Your elipsis suggests you find that suspicious, but why?
The second time in less than a year sounds suspicious, but the time you are thinking of was in late January. Is it really any more suspicious to happen again 11 months later rather than 12? It's only a cognitive bias that makes "one year" sound like a much longer time than "11 months". Also consider that this would be the same season and thus similar weather conditions and fishing seasons, and that the accepted conclusion about January's event was that particularly bad weather conditions at the time caused a large number of ships in the Mediterranean to drop anchor, the dragging of which is a common cause of cable cuts.
That it is multiple backbones and they broke simultaneously sounds suspicious, but these cables are all located quite close together, close enough that it's possible they could be severed by the same event. No coordination or intent is necessary.
That it is the Middle East sounds suspicious, but who is the suspect, and what is the motive? The fact is that this is more of an inconvenience than real harm to anybody, and doesn't appear to benefit anybody, either. If it was a US action, why does it primarily inconvenience US allies and economic partners? If it was a terrorist act, why has nobody taken responsibility for it?
"Undersea cable damage is hardly rare--indeed, more than 50 repair operations were mounted in the Atlantic alone last year, according to marine cable repair company Global Marine Systems." -- http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/20152/?a=f
I see no reason why these cables would be any different, though as noted in the same article, the fact that there are far fewer means that each cut is more significant (and thus newsworthy). The rest of the article is fairly grounding, too.
Jeez, I think you're overanalyzing my comment a little. I wasn't implying any particularly conspiracy theory, I just wanted to point out there were a lot of similarities to another recent event, and it seems possible that's not a coincidence.
