#FactCheck - Old Ajman Fire Video Falsely Linked to Iran Drone Attack on Dubai Airport

Over the last decade, battlefields have percolated from mountains, deserts, jungles, seas, and the skies into the invisible networks of code and cables. Cyberwarfare is no longer a distant possibility but today’s reality. The cyberattacks of Estonia in 2007, the crippling of Iran’s nuclear program by the Stuxnet virus, the SolarWinds and Colonial Pipeline breaches in recent years have proved one thing: that nations can now paralyze economies and infrastructures without firing a bullet.  Cyber operations now fall beyond the traditional threshold of war, allowing aggressors to exploit the grey zone where full-scale retaliation may be unlikely. 

At the same time, this ambiguity has also given rise to the concept of cyber deterrence. It is a concept that has been borrowed from the nuclear strategies during the Cold War era and has been adapted to the digital age. At the core, cyber deterrence seeks to alter the adversary’s cost-benefit calculation that makes attacks either too costly or pointless to pursue. While power blocs like the US, Russia, and China continue to build up their cyber arsenals, smaller nations can hold unique advantages, most importantly in terms of their resilience, if not firepower.   

‍

Understanding the concept of Cyber Deterrence

‍

Deterrence, in its classic sense, is about preventing action through the fear of consequences. It usually manifests in four mechanisms as follows:

• Punishment by threatening to impose costs on attackers, whether by counter-attacks, economic sanctions, or even conventional forces. 
• Denial of attacks by making them futile through hardened defences, and ensuring the systems to resist, recover, and continue to function. 
• Entanglement by leveraging interdependence in trade, finance, and technology to make attacks costly for both attackers and defenders. 
• Norms can also help shape behaviour by stigmatizing reckless cyber actions by imposing reputational costs that can exceed any gains. 

However, great powers have always emphasized the importance of punishment as a tool to showcase their power by employing offensive cyber arsenals to instill psychological pressure on their rivals. Yet in cyberspace, punishment has inherent flaws. 

‍

The Advantage of Asymmetry 

‍

For small states,  smaller geographical size can be utilised as a benefit. Three advantages of this exist, such as:

• With fewer critical infrastructures to protect,  resources can be concentrated. For example, Denmark, with a modest population of $40 million cyber budget, is considered to be among the most cyber-secure nations, despite receiving billions of US spending.  
• Smaller bureaucracies enable faster response. The centralised cyber command of Singapore allows it to ensure a rapid coordination between the government and the private sector. 
• Smaller countries with lesser populations can foster a higher public awareness and participation in cyber hygiene by amplifying national resilience.  

In short, defending a small digital fortress can be easier than securing a sprawling empire of interconnected systems. 

‍

Lessons from Estonia and Singapore 

‍

The 2007 crisis of Estonia remains a case study of cyber resilience. Although its government, bank, and media were targeted in offline mode, Estonia emerged stronger by investing heavily in cyber defense mechanisms. Another effort in this case stood was with the hosting of NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence to build one of the world’s most resilient e-governance models. 

Singapore is another case. Where, recognising its vulnerability as a global financial hub, it has adopted a defense-centric deterrence strategy by focusing on redundancy, cyber education, and international partnership rather than offensive capacity. These approaches can also showcase that deterrence is not always about scaring attackers with retaliation, it is about making the attacks meaningless.  

‍

Cyber deterrence and Asymmetric Warfare

‍

Cyber conflict is understood through the lens of asymmetric warfare, where weaker actors exploit the unconventional and stronger foes. As guerrillas get outmanoeuvred by superpowers in Vietnam or Afghanistan, small states hold the capability to frustrate the cyber giants by turning their size into a shield. The essence of asymmetric cyber defence also lies in three principles, which can be mentioned as; 

• Resilience over retaliation by ensuring a rapid recovery to neutralise the goals of the attackers. 
• Undertaking smart investments focusing on limited budgets over critical assets, not sprawling infrastructures. 
• Leveraging norms to shape the international opinions to stigmatize the aggressors and increase the reputational costs. 

This also helps to transform the levels of cyber deterrence into a game of endurance rather than escalating it into a domain where small states can excel. 

There remain challenges as well, as attribution problems persist, the smaller nations still depend on foreign technology, which the adversaries have sought to exploit. Issues over the shortage of talent have plagued the small states, as cyber professionals have migrated to get lucrative jobs abroad. Moreover, building deterrence capability through norms requires active multilateral cooperation, which may not be possible for all small nations to sustain. 

