In the early phase of the conflict with Iran, the battle for narrative control appeared as intense as the fighting itself. While the White House focused on social media messaging, often relying on stylised or AI-generated content, Iranian state-linked outlets reportedly moved in a different direction, flooding platforms with raw and often disturbing footage from the ground.
Videos showing explosions over Tehran, smoke rising across urban areas and scenes of civilian suffering circulated widely online. For many observers, this material carried a level of immediacy that contrasted with the more curated tone of US messaging. In that moment, reality itself appeared to become Iran’s most effective form of communication.
Yet the credibility of this content quickly became part of the conflict. In an environment shaped by artificial intelligence, the line between authentic documentation and fabricated media has become increasingly difficult to define. Analysts say this ambiguity is no longer accidental. It is now a core feature of modern warfare.
This shift is particularly striking given Iran’s recent history. Just weeks before the escalation, authorities had imposed one of the longest internet shutdowns in the country’s history, limiting the ability of protesters to share images of internal unrest. When such content surfaced, officials reportedly dismissed it as foreign or AI-generated disinformation.
Once the conflict began, however, the dynamic appeared to reverse. As reported strikes by US and Israeli forces caused civilian casualties, Iranian media amplified footage of destruction, repositioning the country as a victim on the global stage. In doing so, Tehran seemed to rely less on fabrication and more on selective exposure of reality.
By mid-March, the information battlefield had evolved again. AI-generated content began to dominate certain online spaces, including surreal videos featuring Lego-style war scenes mixed with political messaging and internet culture references. These clips, widely shared across platforms, appeared designed not for accuracy but for engagement.
The origins of such content remain unclear. Groups behind some viral videos have described themselves as independent creators, though experts suggest that operating at scale within Iran would likely require access that is difficult to obtain without some form of institutional tolerance. These claims have not been independently verified.
What is clearer is the strategic shift. Iran, lacking the military reach of the United States, appeared to compensate by investing in narrative influence. Control over the Strait of Hormuz added pressure to global markets, while online messaging amplified the perception of resilience and victimhood.
At the same time, US communication appeared fragmented. Public messaging from President Donald Trump, including warnings and rhetorical escalations, reflected a traditional projection of power. However, analysts argue that such approaches may struggle in a digital environment driven by emotion, virality and symbolism rather than official statements alone.
This dynamic reflects a broader transformation seen in recent conflicts, including those in Ukraine and Gaza. In both cases, civilian footage once played a central role in shaping global understanding. But the rapid rise of AI-generated media has complicated this model. Authentic images can now be dismissed as fake, while fabricated content can achieve widespread reach before verification is possible.
The reported strike on a school in Minab illustrates this challenge. Images and drone footage of mass casualties circulated online, yet some users claimed the material was AI-generated. Even when content is verified, doubt often lingers.
Experts warn that this erosion of trust may be one of the most lasting consequences of the conflict. Once uncertainty takes hold, it becomes easier for competing narratives to coexist, regardless of factual accuracy.
Iran’s long-term investment in digital media infrastructure may also have played a role. Reports indicate that networks of smaller, agile production units, some linked to state-backed organisations, have been producing fast-paced, visually engaging content tailored for online audiences. These groups are said to prioritise speed, tone and relatability over traditional messaging formats.
At the same time, Iran’s internal contradictions remain evident. The government continues to face criticism over its handling of dissent and its use of internet shutdowns, even as it positions itself internationally as a victim of external aggression. Analysts caution that both realities can coexist.
The result is a complex and often contradictory information environment, where truth, propaganda and perception intersect. In such a space, the question is no longer simply what is real, but what is believed.
As ceasefire talks continue, the implications of this digital confrontation extend beyond the current conflict. Governments, platforms and audiences are all adjusting to a new reality where information itself has become a strategic asset.
In this evolving landscape, controlling the narrative may no longer depend on producing the most convincing message, but on shaping the conditions in which truth is either trusted or dismissed.