It wouldn't be that hard for them to pull off. I'd actually be shocked if they wouldn't put assets in the area for exactly that thing. It would be a hindrance to all the defense firms that are indirectly supporting the US military. It would also be a massive annoyance to both corporate interests and voter interests domestically.
When what brought it about, speaking in a hypothetical future tense, was US involvement that benefits no person or company in the US it would quickly deflate the US's political will or mandate from the people to pursue these wars. The current mandate that they have is that the current party technically controls the military, and so far it hasn't negatively impacted the public. The second that's not true, the American public will be asking questions about how we calculate who to attack. And there will be no answers besides open admission of corruption.
It would be very smart for Iran to do. It may even improve Iran's popularity in the US because people don't really like those data centers. And double smart when no one likes Israel at all in the US right now. How ironic will it be when Iran's PR in the US is better than Israel's, and we are fighting a war that only benefits Israel? It would divide the people from their government even more and knock out a strategic war resource.
But to protect PR, they'd have to somehow do it while minimizing deaths. These buildings have almost no personnel in them. But if there is one guard in the whole building, that will end up being the story. The news in the US that works for the military in times of war knows that US citizens don't give a single fuck about an AWS blade server. But one single AWS guard might be enough to get the American public to actually care about the Iran issue. So that is the risk they have to balance with that kind of an attack.
They don't need intercontinental missiles to do it. They only need rockets more crude than the ones they have given to Hamas or Hezbollah to target something 100 yards in front of them.
A threat they've mitigated
You're funny, acting like you know better than the teams of people who've worked on mitigating multiple aspects of threat modeling.
As I said - they showed us what couldn't be hidden, or were permitted to show us.
There's a few other elements they talked about which I won't repeat here, but it really drove home how much time they'd put into understanding worst-case.
About the only way you'd damage these places is with a direct bomb from overhead - and even that would take a significant direct hit.
Remember, this is one of several for this data center company. How many others are there that live replicate the important systems?
For business I've worked with systems which we replicated (live, transparent auto-failover) across five data centers in different zones. These zones are defined by their risk profile - both natural (hurricanes, floods, tornado, etc) and human threats such that no single event could disable them all.
These "normal" data centers (probably not as hardened as the DC one) also maintain multiple power systems, and redundant data connections via independent routes.
This for just business-critical systems.
What I'm saying is, you are utterly talking out of your ass about something you have no fucking clue about, and your hubris is tiring.
Again, I'm a relative peon to this stuff, and can see how much thought's been put into security.