuts put an end to that—and gave the repressive junta an enormous boost. In Thailand, a human-rights organization that once sheltered dissidents fleeing Cambodia and Laos has been forced to close its safehouses, allowing those regimes to more easily hunt down and even kill their opponents. These funding streams had accounted for a tiny proportion of the U.S. government's budget, but their elimination sends a strong signal to the world's autocrats: that virtually no one will now interfere with their designs. Admittedly, the United States is less powerful than it once was, and other countries have always had their own domestic agendas, regardless of what Washington has said or done. But that a growing number of the world's despots no longer have to weigh economic costs or diplomatic consequences for crushing their opponents has already made a difference. Thomas Carothers and Oliver Stuenkel of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace highlighted the fact that shortly after Musk referred to USAID as a 'criminal organization,' autocrats in Hungary, Serbia, and Slovakia began targeting pro-democracy NGOs that had received money from the agency. President Reagan once celebrated the United States as a 'shining city on a hill,' a 'beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.' That is apparently no longer the aspiration of the American government, which now sends its foreign pilgrims to a dehumanizing prison in El Salvador, arrests judges, and suggests that following the country's Constitution may be optional. For democracy to flourish, citizens must yearn for it—and demand it of their governments. At the moment, few can be looking with admiration to the United States as a model. Already in 2024, according to a 34-country survey conducted by Pew Research, the most common perception of American democracy was that the United States 'used to be a good example, but has not been in recent years.' The first months of the second Trump administration can hardly have improved that impression. Nonetheless, democracy—which provides citizens with a meaningful say over how their lives are governed—still has mass appeal across the globe. Brave, principled activists continue to stand up to despots, even though they do so at much greater peril today than even just a few months ago. In Serbia, for example, pro-democracy, anti-corruption protests have persisted for months. Students and workers are demanding immediate reforms and calling on Vučić to resign. In years past, precisely this kind of movement would have provoked White House press releases, diplomatic visits, and barbed statements from the Oval Office. In April, at long last, came a high-profile visit to Serbia from someone closely linked to the Trump administration. But instead of offering support for the pro-democracy demonstrators, this American emissary condemned the protests and implied that they were the sinister work of American left-wingers and USAID. That visitor was none other than Donald Trump Jr., who had arrived in Belgrade to fawn over Vučić in an exclusive interview for his Triggered with Don Jr. podcast, in the months before the newest Trump Tower opens for presales.
Washington Post
17 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump hosts Starmer in Scotland, promoting his own golf club
EDINBURGH, Scotland — President Donald Trump has transformed the private green at his Turnberry golf course into a venue for high-stakes diplomacy. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer arrived Monday morning to meet with the president near the fairway to hash out a trade deal and discuss the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. On Sunday, European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the contours of a trade deal at the private club. The meetings provide the latest example of how Trump uses his presidential power not only to govern, but also to help his family businesses. The engagements provide publicity for the courses and funnel taxpayer funds to the Trump Organization, as the U.S. government pays to lodge staff and security details at the properties. Traditionally, American presidents are invited to other countries by their leaders and hosted at diplomatic residences. But Trump is playing host to Starmer in the prime minister's own country, continuing his long tradition of sidestepping presidential norms to mix his family business and his public office. 'It is an unusual dynamic, but that is more of an issue for the U.S.,' said David Henig, director of the U.K. Trade Policy Project for the European Centre for International Political Economy. 'U.K. prime ministers have always said, we will just deal with the U.S. presidents as we find them.' Asked about the potential conflicts of interest, White House officials noted that the golf courses are held in a trust managed by Trump's children. 'President Trump's working trip to Scotland has already been a huge success, securing a historic trade agreement with the EU. President Trump is always acting in the best interest of the American people delivering GOOD deals that put America First,' White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a written statement. 'Donald J. Trump has built the best and most beautiful world-class golf courses anywhere in the world, which is why they continue to be used for prestigious tournaments and by the most elite players in the sport.' Trump and Starmer told reporters Monday that they plan to discuss tariffs — including those levied on whisky — and aid to Gaza and Ukraine. In an exchange with reporters as Starmer arrived, Trump said he plans to shorten the 50-day deadline he gave Russian President Vladimir Putin to reach a ceasefire in Ukraine, reflecting his mounting frustration with the Kremlin. He also repeated his complaint that no one has said 'thank you' for aid the United States has sent to Gaza for food, where deaths from starvation and malnutrition are rising, and stressed his continued focus on rescuing Israeli hostages. Trump's visit, which includes the opening of a new golf course in Aberdeenshire, on Scotland's east coast, will cost American taxpayers millions of dollars for travel and security. While all other presidents in the era of jet travel have regularly used Air Force One for personal travel and are protected by the Secret Service as they do so, the government was not paying hotel fees to businesses they owned to house security details or White House staff. The U.S. government paid $68,800 to Trump's Turnberry resort in 2018 to cover the cost of Trump's visit to the course on Scotland's west coast during his first term, according to a report in the Scotsman newspaper. In between negotiating trade accords and batting back questions about the Jeffrey Epstein files, Trump used his time in Scotland over the weekend to promote the course. He posted videos of himself golfing on Truth Social, the social network he partially owns. He also cited praise from the retired professional golfer Gary Player. 'The Great Gary Player: 'Turnberry is, without a question, in the Top Five Greatest Golf Courses I've ever played in my 73 years as a Pro.' Thank you, Gary!'' he wrote. Trump Turnberry was one of Trump's most expensive properties and has struggled to turn a profit since his company purchased it in 2014. Trump spent $67 million to buy the property and an additional $144 million to renovate it. The course lost $1.7 million in the 2023 fiscal year, according to a filing from the company which operates the course. Trump has some supporters in the Turnberry area, where his club is a significant employer, but also many detractors. Scotts have hosted demonstrations across the country this week in protest of his stay. 'We're operating in nonstandard territory in terms of seeing him using Scotland as just a meeting room and use his properties as a venue for trade talks,' said Jack Nevin, who organized a protest Saturday in Edinburgh on behalf of Stop Trump Coalition. 'It's par for the course with his rank corruption and promoting his own businesses as president.' Amy B Wang contributed to this report.