Conclusion

‍

Cyberwarfare represents a new frontier of asymmetric conflict where size does not guarantee safety or supremacy. Great powers have often dominated the offensive cyber arsenals, where small states have carved their own path towards security by focusing on defence, resilience, and international collaboration. The examples of Singapore and Estonia demonstrate the fact that the small size of a state can be its identity of a hidden strength in capabilities like cyberspace, allowing nimbleness, concentration of resources and societal cohesion. In the long run, cyber deterrence for small states will not rest on fearsome retaliation but on making attacks futile and recovery inevitable. 

‍

References

‍

• https://bluegoatcyber.com/blog/asymmetric-warfare/
• https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2268&context=jss
• https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rising-tide-cyberwarfare-battle-between-superpowers-hussain/ 
• https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1243&context=gpis_etds
• https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=141708
• https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1243&context=gpis_etds 

Executive Summary

‍
A news graphic is being widely shared on social media claiming that Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan will resign on July 22. The graphic quotes him as saying, "Respecting the sentiments of the country's youth, I have taken this decision." CyberPeace Research Wing ’s research found the claim to be false. The probe revealed that no official announcement has been made regarding Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation as Union Education Minister. However, demands for his resignation have intensified from opposition parties and student groups over alleged irregularities in NEET and other examinations, leading to protests in Delhi and other places. The research also found that the viral news graphic circulating on social media was likely created using Artificial Intelligence (AI).

‍

Claim:

‍

A social media user on Instagram shared the viral news graphic on July 21, 2026, claiming that Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan is set to resign on July 22. The post also claimed that Pradhan said during a press conference, "Respecting the sentiments of the country's youth, I have taken this decision."

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DbEMoRtgLfT/?igsh=c3g3dzZxZ2U3YW01

https://archive.ph/xdjMc

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, we conducted a Google search using relevant keywords. However, we did not find any credible media reports confirming that Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan is resigning on July 22.Further, we examined the official X (formerly Twitter) account of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. No official announcement or post related to his resignation was found on his account.

https://x.com/dpradhanbjp?lang=en

‍

Upon examining the viral news graphic, we noticed several indicators suggesting that it could be AI-generated. To verify this, we analysed the graphic using the AI detection tool AI or Not. The tool’s analysis indicated a 94% probability that the graphic was generated using AI.

‍

‍

We also scanned the viral graphic through another AI detection tool, WasIt AI. According to the tool’s results, the probability of the graphic being AI-generated was found to be 87%.

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

CyberPeace Research Wing ’s fact check found the viral claim to be false. No official announcement has been made regarding Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation, and reports claiming that he will resign on July 22 are incorrect. The research further revealed that the viral news graphic circulating on social media was created using Artificial Intelligence (AI).

‍

Introduction

‍
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transcended its role as a futuristic tool; it is already an integral part of the decision-making process in various sectors, including governance, the medical field, education, security, and the economy, worldwide. On the one hand, there are concerns about the nature of AI, its advantages and disadvantages, and the risks it may pose to the world. There are also doubts about the technology’s capacity to provide effective solutions, especially when threats such as misinformation, cybercrime, and deepfakes are becoming more common.

Recently, global leaders have reiterated that the use of AI should continue to be human-centric, transparent, and governed responsibly. The issue of offering unbridled access to innovators, while also preventing harm, is a dilemma that must be resolved.

‍

AI as a Global Public Good

‍

In earlier times only the most influential states and large corporations controlled the supply and use of advanced technologies, and they guarded them as national strategic assets. In contrast, AI has emerged as a digital innovation that exists and evolves within a deeply interconnected environment, which makes access far more distributed than before. Usage of AI in a specific country will not only bring its pros and cons to that particular place, but the rest of the world as well. For instance, deepfake scams and biased algorithms will not only affect the people in the country where they are created but also in all other countries where such people might be doing business or communicating. 

‍

The Growing Threat of AI Misuse

‍

• Deepfakes, Crime, and Digital Terrorism
  The application of artificial intelligence in the wrong way is quickly becoming one of the main security problems. Deepfake technology is being used to carry out electoral misinformation spread, communicate lies, and create false narratives. Cybercriminals are now making use of AI to make phishing attacks faster and more efficient, hack into security systems, and come up with elaborate social engineering tactics. In the case of extremist groups, AI has the power to give a better quality of propaganda, recruitment, and coordination.

