#FactCheck- AI-Generated Video of Alleged Iranian Attack on US Helicopter Goes Viral with False Claims

Executive Summary

‍
‍
An image is being widely shared on social media claiming that during the 2026 FIFA World Cup match between Iran and Egypt in Seattle, Washington, the stadium hosted a “Pride Match,” with massive LGBTQ rainbow flags spread across the pitch before kickoff. Users claim the image shows FIFA allowing rainbow flags inside the stadium during the match. CyberPeace Research Wing's research found the claim to be misleading. There is no evidence that FIFA or the official organizers displayed giant rainbow flags across the pitch during the pre-match ceremony. The viral image has been digitally altered and does not depict an actual scene from the event.

‍

Claim

‍

On June 27, 2026, an X (formerly Twitter) user shared the image with the caption, “Seattle trolled Egypt and Iran so hard.” Similar posts were also circulated on Facebook and other social media platforms in Spanish and Arabic. https://perma.cc/9QUF-Y7LG ,https://x.com/zachleft/status/2070727350288068687/

‍

‍

FactCheck

‍

The image began circulating after the June 26 FIFA World Cup match between Iran and Egypt ended in a 1-1 draw. Iran (Team Melli) had a stoppage-time goal disallowed, leaving the team short of qualifying for the tournament’s 32-team knockout stage, while Egypt advanced alongside Belgium from the top of Group G. https://www.abs-cbn.com/sports/othersports/2026/6/29/iran-team-to-fly-home-monday-following-world-cup-exit-1334

‍

‍

Further research found that Egyptian and Iranian officials had objected to pro-LGBTQ celebrations surrounding the fixture. Seattle authorities had designated the match as part of the city's Pride celebrations well before the World Cup draw determined which teams would play there. Under Iranian Islamic law, homosexuality is illegal and can be punishable by death. In Egypt, same-sex relations are often prosecuted under broadly worded laws relating to "debauchery" or "immorality. https://www.barrons.com/news/in-seattle-lgbtq-and-world-cup-are-feted-except-by-iran-egypt-f6d970dc.

‍

‍

We also examined the viral image using OpenAI’s image verification tool, which detected the presence of SynthID—an invisible watermark embedded by Google in AI-generated content. This indicates that the image was created or modified using AI tools.

‍

‍

In addition, we reviewed the live broadcasts of the match by Fox Sports and Universo. Both broadcasts showed only the national flags of Iran and Egypt displayed on the pitch before kickoff. No giant rainbow flags appeared during the pre-match ceremony.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research found the viral claim to be misleading. There is no evidence that FIFA or the official organizers displayed massive rainbow flags across the pitch during the Iran vs Egypt World Cup match. The viral image is digitally altered, contains indicators of AI generation, and does not represent an actual moment from the event.

‍

Executive Summary 
‍

Amid heightened tensions in West Asia following the conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran, a video showing a large explosion behind a building is being widely shared on social media.

Users claim that the footage shows an Iranian missile strike on a US military base in Kuwait. However, CyberPeace Research Wing research  found the claim to be misleading. The viral video is actually from an Israeli airstrike in southern Lebanon. While Kuwait said its air defence systems intercepted missiles and drones during regional hostilities, the viral footage has no connection to any alleged attack on a US base in Kuwait.

‍

Claim

‍

An Instagram user, “indiscope24hr,” shared the video on May 28, 2026, with text overlaid on the clip stating:“Iran launches a deadly missile attack on a US base in Kuwait.”The caption claimed that Iran targeted a US airbase in retaliation for American military action and that Kuwait’s air defence systems were intercepting incoming missiles and drones.

• https://www.instagram.com/indiscope24hr/reel/DY38a7cA0V2
• https://perma.cc/3VXB-C4BQ?type=standard 
  
  ‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we extracted key frames from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. This led us to a post shared on May 28, 2026, by the Instagram account “iltv_israel,” which identified the footage as an Israeli Air Force strike on a Hezbollah target in the southern Lebanese city of Tyre.

