A Chinese company’s publication of AI-enhanced satellite images of US bases in the Middle East is helping Iranian forces identify targets, US intelligence believes.

The ABC has been briefed on the intelligence by a source inside US defence, who says the images are endangering lives.

Chinese geospatial artificial intelligence and software company MizarVision, which the Chinese government has a small ownership stake in, has been publishing detailed satellite images with tagging data of multiple US military sites in the lead-up to, and during, the Iran war.

The imagery showcases an AI tool that identifies and tags military forces across vast areas, a capability that once required the resources of a national intelligence agency.

  • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I think were pretty screwed either way. If they ramp down, Iran sees them as an existential threat and ramps up nuke capability, but now with less sanctions and more money. Iran with nukes makes Israel more twitchy as they see it as an existential threat.

    If USA ramps up, we’re in for a long protracted war and instability.

    So we’re screwed either way.

    • Jhex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      if only the orange child rapist had done that very simple math before thinking it was a good idea to attack Iran to hide his kiddy diddling crimes

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      I think Israel, without unlimited weapons backing of the US (a condition I think would occur if the US loses badly) would stop casual strikes against Iran. They would know they risk a barrage of missiles that they don’t have the interceptors for. And if Iran gets the nuke, then MAD would be in effect. Israel seeing Iran as an existential threat now, not in the future would sit tight and perhaps even open a dialogue. The problem today is they consider Iran a threat in the future. And mind you they don’t consider them a threat so much to Israel today than to their plans for expansion in Lebanon, West Bank, Syria and so on.

      • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        I think it’s that they realize peak oil is over. The middle east is a geopolitical strategic position for energy, as the world is now finding out via Iran closing the SoH.

        Israel realised that that is on the wane. Along with the next generations attitude towards their relationshipnwith Israel. Israel is going hard in now as they have a larger support from the USA. I fully expect that to naturally wind down due to internal US political change and global moves away from carbon fuel.

        Sure, oil shocks would still bite, but nowhere near to the same level. It’s why the other oil production states are desperately trying to pivot to other industries. Iran has screwed that by making them unsafe. America doesn’t realize that by not protecting their allies there, in the same way they protect Israel, that they will lose them. Edit:typos

    • Tolc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      I think middle east would be much much safer with iran having nukes

      • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Lol, no. The world is safer with less nukes. Allowing Israel to get nukes was a failure of the international community.

        Allowing Ukraine to face repurcussions for giving up their nukes was another failure.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 hours ago

          The world is safer with less nukes.

          The world is safer with no nukes and infinitely unsafe with infinite nukes. It’s appealing to extrapolate from this that less nukes -> more safety, but that’s an unjustified leap of logic. For example take the case of one nuclear state vs two nuclear states. If there’s only one it can force its will on other states, but if there are two they can keep each other in check and drastically reduce the possibility of nukes actually flying.

          • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Yes, I agree with your logic. However, Iran is a fundamentalist regime. They appear rational next to trump. That doesn’t make them rational. Otherwise there would have been an end to sanctions years ago. And an end to murdering dissidents and protestors.

            • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              9 hours ago

              I hate to defend Iran, but the Iranian regime is in fact very rational. This is easily apparent when you strip away the religious aspect and look at what they actually do. In all direct confrontations with Israel or the US (at least during Khamenei’s rule, I’m not so sure about Khomeini), Iran has responded with measured actions aimed at de-escalation while saving face domestically and internationally and discouraging further aggression. Your image of Iran seems to be built on Western propaganda more than reality (again, I am not saying this to defend the Iranian regime).

              Otherwise there would have been an end to sanctions years ago.

              Uh… the sanctions are for daring to control their resources contrary to Western capitalist interests. Iran could be the most secular, most democratic country in the world and Western countries would still find a reason to sanction it. Besides, remember JCPOA? It was the US (and by extension the West) that reneged on that deal. Hell, remember the reason the Islamic Republic exists in the first place? Iran, quite rationally, wants to be an independent regional power not subordinate to anybody’s interests (and, again quite rationally, especially not Western interests). This directly contradicts the Western (especially US) demand that all Middle Eastern states be subordinate to their interests and pro-Israel. There can be no reconciliation between these positions (yet Iran tried anyway, see: JCPOA), so securing its position by force is the only realistic prospect, and frankly you can’t argue with results.

              And an end to murdering dissidents and protestors.

              Here you seem to be conflating rationality with morality. The Iranian regime is evil as fuck, but it’s rationally evil. Murdering challengers to one’s power is very rational from the perspective of a regime primarily concerned with its own survival. See also: the CCP.

            • Tolc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 hours ago

              no one is more fundamentalist than western regimes, they all will burn in hell for their crimes

        • Tolc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          No. Look at DPRK

          Iran must have nukes for stability and safety of the region