They had nine years and more money than god to build redundancy in an unstable region.

If it's an unstable region, then it might not result in a good return, especially since a blown up data center is 100% loss.

This is focusing in too close.

Bezos has been working with Trump. The instability has been hugely exacerbated by Trump. The issue lies at home.

Yeah, Iran blowing up half the Middle East? Totally Bezos' fault.

They did build redundancy but most of it was bombed.

IDF wants to exterminate Bahrain and UAE?

Evidence so far suggests yes, actually.

Right. And Iran funded Hamas and the Iranian leadership aren’t?

That's genocide too, but it's ok because they're losing.

> genocide datacenters

[Palantir](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palant%C3%ADr) would like a word.

Moral condemnation has little coercive force unless it is backed by material power.

AWS is one of the biggest military contractors, they're a valid target

If they're region-locking data appropriately (i.e. for people to comply with domestic storage / gdpr-style requirements) they really can't. Bahrain is only about 300 square miles / 80k hectares.

They could, of course, open other regional data centers in other countries, or say "data in this geo zone may be in any of X, Y or Z" countries, but for the latter that pretty starkly limits some of the major customers they'd have, I would guess, and for the former, well, they have other geo zones already, so if people weren't replicating to them, I'm not sure why adding me-east-1 me-west-1 me-central-1 would fix that issue, they just wouldn't replicate there either.

Multiple zones impacted.

Yes, this, and the article seems pretty clear that only "some data stored exclusively in Bahrain" is affected. Add to that the option to store data with reduced redundancy (in S3, for example), and I don't really see what the drama is about.

Amazon only claims "99.999999999% durability" per year, even for the properly replicated stuff.[0]

[0] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/DataDu...

> stored exclusively in

Now I'm thinking about legal/contractual rules that might force that kind of geographic risk.

I mean, logically you could have the Allowable Location send pre-encrypted backups to anywhere in the world, except (A) laws and regulations aren't always logical and (B) you still have the problem of keeping the decryption keys somewhere safe without leaving the key jurisdiction.