#FactCheck: Fake Claim that US has used Indian Airspace to attack Iran

Research Wing

Innovation and Research

PUBLISHED ON

Jun 25, 2025

Executive Summary:

‍

An online claim alleging that U.S. bombers used Indian airspace to strike Iran has been widely circulated, particularly on Pakistani social media. However, official briefings from the U.S. Department of Defense and visuals shared by the Pentagon confirm that the bombers flew over Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Indian authorities have also refuted the claim, and the Press Information Bureau (PIB) has issued a fact-check dismissing it as false. The available evidence clearly indicates that Indian airspace was not involved in the operation.

‍

Claim:

‍

Various Pakistani social media users [archived here and here] have alleged that U.S. bombers used Indian airspace to carry out airstrikes on Iran. One widely circulated post claimed, “CONFIRMED: Indian airspace was used by U.S. forces to strike Iran. New Delhi’s quiet complicity now places it on the wrong side of history. Iran will not forget.”

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

Contrary to viral social media claims, official details from U.S. authorities confirm that American B2 bombers used a Middle Eastern flight path specifically flying over Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq to reach Iran during Operation Midnight Hammer.

‍

‍

The Pentagon released visuals and unclassified briefings showing this route, with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine explained that the bombers coordinated with support aircraft over the Middle East in a highly synchronized operation.

‍

‍

Additionally, Indian authorities have denied any involvement, and India’s Press Information Bureau (PIB) issued a fact-check debunking the false narrative that Indian airspace was used.

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

In conclusion, official U.S. briefings and visuals confirm that B-2 bombers flew over the Middle East not India to strike Iran. Both the Pentagon and Indian authorities have denied any use of Indian airspace, and the Press Information Bureau has labeled the viral claims as false.

‍

Claim: Fake Claim that US has used Indian Airspace to attack Iran‍
Claimed On: Social Media‍
Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍

PUBLISHED ON

Jun 25, 2025

Related Blogs

Betting on Bans: The Unintended Fallout of Online RMG Ban Under the Online Gaming Act 2025

October 29, 2025

The recent Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, that came into force in August, has been one of the most widely anticipated regulations in the digital entertainment industry. Among provisions such as promoting esports and licensing of online gaming, the legislation notably introduces a blanket ban on real-money gaming (RMG). The rationale behind this was to reduce its addictive effects, protect minors, and limit the circulation of black-money. However, in reality, the Act has spawned apprehension about the legislative process, regulatory redundancy, and unintended consequences that can shift users and revenue to offshore operators.

‍

From Debate to Prohibition: How the Act was Passed

‍

The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act was passed as a central law, providing the earlier fragmented state laws on online betting and gambling with an overarching framework. Proponents argue that, among other provisions, some kind of unified national framework was needed to deal with the scale of online betting due to its detrimental impact on young users. The current Act is a direct transition to criminalisation rather than the swings of self-regulation and partial restrictions used during the previous decade of incremental experiments in regulation. Stakeholders in the industry believe that this type of sudden, blanket action creates uncertainty and erodes confidence in the system in the long run. Further, critics have pointed out that the Bill was passed without adequate Parliamentary deliberation. A question has been raised about whether procedural safeguards were upheld.

‍

Prohibition of Online RMG

‍

Within the Indian context, a distinction has long been drawn between games of skill and games of chance, with the latter, like a lottery or a casino, being severely prohibited under state laws, whereas the former, like rummy or fantasy sports, have generally been allowed after being recognized as skill-based by court authorities. The Online Gaming Act of 2025 abolishes this distinction on the internet, thus banning all RMG actions that include cash transactions, regardless of skill or chance. The act also criminalises the advertising, facilitation, and hosting of such sites, thereby penalizing offshore operators with an Indian customer focus, and subjecting their payment gateways, app stores, and advertisers under its jurisdiction to penalties.

‍

The Problem of Overlap

‍

One potential issue that the Act presents is its overlap with the existing laws. The IT Rules 2023 mandate intermediaries in the gaming sector to appoint compliance officers, submit monthly reports, and undergo due diligence. The new Act introduces a three-level classification of games, whereas the advisories of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) under the Consumer Protection Act treat online betting as an unfair trade practice.

This multiplicity of regulations builds a maze where different Ministries and state governments have overlapping jurisdiction. Policy experts caution that such an overlap can create enforcement challenges, punish players who act within the law, and leave offshore malefactors undetected.

‍

Unintended Consequences: Driving Users Offshore

‍

Outright prohibition will hardly ever remove demand; it will only push it out. Offshore sites have taken advantage of the situation as Indian operators like Dream11 shut down their money games after the ban. It has already been reported that there is aggressive advertising by foreign betting companies that are not registered in India, most of which have backend infrastructure that cannot be regulated by the Act (Storyboard18).

This diversion of users to unregulated markets has two main risks. First, Indian players are deprived of the consumer protection offered to them in local regulation, and their data can be sent to suspicious foreign organizations. Second, the government loses control over the money flow that can be transferred via informal channels or cryptocurrencies or other obscure systems. Industry analysts are alerting that such developments may only worsen the issue of black-money instead of solving it (IGamingBusiness).

‍

Advertising, Age Gating, and Digital Rights

‍

The Act has also strengthened advertisement regulations, aligning with advisories issued by the Advertising Standards Council of India, which prohibits the targeting of minors. However, critics believe that the application remains inadequately enforced, and children can with comparative ease access unregulated overseas applications. In the absence of complementary digital literacy programs and strong parental controls, these limitations can be effectively superficial instead of real.

