A war beyond the bombs
Moments after the bombs fell, a video surfaced on X and Telegram, appearing to show a blast at the notorious facility, long known for holding political prisoners.
One post included the hashtag, in Persian: '#freeevin'.
The attack was real – but the posts and video were not. According to researchers, they were part of an Israeli deception campaign. It was just one instance in a broader information war.
Over 12 days of missile strikes between Israel and Iran, social media became a digital battleground, with both sides deploying fakes, fabrications and psychological operations (psyops) in an effort to control public perception – even as hundreds died and tensions escalated across the Middle East.
While psyops are as old as warfare itself, experts say this conflict saw an unprecedented level of sophistication and scale, supercharged by artificial intelligence (AI) tools and ubiquitous mobile connectivity.
'The ability to go to scale with this kind of propaganda – there's never really been a previous corollary in history,' said James Forest, a security studies professor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.
Today's technology enables governments to directly reach domestic and foreign audiences in real time – often with messages that seem far more credible than before.
Iran, for example, reportedly sent alerts in Hebrew to thousands of Israeli phones, warning people to avoid bomb shelters because fighters planned to attack them.
On X, a network of accounts attributed to Israel spread messages in Persian, some voiced by AI-generated narrators, aimed at undermining public faith in Iran's government.
The propaganda barrage offers a glimpse into what future conflicts might look like. When US President Donald Trump ordered strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, false images of destroyed American bombers appeared online.
'I think what most people would say is that we are not prepared in the military for the kind of information operations or psychological operations that might become mainstream in this century,' said David Millar, a former US intelligence officer and trainer at the State Department's Foreign Service Institute.
While the Pentagon has long embraced information warfare – renamed Military Information Support Operations – it is often treated as secondary to conventional tactics.
Russia, by contrast, is seen as the most aggressive player in influence campaigns, waging a full-spectrum information war since its 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Both Israel and Iran have adopted elements of Russia's playbook, now enhanced by widely accessible AI tools.
'If you go back to the early days of Ukraine, we saw disinformation campaigns from Russia, but they were pretty primitive compared to what we saw in the early days of Gaza,' said Hany Farid, a computer science professor at UC Berkeley and co-founder of GetReal Security.
His company was the first to flag the fake Evin prison video.
In both the Israel-Gaza and Israel-Iran conflicts, online platforms were inundated with doctored or misleading content – from crude edits to subtle fakes that initially fooled journalists.
Farid likened it to the leap from World War II-era propaganda, when radio and leaflets were the tools of choice.
'With radio, you had one message and you sent it out,' he said. 'Now you have a million messages that you send out to a million individuals.'
Iran's efforts, analysts believe, were aimed as much at regional audiences as Israel itself. According to Ari Ben-Am, co-founder of Israeli analytics firm Telemetry Data Labs, Teheran sought to maintain its image as a regional power.
Fabricated footage showed explosions at Israel's Ben Gurion Airport. Images claiming to show wrecked Israeli and even US aircraft – traced to Iranian sources – were widely shared.
Iran also claimed to have downed three Israeli F-35 jets, a claim Israel denied. One photo showed an implausible afterburner on a destroyed plane.
Iranian media went so far as to announce the capture of an Israeli pilot named Sarah Ahronot. But the photo was traced by NewsGuard – a disinformation watchdog – to a 2011 image of a Chilean navy officer.
NewsGuard documented at least 28 false claims from Iran, disseminated through a mix of state media, anonymous websites and proxy influencers on platforms including YouTube, Facebook, X, Telegram and TikTok.
Israel's campaign, meanwhile, appeared focused not just on battlefield results but on amplifying political dissent inside Iran.
Horizon Intelligence, a Brussels-based threat analysis firm, cited social media accounts that resurfaced old protest footage and generated AI videos of Iranians chanting 'We love Israel'.
Darren Linvill, co-director of Clemson University's Media Forensics Hub, described the Evin prison video as a textbook case of 'coordination between kinetic and psychological warfare' – a fake video pushed out moments after a real-world airstrike, then amplified by a network of inauthentic anti-Iran accounts.
The digital battle didn't end with the ceasefire on June 24.
The next day, a new account appeared on X, claiming to be the Persian-language spokesman for Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence agency.
Posts offered financial and medical support to Iranians willing to revolt. Videos on the account featured Menashe Amir, an elderly Iranian-Israeli journalist and broadcaster.
Amir confirmed strangers came to his house with cameras and scripts in Hebrew, asking him to record messages in Persian.
He suspected they were Mossad operatives. Mossad declined to comment.
