#FactCheck- No, Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei Is Not Dead—Viral Video Debunked
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media claims that Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has passed away, with users attributing the claim to American sources. However, research by the CyberPeace found the claim to be false. Our research confirms that Mojtaba Khamenei is alive and in good health.
Claim
A Facebook user shared the viral video, claiming that Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had died.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we conducted keyword searches on Google but found no credible media reports confirming his death. Further research led us to a report published on April 10, 2026, by ABP News. According to the report, amid discussions around a ceasefire, Mojtaba Khamenei issued a statement saying that Iran does not seek war with the United States or Israel, but as a nation, it must defend its rights.
Additionally, the image used in the viral video was analyzed using the AI detection tool HIVE Moderation. The results indicated a 99% probability that the image is AI-generated.
Conclusion
The viral claim is false and misleading. There is no credible evidence to suggest that Mojtaba Khamenei has died. On the contrary, recent verified reports confirm that he is alive and has even issued public statements on ongoing geopolitical developments. The widespread circulation of this claim appears to be driven by misinformation, amplified through social media without verification. The use of AI-generated visuals further adds to the confusion, making the content appear authentic at first glance.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
Amid reports of heavy rainfall and flooding in several cities of the United Arab Emirates, a video is being widely circulated on social media claiming to show recent scenes from Dubai. The clip allegedly depicts severe waterlogging at Dubai Airport and inside shopping malls, with users linking it to a “recent storm.”According to research by CyberPeace, the viral footage is not recent. The video is actually a compilation of three different clips stitched together and dates back to 2024, when Dubai experienced unprecedented flooding following heavy rains.
Claim
The misleading post was shared by an X (formerly Twitter) user named ‘Ruksar Khan’ on March 28, 2026, with a caption suggesting that Dubai had been submerged after just one day of rain. The post attempted to sensationalize the situation by portraying the visuals as current.
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, keyframes from the viral video were extracted using the InVid tool and analyzed through reverse image search. One of the clips was traced to a Facebook post by “9 News,” uploaded on April 17, 2024. The video showed waterlogged runways at Dubai International Airport following intense rainfall and flooding.
Further verification led to a report published by Hindustan Times on April 17, 2024, which featured similar visuals and confirmed that the footage was from the floods that hit Dubai in 2024.
Conclusion:
The viral claim suggesting that the video shows recent flooding in Dubai is false. The footage is nearly two years old and originates from the 2024 floods in Dubai. It is now being reshared with misleading claims to create confusion around current weather events.
Introduction
Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) serves as the backbone of e-governance, enabling governments to deliver services more efficiently, transparently, and inclusively. By leveraging information and communication technology (ICT), digital governance systems reconfigure traditional administrative processes, making them more accessible and citizen-centric. However, the successful implementation of such systems hinges on overcoming several challenges, from ensuring data security to fostering digital literacy and addressing infrastructural gaps.
This article delves into the key enablers that drive effective DPI and outlines the measures already undertaken by the government to enhance its functionality. Furthermore, it outlines strategies for their enhancement, emphasizing the need for a collaborative, secure, and adaptive approach to building robust e-governance systems.
Key Enablers of DPI
Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), the foundation for e-governance, relies on common design, robust governance, and private sector participation for efficiency and inclusivity. This requires common principles, frameworks for collaboration, capacity building, and the development of common standards. Some of the key measures undertaken by the government in this regard include:
- Data Protection Framework: The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act of 2023 establishes a framework to ensure consent-based data sharing and regulate the processing of digital personal data. It delineates the responsibilities of data fiduciaries in safeguarding users' digital personal data.
- Increasing Public-Private Partnerships: Refining collaboration between the government and the private sector has accelerated the development, maintenance, expansion, and trust of the infrastructure of DPIs, such as the AADHAR, UPI, and Data Empowerment and Protection Architecture (DEPA). For example, the Asian Development Bank attributes the success of UPI to its “consortium ownership structure”, which enables the wide participation of major financial stakeholders in the country.