• https://www.instagram.com/reels/DY4Mcdbt9Nq/ 

‍

‍

Further research  found the same footage in a video report uploaded by the New York Post’s YouTube channel on May 28, 2026. According to the report, Israel carried out strikes targeting Hezbollah positions in Tyre, southern Lebanon.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwcb8sijbCY 
  ‍

‍

We also found the clip in a video report published by NBC News. The report stated that Israel intensified strikes in southern Lebanon despite an existing ceasefire agreement.

• https://www.nbcnews.com/video/shorts/israel-intensifies-strikes-on-southern-lebanon-264067141959 

‍

‍

The matching visuals across these reports confirm that the viral footage originated from Lebanon and not from Kuwait.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The viral claim is misleading. The video does not show an Iranian missile strike on a US military base in Kuwait. It actually depicts an Israeli airstrike carried out in the Lebanese city of Tyre on May 28, 2026, and is being shared with a false context on social media.

‍

Introduction

In 2022, Oxfam’s India Inequality report revealed the worsening digital divide, highlighting that only 38% of households in the country are digitally literate. Further, only 31% of the rural population uses the internet, as compared to 67% of the urban population. Over time, with the increasing awareness about the importance of digital privacy globally, the definition of digital divide has translated into a digital privacy divide, whereby different levels of privacy are afforded to different sections of society. This further promotes social inequalities and impedes access to fundamental rights.

Digital Privacy Divide: A by-product of the digital divide

The digital divide has evolved into a multi-level issue from its earlier interpretations; level I implies the lack of physical access to technologies, level II refers to the lack of digital literacy and skills and recently, level III relates to the impacts of digital access. Digital Privacy Divide (DPD) refers to the various gaps in digital privacy protection provided to users based on their socio-demographic patterns. It forms a subset of the digital divide, which involves uneven distribution, access and usage of information and communication technology (ICTs). Typically, DPD exists when ICT users receive distinct levels of digital privacy protection. As such, it forms a part of the conversation on digital inequality. 

Contrary to popular perceptions, DPD, which is based on notions of privacy, is not always based on ideas of  individualism and collectivism and may constitute internal and external factors at the national level. A study on the impacts of DPD conducted in the U.S., India, Bangladesh and Germany highlighted that respondents in Germany and Bangladesh expressed more concerns about their privacy compared to respondents in the U.S. and India. This suggests that despite the U.S. having a strong tradition of individualistic rights, that is reflected in internal regulatory frameworks such as the Fourth Amendment, the topic of data privacy has not garnered enough interest from the population. Most individuals consider forgoing the right to privacy as a necessary evil to access many services, and schemes and to stay abreast with technological advances. Research shows that 62%- 63% of Americans believe that companies and the government collecting data have become an inescapable necessary evil in modern life. Additionally, 81% believe that they have very little control over what data companies collect and about 81% of Americans believe that the risk of data collection outweighs the benefits. Similarly, in Japan, data privacy is thought to be an adopted concept emerging from international pressure to regulate, rather than as an ascribed right, since collectivism and collective decision-making are more valued in Japan, positioning the concept of privacy as subjective, timeserving and an idea imported from the West.

Regardless, inequality in privacy preservation often reinforces social inequality. Practices like surveillance that are geared towards a specific group highlight that marginalised communities are more likely to have less data privacy. As an example, migrants, labourers, persons with a conviction history and marginalised racial groups are often subject to extremely invasive surveillance under suspicions of posing threats and are thus forced to flee their place of birth or residence. This also highlights the fact that focus on DPD is not limited to those who lack data privacy but also to those who have (either by design or by force) excess privacy. While on one end, excessive surveillance, carried out by both governments and private entities, forces immigrants to wait in deportation centres during the pendency of their case, the other end of the privacy extreme hosts a vast number of undocumented individuals who avoid government contact for fear of deportation, despite noting high rates of crime victimization.

DPD is also noted among groups with differential knowledge and skills in cyber security. For example, in India, data privacy laws mandate that information be provided on order of a court or any enforcement agency. However, individuals with knowledge of advanced encryption are adopting communication channels that have encryption protocols that the provider cannot control (and resultantly able to exercise their right to privacy more effectively),  in contrast with individuals who have little knowledge of encryption, implying a security as well as an intellectual divide. While several options for secure communication exist, like Pretty Good Privacy, which enables encrypted emailing, they are complex and not easy to use in addition to having negative reputations, like the Tor Browser. Cost considerations also are a major factor in propelling DPD since users who cannot afford devices like those by Apple, which have privacy by default, are forced to opt for devices that have relatively poor in-built encryption. 

