Indian Council of World Affairs

Abstract: This paper argues that artificial intelligence (AI) and emerging technologies have transformed cognitive warfare fundamentally by enabling perceptions manipulation at an unparalleled speed and scale. Contemporary conflicts are increasingly fought over the cognitive and psychological domain of the human mind rather than solely on physical battlefields. This paper supports its arguments by tracing the historical evolution of cognitive warfare and examining the technological advancements introduced by AI, particularly through an analysis of the recent US-Iran confrontations. Finally, this paper establishes how these same AI and advanced technological tools can be harnessed to build resilience against disinformation and support conflict resolution and reconciliation processes.

Introduction

In March 2022, during the peak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, a deepfake video of the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky surfaced online. In the video, President Zelensky was allegedly calling the Ukrainian troops to surrender. This created confusion and uncertainty among the masses, undermining trust during the heightened conflict.^[1] Although the deepfake video was debunked quickly, the incident marked how fast and far AI can affect warfare by manipulating cognition.

War has never been fought solely on the physical battlefields. Throughout history, states in pursuit of their strategic objectives have taken steps to shape perceptions, influencing emotions and manipulating decision-making. Whether it was the fear and misperception associated with the Peloponnesian War, often discussed in the context of the ‘Thucydides Trap’, or the large-scale propaganda campaigns during the two World Wars, the struggle to influence minds has always been associated with the struggle to control territory. Therefore, cognitive warfare in the 21st century is not a novel phenomenon. However, the emergence of AI and the emerging technological advances have substantially accelerated its speed, scale, and effectiveness. The implementation of the Dynamic Analysis and Replanning Tool (DART) by the United States in 1991 marked the beginning of the age of intelligence in the military domain. DART was deployed during the Gulf War under ‘Operation Desert Storm’ to schedule the transportation of supplies and personnel along with managing complex logistics, saving millions of dollars.^[2] Since then, AI and digital technologies have become a significant part of wars. However, this application extends beyond military and physical battlefields. With the rise of synthetic media and deepfakes, AI enabled technologies have found their new battlefield in the cognitive domain of the human mind. The recent use of AI-integrated systems by the United States and Iran has significantly combined data-driven targeting with AI-integrated cognitive warfare as a strategic tool.

Source: Icelandic Institute for Intelligent Machines

The 21st-century conflict architecture increasingly belongs to those who control territory and the psyche of the civilian population. The integration of bot networks, targeted content, and potentially deepfake imagery creates a digital amplification capable of preparing cognitive battlefields before the first bomb falls. As demonstrated in the recent US-Iran confrontation, both used AI as a strategic tool albeit in different ways reflecting the asymmetry in capabilities, technological sophistication and strategic objectives. However, both have maximised their potential by effectively utilising the new technologies available to them, based on their respective capacities.^[3]

Historical Evolution of Cognitive Warfare

Long before the introduction of AI and digital technologies, political and military leaders realised that victories could be achieved not only through force but also through the strategic manipulation of information and perception. This suggests that the role of cognition and the human psyche in wars is as old as warfare itself. One of the earliest instances of this phenomenon occurred during the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. Thucydides drew attention to the role of perception, in shaping the decisions of Spartan and Athenian leaders as they sought to strengthen their power to gain a strategic advantage over their rivals.^[4] Thucydides showed that interests, fear, and honour were the main drivers of state behaviour. The rising power of Athens made Sparta insecure with fear, which created a perception of threat that ultimately contributed to the outbreak of war. This insight is particularly significant because it emphasises both perception and the objective reality. This illustrates that, the cognitive dimension of the conflict has existed since ancient times.

The industrialisation of warfare further expanded the importance of perception management in 20th century. During the First World War, newspapers, public campaigns, posters, and films were employed by the governments to mobilise domestic populations and sustain public support for military operations. For instance, the parliamentary recruiting committee in Britain published and distributed almost 12 million copies of 140 different posters, 34 million leaflets, and 5.5 million pamphlets by the second year of the war. Similarly, the American government had produced more than 20 million copies of some 2,500 distinct poster designs by the time of the armistice in November 1918.^[5] Propaganda played an instrumental role in shaping public opinion, boosting morale and portraying adversaries as existential threats. It also helped in recruiting men for military service.^[6]

A further evolution of psychological warfare was seen during the Second World War with the advancement of technology and mechanics. There was a surge in deception operations, radio broadcasts, leaflets, and disinformation campaigns by states to influence both the civilian population and adversaries. One notable example is Operation Corn Flakes, launched by the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the Allies as a psychological warfare mission. The operation employed anti-Nazi propaganda to influence German citizens through the mail to shatter civilian morale and break resistance.^[7] Between February and April 1945, the 14th fighter squadron of the 15th Air Force dropped 320 mailbags containing 96,000 forged letters during 10 missions over southern Germany and Austria. This had a psychological impact on the adversary, eroding faith in the Führer and cultivating the narrative of defeat among the supporters of the Axis forces. This period marked the weaponisation of information for war gains.