- Coordinated Planning: The PM-Gati Shakti establishes a clear coordination framework involving various inter-governmental stakeholders at the state and union levels. This aims to significantly reduce project duplications, delays, and cost escalations by streamlining communication, harmonizing project appraisal and approval processes, and providing a comprehensive database of major infrastructure projects in the country. This database called the National Master Plan, is jointly accessible by various government stakeholders through APIs.
- Capacity Building for Government Employees: The National e-Governance Division of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology routinely rolls out multiple training programs to build the technological and managerial skills required by government employees to manage Digital Public Goods (DPGs). For instance, it recently held a program on “Managing Large Digital Transformative Projects”. Additionally, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions has launched the Integrated Government Online Training platform (iGOT) Karmayogi for the continuous learning of civil servants across various domains.
Digital Governance; Way Forward
E-governance utilizes information and communication technology (ICT) such as Wide Area Networks, the Internet, and mobile computing to implement existing government activities, reconfiguring the structures and processes of governance systems. This warrants addressing certain inter-related challenges such as :
- Data Security: The dynamic and ever-changing landscape of cyber threats necessitates regular advancements in data and information security technologies, policy frameworks, and legal provisions. Consequently, the digital public ecosystem must incorporate robust data cybersecurity measures, advanced encryption technologies, and stringent privacy compliance standards to safeguard against data breaches.
- Creating Feedback Loops: Regular feedback surveys will help government agencies improve the quality, efficiency, and accessibility of digital governance services by tailoring them to be more user-friendly and enhancing administrative design. This is necessary to build trust in government services and improve their uptake among beneficiaries. Conducting the decennial census is essential to gather updated data that can serve as a foundation for more informed and effective decision-making.
- Capacity Building for End-Users: The beneficiaries of key e-governance projects like Aadhar and UPI may have inadequate technological skills, especially in regions with weak internet network infrastructure like hilly or rural areas. This can present challenges in the access to and usage of technological solutions. Robust capacity-building campaigns for beneficiaries can provide an impetus to the digital inclusion efforts of the government.
- Increasing the Availability of Real-Time Data: By prioritizing the availability of up-to-date information, governments and third-party enterprises can enable quick and informed decision-making. They can effectively track service usage, assess quality, and monitor key metrics by leveraging real-time data. This approach is essential for enhancing operational efficiency and delivering improved user experience.
- Resistance to Change: Any resistance among beneficiaries or government employees to adopt digital governance goods may stem from a limited understanding of digital processes and a lack of experience with transitioning from legacy systems. Hand-holding employees during the transitionary phase can help create more trust in the process and strengthen the new systems.
Conclusion
Digital governance is crucial to transforming public services, ensuring transparency, and fostering inclusivity in a rapidly digitizing world. The successful implementation of such projects requires addressing challenges like data security, skill gaps, infrastructural limitations, feedback mechanisms, and resistance to change. Addressing these challenges with a strategic, multi-stakeholder approach can ensure the successful execution and long-term impact of large digital governance projects. By adopting robust cybersecurity frameworks, fostering public-private partnerships, and emphasizing capacity building, governments can create efficient and resilient systems that are user-centric, secure, and accessible to all.
References
- https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/865106/adbi-wp1363.pdf
- https://www.jotform.com/blog/government-digital-transformation-challenges/
- https://aapti.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/AaptixONI-DPIGovernancePlaybook_compressed.pdf
- https://community.nasscom.in/sites/default/files/publicreport/Digital%20Public%20Infrastructure%2022-2-2024_compressed.pdf
- https://proteantech.in/articles/Decoding-Digital-Public-Infrastructure-in-India/
Introduction
In today’s digital era, warfare is being redefined. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh recently stated that “we are in the age of Grey Zone and hybrid warfare where cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns and economic warfare have become tools to achieve politico-military aims without a single shot being fired.” The crippling cyberattacks on Estonia in 2007, Russia’s interference in the 2016 US elections, and the ransomware strike on the Colonial Pipeline in the United States in 2021 all demonstrate how states are now using cyberspace to achieve strategic goals while carefully circumventing the threshold of open war.
