Weapons of Media Deception

Sample some fake news gems: the US has won, Iran has lost, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been killed and Israel is destroyed. US President Donald Trump claimed Mojtaba Khamenei is dead, after US media reported he was in a coma. While journalists and social media users rushed to fact-

check, Netanyahu was already killed in a missile strike along with his brother―at least for social media users.

The rumours were so widespread that Israel released not one, but two videos of Netanyahu to prove that he is alive. In this war, Iran has already “won” in the ‘comments’ section for many because the ‘perpetrator of Gaza’ is dead. In the perception war, at least on social media, Iran has won this round.

While Netanyahu has been absent from public meetings, experts suggest this could be for security reasons, as one of Israel’s longest held myths—its impenetrability—has been challenged. An Indian journalist, who has reported extensively from the Levant, says it is very difficult to get information out of Israel because of heavy censorship. “Israel censors everything; you cannot film strike sites… we have been told not to show losses.” Banned topics include impact sites, lowered ammunition or interceptors, and images or videos of damage. All such material must be cleared by the military.

The journalist adds that Israel reports damage as injuries “while rushing to shelters”, rather than direct hits. “We have an iron

dome and what not. But Iran has challenged that narrative. It becomes a moral victory to show Israel is not impenetrable.”

At least, Iran is officially announcing the deaths publically, but the US-Israel alliance is not transparent on deaths and casualties.

Propaganda in wars is nothing new; it is almost as old as the concept of war itself. As far back as 1274 BCE, Egyptian pharaoh Ramesses II used temple carvings to portray himself as a king with a divine incarnation; a godly figure who single-handedly defeated the enemy in the Battle of Kadesh, despite modern historians believing the battle was largely inconclusive.

In 2026 AD, US President Donald Trump was presented to army members as being ‘anointed by Jesus’ to bring Armageddon to Iran. The president himself announced on multiple occasions that Iran had been ‘totally defeated’, only to later backtrack and ask other countries for ‘help’.

The US-Israel war on Iran has became a perfect breeding ground for misinformation built on propaganda flourishing on social media.

Just this week, ‘source’-based stories were leaked to US outlets discussing the new Ayatollah’s sexual identity. These reports quickly flooded social media feeds—Iran’s new Supreme Leader is gay. On a New York Post story on X, one user wrote that they “had to read it multiple times” and called it “ridiculous propaganda”. The post gathered thousands of comments and quotes. Many responses claimed it was a planted story designed to provoke anti-Khamenei sentiments, apart from memes. One viral response suggested it seemed easier to be gay and lead Iran than in the US.

This is not new. Sexuality has been weaponised in propaganda during conflicts before. Allegations of ‘gay porn’ being discovered on the premises of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya circulated widely. In 2011, The Guardian published a report on a CIA plan involving a fake Saddam Hussein gay sex tape. A Washington Post security blog back then noted that some officials believed a staged video of Hussein with a teenage boy could destabilise his regime before the 2003 invasion. The plan allegedly relied on low quality, grainy footage to appear authentic. According to The Guardian, the aim was to create outrage in an Islamic country, and ensure the shock motivates people to rise up against their leader, and make the US invasion easier.

Unrelated, the US has hinted to a ground invasion of Iran during the current war.

On social media, the winning side depends on algorithms and the echo chambers they create. On the Right, the US is saving the world and winning; on the Left, the US-Israel infrastructure is ruining the world and losing.

Navneet Anand, 50, a former journalist, believes the US had to act for global safety. His sources are newspapers and social media reels, and he describes his feed as centre to Right. According to him, the war reflects the US’ stated aim of destroying anti-democratic forces, Islamic terror, and militancy; calling it part of a new global order. He says he rarely encounters pro-Khamenei content except ‘if it is from places like Aligarh’. Comparing Ali Khamenei to Osama bin Laden, he says the US is the only country that can take such figures “head

on”. He adds the conflict traces back to 9/11 and that these figures are finally being held accountable. However, he admits that Iran may be momentarily winning the “social media war”, though he says that does not matter much.

In contrast, Subodh Kumar, 55, a retired banker from Delhi, sees Iran as the clear winner. His sources include English newspapers and social media, with a Left-leaning feed. He notes that newspapers repeat US claims of liberation, but social media provides mixed results.

“Iran is benefitting… the US-Israel action has reinforced its victim image. Even those who opposed Khamenei will now stand with the country because children are being killed. Geopolitically, this becomes a diplomatic win.” He adds that alliances like NATO appear weakened and that aggressive policies have backfired.

According to his feed, Iran is the only force capable of countering the US-Israel dominance.

However, the US is not giving up the social media battle, just as its president is not giving up on creating new wars each month.

With booming music and clips from films and video games which feature war and killing, the White House has released reels to showcase American dominance over Iran. The idea behind propaganda, according to researchers, is to evoke emotional, rather than rational responses to suit an agenda.

The US clips rely on violence, aggressive language, and dehumanisation. They are highly ‘macho’ in tone.

Both sides attempt to tug at the heartstrings in different ways. Iran has released an animated video depicting the final moments of Ali Khamenei and his toddler granddaughter before a missile strike, followed by a phoenix-like rise of Mojtaba Khamenei seeking revenge.

A group in Pakistan released an animated video showing girls preparing to go to school, in contrast with a harsher imagery of an American soldier entering a fighter jet. The sequence ends with the girls being killed in a bombing.

These very different approaches are also helping shape public perception on social media—the US wants to kill, Iran wants to save babies and children.

Vishal Dudeja, an interior design firm owner in south Delhi, says Iran is brave to stand up to a bully, echoing sentiments widely seen on social media that portray the US as an aggressive country.

According to a reel he saw, Iran has been authorised to continue missile strikes even if the leadership falls. The message: the fight will not stop.

The foreign correspondent, who does not wish to be named, agrees that Iran may be winning the social media sympathy war. He says people are less focused on victory and more on Iran’s ability to confront a far stronger adversary. He adds that Israel may be running low on interceptors, based on reports that are difficult to verify due to censorship.

“US interceptors cost about $1 million each. Iranian drones cost around $6,000. So multiple interceptors may be used to take down a single drone, making the cost imbalance significant,” says the foreign correspondent.

For 64-year-old Abha Singh, whose primary source is YouTube and whose feed is strongly Left-leaning, Iran appears as a victim standing up to a bully. She rejects Hindi television news as unreliable and says her feed shows weakening US influence and growing global isolation. “Trump is friendless, and everyone wants Netanyahu dead,” she says.

A viral image claimed that Iran launched missiles marked “in memory of the victims of Epstein Island”. The emotional appeal drew widespread sympathy, with users expressing support for Iran. Singh admits she felt emotional seeing it.

The image is now believed to be AI-generated. Iran never launched such missiles.

The correspondent adds that Iran is equally adept at misinformation. “Ali Larijani―former speaker of Iran’s Parliament―had, in the 80s-90s, spread a fake image of anti-regime protesters showing the Shiite community dancing on Muharram and alleged blasphemy. It helped others turn against the protesters. He is a philosophy expert, written books, he knows what to do. Their raison d’être is that we always had to defeat American powers,” adds the foreign correspondent.

Anwiti Singh is a journalist with a passion for politics, intersectional feminism, and dissecting media culture. A dog mom, she is addicted to reading, true crime, and naps.

This article is part of Outlook 's March 21 issue 'Bombs Do Not Liberate Women' which looks at the conflict in West Asia following US and Israel’s attacks on Iran leading to the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while the world wondered in loud silence, again, Whose War Is It Anyway?