Source: Image created by author using Napkin AI

However, these historical examples reveal a pattern wherein technologies and techniques have changed but the underlying objective has remained remarkably consistent. The objective primarily remains to influence how individuals and society perceive reality and make decisions. Therefore, contemporary debates about cognitive warfare are not an entirely new phenomenon but the latest stage in a long historical evolution. The only distinction is that the present era of AI has enabled the automation, personalisation, and amplification of these influences at an unprecedented level of speed and scale.

How has AI Transformed Cognitive Warfare?

Traditionally, psychological warfare was primarily focused on influencing morale, emotions, and behaviour through the dissemination of information and propaganda. By contrast, cognitive warfare aims to shape the processes through which the public perceives, interprets, and reacts to information. This transition has been accelerated by the emergence of digital technologies. At present, information environments are characterised by large volumes of data, algorithmically curated content, and continuous connectivity. This transition can be understood through reflexive control. Reflexive control was developed during the Cold War and refers to influencing the decision-making capacity of the adversary by providing carefully selected information.^[8] This curated information or content encourages adversaries to act in ways that are favourable to the objectives of the initiator. State actors can identify vulnerabilities through behavioural data, audience profiling, open-source intelligence, and algorithmic analysis. This approach also assists in predicting reactions and tailoring messages to targeted groups with remarkable precision.^[9]

It is within this evolving context that AI has emerged as a transformative force and is reshaping the conduct of cognitive warfare fundamentally. The role of AI-generated content in cognitive warfare, including social bots, synthetic media, memes, hashtags, and online influencers, has been influential in shaping public discourse.^[10] These contents usually evoke fear, outrage, or group solidarity, further shaping public perception. Moreover, the reach and impact of these contents are frequently amplified through the algorithms of social media platforms. They not only spread information but also decide which content needs or receives more visibility and emotional resonance. For instance, images were released where the Israeli military was depicted cheering, and fabricated visuals of wartime events were shown. Similarly, AI-generated content depicting the reconstruction of Gaza as a prosperous tourist destination was promoted on social media. This demonstrates how generative AI could be employed to shape narratives and fuel the competition for legitimacy within the digital sphere.^[11]

Another layer of complexity to the modern conflict has been added by the emergence of synthetic media. Advancement in generative AI has made it possible to create such realistic images, audio recordings, and videos that it has become a challenge to ordinary users to distinguish it from the authentic content. By the time we debunk such content, the public’s uncertainty and trust in information have already eroded. The blurred boundaries between the truth and fabrication have become one of the defining characteristics of AI-enabled cognitive warfare.^[12] 

Source: Image created by the author using Napkin AI

Undoubtedly, the use of AI-integrated systems for military purposes has been defined as a challenge. For instance, AI-integrated programmes like Lavender and Gospel were used by Israel in Gaza for human and structural targeting. The consequences were increased civilian casualties and violations of the principles of ‘distinction between civilian and military targets’.^[13] The AI-integrated cognitive battlespace has broadened its scope through the growth of digital platforms. Social media influencers, online communities, and even video games are increasingly shaping how individuals understand political events and international conflicts. Researchers associated with NATO’s cognitive warfare studies, such as Francois du Cluzel, argue that trusted online personalities often function as cognitive authorities and influence the audiences to interpret information and assign it a political meaning.^[14] Similarly, gaming culture and virtual communities have become shared spaces where identities, perceptions, and political narratives build themselves over long periods of time.

Use of AI and Technology in the Recent US-Iran Confrontation

According to US state officials, the United States has heavily used AI-powered data fusion and decision-support programmes, famously known as the Maven Smart system, in its military operations. The Maven Smart system, developed by Palantir Technologies and launched by the US Department of Defence (DoD) in April 2017, was used to identify top-priority targets and select weapons for attacks.^[15]  Moreover, generative AI was used for intelligence purposes through large language models such as Anthropic’s Claude. It was used to analyse intelligence reports, stimulate battle scenarios, and optimise mission planning. This reduced the time for analysis from weeks to minutes. There was prominent use of synthetic media in the form of deepfake videos and fake expert profiles, including fabricated evidence and techniques of reflexive control. As the big corporations like Meta, X, and Google are based in the United States, this automatically grants the US large data flows and algorithmic control.^[16] Along with the Maven Smart system, the Palantir-developed Mosaic platform contributed significantly to the US strikes on Iran in June 2026 under Operation Epic Fury.