Children remain the most vulnerable group. During the pandemic, it was noted that only 24% of Indian households had internet facilities to access e-education and several reported needing to access free internet outside of their homes. These public networks are known for their lack of security and privacy, as traffic can be monitored by the hotspot operator or others on the network if proper encryption measures are not in place. Elsewhere, students without access to devices for remote learning have limited alternatives and are often forced to rely on Chromebooks and associated Google services. In response to this issue, Google provided free Chromebooks and mobile hotspots to students in need during the pandemic, aiming to address the digital divide. However, in 2024, New Mexico was reported to be suing Google for allegedly collecting children’s data through its educational products provided to the state's schools, claiming that it tracks students' activities on their personal devices outside of the classroom. It signified the problems in ensuring the privacy of lower-income students while accessing basic education.

Policy Recommendations

Digital literacy is one of the critical components in bridging the DPD. It enables individuals to gain skills, which in turn effectively addresses privacy violations. Studies show that low-income users remain less confident in their ability to manage their privacy settings as compared to high-income individuals. Thus, emphasis should be placed not only on educating on technology usage but also on privacy practices since it aims to improve people’s Internet skills and take informed control of their digital identities.

In the U.S., scholars have noted the role of libraries and librarians in safeguarding intellectual privacy. The Library Freedom Project, for example, has sought to ensure that the skills and knowledge required to ensure internet freedoms are available to all. The Project channelled one of the core values of the library profession i.e. intellectual freedom, literacy, equity of access to recorded knowledge and information, privacy and democracy. As a result, the Project successfully conducted workshops on internet privacy for the public and also openly objected to the Department of Homeland Security’s attempts to shut down the use of encryption technologies in libraries. The International Federation of Library Association adopted a Statement of Privacy in the Library Environment in 2015 that specified “when libraries and information services provide access to resources, services or technologies that may compromise users’ privacy, libraries should encourage users to be aware of the implications and provide guidance in data protection and privacy.” The above should be used as an indicative case study for setting up similar protocols in inclusive public institutions like Anganwadis, local libraries, skill development centres and non-government/non-profit organisations in India, where free education is disseminated. The workshops conducted must inculcate two critical aspects; firstly, enhancing the know-how of using public digital infrastructure and popular technologies (thereby de-alienating technology) and secondly, shifting the viewpoint of privacy as a right an individual has and not something that they own.

However, digital literacy should not be wholly relied on, since it shifts the responsibility of privacy protection to the individual, who may not either be aware or cannot be controlled. Data literacy also does not address the larger issue of data brokers, consumer profiling, surveillance etc. Resultantly, an obligation on companies to provide simplified privacy summaries, in addition to creating accessible, easy-to-use technical products and privacy tools,  should be necessitated. Most notable legislations address this problem by mandating notices and consent for collecting personal data of users, despite slow enforcement. However, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 in India aims to address DPD by not only mandating valid consent but also ensuring that privacy policies remain accessible in local languages, given the diversity of the population.

References

• https://idronline.org/article/inequality/indias-digital-divide-from-bad-to-worse/ 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.02669 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.07936#:~:text=The%20DPD%20index%20is%20a,(33%20years%20and%20over). 
• https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/ 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• /https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6265&context=law_lawreview 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• https://bosniaca.nub.ba/index.php/bosniaca/article/view/488/pdf 
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/just-24-of-indian-households-have-internet-facility-to-access-e-education-unicef/story-a1g7DqjP6lJRSh6D6yLJjL.html 
• https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2021/05/05/the-pandemic-has-unmasked-the-digital-privacy-divide/ 
• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf 
• https://www.isc.meiji.ac.jp/~ethicj/Privacy%20protection%20in%20Japan.pdf 
• https://socialchangenyu.com/review/the-surveillance-gap-the-harms-of-extreme-privacy-and-data-marginalization/