Legal Complexities: Attribution, Response, and Accountability
Grey zone warfare challenges the traditional notions of security and international conventions on peace due to inherent challenges such as :
- Attribution
The first challenge in cyber warfare is determining who is responsible. Threat actors hide behind rented botnets, fake IP addresses, and servers scattered across the globe. Investigators can follow digital trails, but those trails often point to machines, not people. That makes attribution more of an educated guess than a certainty. A wrong guess could lead to misattribution of blame, which could beget a diplomatic crisis, or worse, a military one. - Proportional Response
Even if attribution is clear, designing a response can be a challenge. International law does give room for countermeasures if they are both ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’. But defining these qualifiers can be a long-drawn, contested process. Effectively, governments employ softer measures such as protests or sanctions, tighten their cyber defences or, in extreme cases, strike back digitally. - Accountability
States can be held responsible for waging cyber attacks under the UN’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility. But these are non-binding and enforcement depends on collective pressure, which can be slow and inconsistent. In cyberspace, accountability often ends up being more symbolic than real, leaving plenty of room for repeat offences.
International and Indian Legal Frameworks
Cyber law is a step behind cyber warfare since existing international frameworks are often inadequate. For example, the Tallinn Manual 2.0, the closest thing we have to a rulebook for cyber conflict, is just a set of guidelines. It says that if a cyber operation can be tied to a state, even through hired hackers or proxies, then that state can be held responsible. But attribution is a major challenge. Similarly, the United Nations has tried to build order through its Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) that promotes norms like “don’t attack. However, these norms are not binding, effectively leaving practice to diplomacy and trust.
India is susceptible to routine attacks from hostile actors, but does not yet have a dedicated cyber warfare law. While Section 66F of the IT ACT, 2000, talks about cyber terrorism, and Section 75 lets Indian courts examine crimes committed abroad if they impact India, grey-zone tactics like fake news campaigns, election meddling, and influence operations fall into a legal vacuum.
Way Forward
- Strengthen International Cooperation
Frameworks like the Tallinn Manual 2.0 can form the basis for future treaties. Bilateral and multilateral agreements between countries are essential to ensure accountability and cooperation in tackling grey zone activities. - Develop Grey Zone Legislation
India currently relies on the IT Act, 2000, but this law needs expansion to specifically cover grey zone tactics such as election interference, propaganda, and large-scale disinformation campaigns. - Establish Active Monitoring Systems
India must create robust early detection systems to identify grey zone operations in cyberspace. Agencies can coordinate with social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, X (Twitter), and YouTube, which are often exploited for propaganda and disinformation, to improve monitoring frameworks. - Dedicated Theatre Commands for Cyber Operations
Along with the existing Defence Cyber Agency, India should consider specialised theatre commands for grey zone and cyber warfare. This would optimise resources, enhance coordination, and ensure unified command in dealing with hybrid threats.
Conclusion
Grey zone warfare in cyberspace is no longer an optional tactic used by threat actors but a routine activity. India lacks the early detection systems, robust infrastructure, and strong cyber laws to counter grey-zone warfare. To counter this, India needs sharper attribution tools for early detection and must actively push for stronger international rules in this global landscape. More importantly, instead of merely blaming without clear plans, India should focus on preparing for solid retaliation strategies. By doing so, India can also learn to use cyberspace strategically to achieve politico-military aims without firing a single shot.
References
- Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Michael N. Schmitt)
- UN Document on International Law in Cyberspace (UN Digital Library)
- NATO Cyber Defence Policy
- Texas Law Review: State Responsibility and Attribution of Cyber Intrusions
- Deccan Herald: Defence Minister on Grey Zone Warfare
- VisionIAS: Grey Zone Warfare
- Sachin Tiwari, The Reality of Cyber Operations in the Grey Zone