On the other hand, unlike the United States, Iran does not possess comparable technological infrastructure, computational capabilities, or access to global digital platforms. As a consequence, Iran’s use of AI has evolved within the framework of asymmetric warfare, where influence and perception building are often used as compensation tools for material limitations.^[17] Iran has tactically used AI by employing AI-enabled cognitive tools to amplify narratives of resistance, victimhood, anti-imperialism, and national sovereignty instead of seeking technological parity with the United States. This, in turn, has mobilised support and shaped narratives in favour of Iran among domestic, regional, and international audiences. The Iranian narratives have been continuously delivered through a network of state-sponsored media outlets and online communities.^[18] Digitally amplified information campaigns have further contributed to spreading and upholding these narratives. One notable example is the use of Lego-style videos of US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and other American officials. These videos are meant to create psychological associations rather than convey actual information. It is intended on drawing linkages, such as the association of President Trump with Satan and the United States as evil. ^[19] Content generation, algorithmic dissemination, and coordinated online activity assisted by AI have allowed Iranian actors to circulate emotionally charged and relatable content. This has resulted in influencing public opinion and reinforcing pre-existing political identities.

Constructive Role of AI in Reframing Cognitive Warfare

Although the use of AI and advanced technology to shape public cognition during warfare is a serious challenge, there is another way to use it in a positive light. With the increasing sophistication of cognitive warfare, the counterresponse cannot be developed through solely relying on traditional information security measures. Research by NATO in 2024 argues that effective countermeasures must focus on strengthening societal resilience by improving the ability of the public to identify and respond to cognitive attacks.^[20] Effective measures also include preserving the autonomy of decision-making. AI can be used proactively to detect and identify propaganda influence campaigns and manipulated content. This will eventually help in providing early warnings of emerging cognitive threats. Monitoring systems driven by AI may analyse large volumes of online content at once to identify patterns of disinformation, narrative building, and bot activity at a much larger scale and speed than human analysts.^[21] However, meaningful human oversight is necessary to ensure accountability and credibility for these systems. This can further develop public trust and resilience.

Beyond security and defence, AI measures can potentially support peacebuilding and reconciliation efforts. The same tools and techniques that are used to enforce hostility among the adversaries can be used to create a sense of empathy, peace, and reconciliation among the masses of the adversaries. Visualising these objectives can public opinion.^[22] Automated fact-checking, multilingual communication tools, and digital literacy initiatives, especially designed systems to promote credible and reliable information, may reduce societal vulnerabilities to manipulation and disinformation. The deepfake video of President Zelensky that called on the Ukrainian military forces to surrender was mainly debunked through AI-assisted detection tools and social media monitoring systems. This indicates that AI can serve not only as a strategic tool in cognitive warfare but also as a mechanism for strengthening digital literacy and debunking the same threats posed by its use.

Conclusion

From the strategic calculations of Athens and Sparta to the heavily propaganda-driven world wars, manipulation, influence, and the shaping of perceptions of adversaries, as well as the general public, have always been crucial tactics in warfare. What distinguishes the contemporary era of warfare and conflict is the transformation brought about by AI and advanced technology, has dramatically increased the speed, scale, and intensity of these influence operations. The recent confrontation between Iran and the United States perfectly pictures this transition in the conduct of warfare in contemporary times. AI has been actively used not only for military purposes but also to influence the cognition, psyche, and emotions of the general public, which have, in turn, shaped public opinion in favour of or against their chosen sides. Military action is no longer the first step towards a war; rather, manipulation of minds has become phenomenal in initiating the war before a single bomb drops. While the US has taken advantage of AI to strengthen intelligence, surveillance, targeting, and strategic communication, Iran has leveraged digital technologies and social media to amplify narratives of an anti-West agenda and resistance. In both contexts, the application of AI extended beyond the physical battlefield into the realm of perception, public opinion, and legitimacy. This poses significant challenges for societies, states, and international institutions. However, the same technologies can help strengthen resilience, integrity, and support in peacebuilding activities. Therefore, the challenge is not simply to regulate the use of AI in warfare but also to harness its transformative capabilities for resilience, peacebuilding and conflict resolution.

*****

*Azra Shahab, Research Intern, Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal. 