‍

• Solution - Human Oversight and Safety-by-Design
  To overcome these dangers, a global AI system must be developed based on the principles of safety-by-design. This means incorporating moral safeguards right from the development phase rather than reacting after the damage is done. Moreover, human control is just as vital. Artificial intelligence (AI) systems that influence public confidence, security, or human rights should always be under the control of human decision-makers. Automated decision-making where there is no openness or the possibility of auditing could lead to black-box systems being developed, where the assignment of responsibility is unclear.

‍

Three Pillars of a Responsible AI Framework 

‍

1. Equitable Access to AI Technologies
   One of the major hindrances to global AI development is the non-uniformity of access. The provision of high-end computing capability, data infrastructure, and AI research resources is still highly localised in some areas. A sustainable framework needs to be set up so that smaller countries, rural areas, and people speaking different languages will also be able to share the benefits of AI. The distribution of access fairly will be a gradual process, but at the same time, it will lead to the creation of new ideas and improvements in the different places where the local markets are. Thus, there would be no digital divide, and the AI future would not be exclusively determined by the wealthy economies.
2. Population-Level Skilling and Talent Readiness
   AI will have an impact on worldwide working areas. Thus, societies must not only equip their people with the existing job skills but also with the future technology-based skills. Massive AI literacy programs, digital competencies enhancement, and cross-disciplinary education are very important. Forecasting human resources for roles in AI governance, data ethics, cyber security, and modern technologies will help prevent large scale displacement while also promoting growth that is genuinely inclusive.
3. Responsible and Human-Centric Deployment
   Adoption of Responsible AI makes sure that technology is used for social good and not just for making profits. The human-centred AI directs its applications to the sectors like healthcare, agriculture, education, disaster management, and public services, especially the underserved regions in the world that are most in need of these innovations. This strategy guarantees that progress in technology will improve human life instead of making the situation worse for the poor or taking away the responsibility from humans.

‍

Need for a Global AI Governance Framework

‍

• Why International Cooperation Matters
  AI governance cannot be fragmented. Different national regulations lead to the creation of loopholes that allow bad actors to operate in different countries. Hence, global coordination and harmonisation of safety frameworks is of utmost importance. A single AI governance framework should stipulate: 

• Clear responsible prohibition on AI misuse in terrorism, deepfakes, and cybercrime .
• Transparency and algorithm audits as a compulsory requirement.
• Independent global oversight bodies.
• Ethical codes of conduct in harmony with humanitarian laws.

Framework like this makes it clear that AI will be shaped by common values rather than being subject to the influence of different interest groups.

‍

• Talent Mobility and Open Innovation
  If AI is to be universally accepted, then global mobility of talent must be made easier. The flow of innovation takes place when the interaction between researchers, engineers, and policymakers is not limited by borders. 

‍

• AI, Equity, and Global Development
  The rapid concentration of technology in a few hands poses the risk of widening the gap in equality among countries. Most developing countries are facing the problems of poor infrastructure, lack of education and digital resources. By regarding them only as technology markets and not as partners in innovation, they become even more isolated from the mainstream of development. An AI development mix of human-centred and technology-driven must consider that the global stillness is broken only by the inclusion of the participation of the whole world. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic has already demonstrated how technology can be a major factor in the building of healthcare and crisis resilience. As a matter of fact, when fairly used, AI has a significant role to play in the realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals.

‍

Conclusion

‍
AI is located at a crucial junction. It can either enhance human progress or increase the digital risks. Making sure that AI is a global good goes beyond mere sophisticated technology; it requires moral leadership, inclusion in governance, and collaboration between countries. Preventing misuse by means of openness, supervision by humans, and policies that are responsible will be vital in keeping public trust. Properly guided, AI can make society more resilient, speed up development, and empower future generations. The future we choose is determined by how responsibly we act today.

As PM Modi stated ‘AI should serve as a global good, and at the same time nations must stay vigilant against its misuse’. CyberPeace reinforces this vision by advocating responsible innovation and a secure digital future for all.

‍

References

‍

• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ai-a-global-good-but-must-guard-against-misuse-pm-101763922179359.html
• https://www.deccanherald.com/india/g20-summit-pm-modi-goes-against-donald-trumps-stand-seeks-global-governance-for-ai-3807928
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/need-global-compact-to-prevent-ai-misuse-pm-modi/articleshow/125525379.cms

‍