Iran took the account seriously. Its Health Ministry issued a public warning urging Iranians to ignore Mossad's offers, according to state media. — ©2025 The New York Times Company
This article originally appeared in The New York Times
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
10 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
CK Hutchison's US$22.8 billion ports deal in focus as conglomerate reports results
HONG KONG: Investors will look for comments from CK Hutchison on the status of its US$22.8 billion ports business sale to a consortium led by US investment firm BlackRock when the Hong Kong conglomerate reports its results on Thursday. The ports-to-telecoms group will present its interim results at 5 p.m. (0900 GMT), offering analysts the first opportunity to quiz the management about the plan to sell the ports business since it was announced in March. Departing from its usual practice, CK Hutchison did not brief analysts or media about its 2024 earnings, released in March after it made public its plan to sell the business, which includes two ports along the strategic Panama Canal. Since the plan to sell 43 ports in 23 countries to a group led by BlackRock and Italian billionaire Gianluigi Aponte's family-run shipping firm MSC was announced, CK Hutchison has faced a firestorm of criticism from China. In the latest announcement on July 28, the conglomerate said it was in talks with the consortium pursuing its ports business to add a Chinese "major strategic investor" to the bid, after their exclusive talks ended. It said changes would be necessary to secure regulatory approval in relevant jurisdictions and that it would allow as much time as needed to achieve that. Sources have told Reuters the investor was COSCO - one of the world's dominant, vertically integrated marine transportation firms. They said COSCO was seeking a bigger stake while the other parties in the consortium were keen to keep it a minority. While any stake by COSCO is not yet clear, an inclusion of a Chinese investor would alleviate China's national security concerns and have its blessing, the sources and other experts have said. COSCO did not respond to a request last month for comment. US President Donald Trump had earlier called for the removal of Chinese ownership in the Panama Canal. More than 40 per cent of US container traffic, valued at roughly US$270 billion annually, transits the Panama Canal. Shares of CK Hutchison eased 0.2 per cent on Thursday ahead of the results, versus a 0.1 per cent fall in the Hang Seng Index. UBS forecast last month a 6 per cent rise in underlying profit for the first six months, as ports and retail business growth and a weakening dollar offset the negative impact of oil prices. However, one-off losses, including from the completion of the 3UK merger, could weigh on the conglomerate's net profit. Morgan Stanley rated CK Hutchison "overweight" last month, citing potential strategic transactions, attractive valuation, and a strong balance sheet.
Malaysiakini
2 hours ago
- Malaysiakini
PM: Petronas layoffs partly due to AI, GLCs to take in axed employees
PARLIAMENT | Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim today said that layoffs in Petronas were partly due to 'redundancies' brought on by new technologies, including AI. Speaking in the Dewan Rakyat, Anwar said the restructuring exercise will also see affected workers offered positions in other government-linked companies (GLCs) and government-linked investment companies (GLICs).
Malay Mail
2 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Trump won't walk away from Alaska with a ceasefire — Phar Kim Beng
AUGUST 14 — When Donald Trump meets Vladimir Putin in Alaska this August, expectations of a signed ceasefire agreement in the Russia–Ukraine war will likely prove misplaced. The obstacles are structural, not personal, and the political theatre of the summit cannot disguise the fact that the fundamental parties are not aligned — starting with the absence of Ukraine as a formal participant in the talks. Without Kyiv's direct involvement, no arrangement to transform roughly one-quarter of Ukraine's eastern territories into a so-called 'safe buffer zone' can hold. This is not a neutral security measure; it is a geopolitical carve-out that Moscow might see as a fait accompli, but which Kyiv would treat as illegitimate. The fact that more than half a million Russian soldiers have reportedly perished and large swathes of both occupied and unoccupied territory remain mined only complicates the picture. Russia has no strategic interest in inheriting a wasteland, and Ukraine has no incentive to formalise losses under such dangerous conditions. The NATO factor Adding to the difficulty, NATO's largest European powers — notably France and Germany — are not buying into the premise of a Putin-friendly peace. Their pledge to raise defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 signals long-term strategic resistance to Russian expansionism. This is not 1938, and the political mood is the opposite of Munich's ill-fated appeasement. Their military build-up reflects a collective decision to fortify Europe's eastern flank, not to bargain away Ukrainian territory in the name of expediency. This means even if Trump and Putin agree on a provisional framework, European resolve will act as a brake. No NATO consensus will emerge behind an agreement that concedes strategic depth to Moscow without robust verification and enforcement measures. Then there is Beijing. T-shirts with images of Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump are displayed for sale at a gift shop in central Moscow, Russia, August 12, 2025. — Reuters pic China has already made clear it will not allow Russia to lose to the United States, and this is more than diplomatic rhetoric. The statement aligns with Beijing's broader grand strategy — a multipolar order in which a weakened Russia would tilt the global balance in Washington's favour. This strategic commitment emboldens Moscow, making it less likely to compromise in ways that would give the US or NATO a clear win. As long as China's economic and diplomatic umbrella remains open over Russia, Putin will calculate that time is on his side. This makes any substantive concession in Alaska highly improbable. The most likely outcome In reality, the best Trump can hope for is an agreement to keep talking. The East Asian Summit in Kuala Lumpur later this year could serve as the next venue for high-level dialogue. While the EAS is not designed to address European conflicts, it gathers the US, Russia, China, and ASEAN under one roof — creating a multipolar stage where ongoing discussions can be framed as progress without the pressure of immediate resolution. For Trump, this would still be a face-saving result. He could present the Alaska meeting as a breakthrough in getting adversaries to engage directly, while leaving room for further negotiations in a setting that dilutes NATO's centrality and includes Asian powers with vested interests in global stability. Why there will be no ceasefire in Alaska The absence of Ukraine, NATO's hardening stance, and China's strategic alignment with Russia form a triangular blockade to any rapid deal. These are not conditions that yield an enforceable ceasefire. At most, Alaska will produce another handshake moment and a promise to meet again — a symbolic gesture, not a settlement. The war will continue, the battle lines will remain, and the mines will still be in the ground. Trump may leave Alaska with headlines, but not with peace. * Phar Kim Beng is a professor of Asean Studies and Director of the Institute of Internationalization and Asean Studies at the International Islamic University of Malaysia. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