Endnotes 

1. Wakefield, Jane. 2022. “Deepfake Presidents Used in Russia-Ukraine War.” BBC News, March 18, 2022, sec. Technology. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60780142.
2. “AI Technology Is Changing How Wars Are Won.” TE Connectivity, www.te.com/en/industries/defense-military/insights/ai-in-warfare-and-military-applications.html.
3. “US Military Confirms Use of Advanced AI Tools in War against Iran.” 2026. Digital Rights Foundation. March 11, 2026. https://digitalrightsfoundation.pk/us-military-confirms-use-of-advanced-ai-tools-in-war-against-iran/.
4. Bartosiak, Jacek. 2020. “The Thucydides Trap and the Rise and Fall of Great Powers.” Geopolitical Futures. July 8, 2020. https://geopoliticalfutures.com/the-thucydides-trap-and-the-rise-and-fall-of-great-powers/.
5. Cleveland. 2018. “War of Words: Propaganda of World War I | UGA Libraries.” Libraries.uga.edu. June 14, 2018. https://libraries.uga.edu/news/wwipropaganda.
6. Ibid.
7. Bamford, Tyler. 2020. “Operation Cornflakes.” The National WWII Museum | New Orleans. February 4, 2020. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/operation-cornflakes.
8. SIMKRA. 2025. “Reflexive Control in Cognitive Warfare.” Medium. December 7, 2025. https://medium.com/@simone.kraus/reflexive-control-in-cognitive-warfare-9bd4e04c2ec5.
9. Ibid.
10. Brar, Karanbir Singh. 2025. “Distinguishing between ‘AI in Warfare’ and ‘Warfare in an AI World.’” Orfonline.org. OBSERVER RESEARCH FOUNDATION ( ORF ). November 18, 2025. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/distinguishing-between-ai-in-warfare-and-warfare-in-an-ai-world.
11. Kuntsman, Adi, and Rebecca L. Stein. 2026. “Gaza and the Rise of Synthetic Militarism: On Genocide and Generative AI.” Media, Culture & Society, March. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437261421440.
12. Jean-Michel Valantin, Fabrice Lollia. 2026. “Cognitive Warfare: A New Strategic Frontier?” Small Wars Journal by Arizona State University. June 4, 2026. https://smallwarsjournal.com/2026/06/04/cognitive-warfare-a-strategic-frontier/.
13. KOÇAKOĞLU, MUHAMMED SEFA. 2025. “SIBEL DÜZ, MUHAMMED SEFA KOÇAKOĞLU DEADLY ALGORITHMS Destructive Role of Artificial Intelligence in Gaza War.” SETA,  FOUNDATION FOR POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RESEARCH. https://media.setav.org/en/file/2025/02/deadly-algorithms-destructive-role-of-artificial-intelligence-in-gaza-war.pdf.
14. Claverie, Bernard, and François Du Cluzel. 2023. “The Cognitive Warfare Concept.” NATO Innovation Hub . https://innovationhub-act.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/CW-article-Claverie-du-Cluzel-final_0.pdf.
15. Klare, Michael. 2026. “AI Plays Major Role in the War on Iran | Arms Control Association.” Armscontrol.org. Arms Control Association. May 2026. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2026-05/news/ai-plays-major-role-war-iran.
16. Celik, Emine. 2026. “US Cognitive Warfare: How AI and Big Tech Shaped the Iran Strikes.” YeniSafak. March 5, 2026. https://en.yenisafak.com/world/us-cognitive-warfare-how-ai-and-big-tech-shaped-the-iran-strikes-3715432.
17. Tsotniashvili, Zaza. n.d. “Algorithmic Warfare in the Iran Conflict: AI-Driven Decision Compression, the Erosion of Human Oversight, and Accountability Gaps in Contemporary Military Operations.” Caucasus International University.
18. Ward, Gregory. 2026. “How Misinformation and AI Deepfakes Are Reshaping the Iran War.” Euronews. March 30, 2026. https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/03/30/how-misinformation-and-ai-deepfakes-on-social-media-are-reshaping-the-iran-war.
19. “AI-Generated Lego Videos and Trump’s Poo-Bombing: Welcome to the Iran-US Slopaganda Wars.” 2026. The Guardian. The Guardian. April 8, 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/08/lego-videos-iran-trump-ai-video-meme-propaganda-movie-animation.
20. Van Diggelen, Jurriaan, Jazz Rowa, Eugene Aidman, and Julian Vince. 2025. “Designing AI-Enabled Countermeasures to Cognitive Warfare.” NATO Science and Technology Organisation (STO). https://publications.sto.nato.int/publications/STO%20Meeting%20Proceedings/STO-MP-HFM-377/MP-HFM-377-06.pdf.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.