Privacy advocates also warn that frequent prompts, vague messages, or invasive surveillance can weaken the digital rights of users instead of strengthening them. Overregulation has also been found to create banner blindness in global contexts where users ignore warnings without first clearly understanding them.

‍

Enforcement Challenges

‍

The Act puts a lot of responsibilities on many stakeholders, including the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Platforms like Google Play and Apple App Store are expected to verify government-approved lists of compliant gaming apps and remove non-compliant or banned ones, as directed by the MIB and the RBI. Although this pressure may motivate intermediaries to collaborate, it may also have a risk of overreach when it is applied unequally or in a political way.

According to the experts, the solution should be underpinned by technology itself. Artificial intelligence can be used to identify illegal advertisements, track illegal gaming in children, and trace payment streams. At the same time, the regulators should be able to issue final lists of either compliant or non-compliant applications to advise the consumers and intermediaries alike. Without such practical provisions, enforcement risks remaining patchy.

‍

Online Gaming Rules

‍

On 1 October 2025, the government issued a draft of the Online Gaming Rules in accordance with the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act. The regulations focus on the creation of the compliance frameworks, define the classification of the allowed gaming activities, and prescribe grievance-redressal mechanisms aiming to promote the protection of the players and procedural transparency. However, the draft does not revisit or soften the existing blanket prohibition on real-money gaming (RMG) and, hence, the questions about the effectiveness of enforcement and regulatory clarity remain open (Times of India, 2025).

‍

Protecting Consumers Without Stifling Innovation

‍

The ban highlights a larger conflict, i.e., the protection of the vulnerable users without stifling an industry that has traditionally contributed to innovation, jobs, and the collection of tax revenue. Online gaming has significantly added to the GST collections, and the sudden shakeup brings fiscal concerns (Reuters).

Several legal objections to the Act have already been brought, asking whether the Act is constitutional, especially as to whether the restrictions are proportional to the right to trade. The outcome of such cases will define the future trajectory of the digital economy of India (Reuters).

‍

Way Forward

‍

Instead of outright prohibition, a more balanced approach that incorporates regulation and consumer protection is suggested by the experts. Key measures could include:

‍

A definite difference between games of skill and games of chance, with proportionate regulation.
Age confirmation and campaign against online illiteracy to protect the underage population.
Enhanced advertising and payments compliance requirements and enforceable non-compliance penalty.

Coordinated oversight among different ministries to prevent duplication and regulatory struggle.
Leveraging AI and fintech to track illegal financial activities (black money flows) and developing innovation.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The Online Gaming Act 2025 addresses social issues, such as addiction, monetary risk, and child safety, that require governance interventions. However, the path it follows to this end, that of total prohibition, is more likely to spawn a new set of issues instead of providing solutions because it will send consumers to offshore sites, undermine consumer rights, and slow innovation.

For India, the real challenge is not whether to prohibit online money gaming but how to create a balanced, transparent, and enforceable framework that protects users while fostering a responsible gaming ecosystem. India can reduce the adverse consequences of online betting without keeping the industry in the shadows with better coordination, reasonable use of technology, and balanced protection.

‍

References:

‍

Fact-Checkers vs. The Crowd: The Future of Misinformation Control on Social Media

April 10, 2025

Introduction

The link between social media and misinformation is undeniable. Misinformation, particularly the kind that evokes emotion, spreads like wildfire on social media and has serious consequences, like undermining democratic processes, discrediting science, and promulgating hateful discourses which may incite physical violence. If left unchecked, misinformation propagated through social media has the potential to incite social disorder, as seen in countless ethnic clashes worldwide. This is why social media platforms have been under growing pressure to combat misinformation and have been developing models such as fact-checking services and community notes to check its spread. This article explores the pros and cons of the models and evaluates their broader implications for online information integrity.

How the Models Work

Third-Party Fact-Checking Model (formerly used by Meta) Meta initiated this program in 2016 after claims of extraterritorial election tampering through dis/misinformation on its platforms. It entered partnerships with third-party organizations like AFP and specialist sites like Lead Stories and PolitiFact, which are certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) for meeting neutrality, independence, and editorial quality standards. These fact-checkers identify misleading claims that go viral on platforms and publish verified articles on their websites, providing correct information. They also submit this to Meta through an interface, which may link the fact-checked article to the social media post that contains factually incorrect claims. The post then gets flagged for false or misleading content, and a link to the article appears under the post for users to refer to. This content will be demoted in the platform algorithm, though not removed entirely unless it violates Community Standards. However, in January 2025, Meta announced it was scrapping this program and beginning to test X’s Community Notes Model in the USA, before rolling it out in the rest of the world. It alleges that the independent fact-checking model is riddled with personal biases, lacks transparency in decision-making, and has evolved into a censoring tool.
Community Notes Model ( Used by X and being tested by Meta): This model relies on crowdsourced contributors who can sign up for the program, write contextual notes on posts and rate the notes made by other users on X. The platform uses a bridging algorithm to display those notes publicly, which receive cross-ideological consensus from voters across the political spectrum. It does this by boosting those notes that receive support despite the political leaning of the voters, which it measures through their engagements with previous notes. The benefit of this system is that it is less likely for biases to creep into the flagging mechanism. Further, the process is relatively more transparent than an independent fact-checking mechanism since all Community Notes contributions are publicly available for inspection, and the ranking algorithm can be accessed by anyone, allowing for external evaluation of the system by anyone.

CyberPeace Insights

Meta’s uptake of a crowdsourced model signals social media’s shift toward decentralized content moderation, giving users more influence in what gets flagged and why. However, the model’s reliance on diverse agreements can be a time-consuming process. A study (by Wirtschafter & Majumder, 2023) shows that only about 12.5 per cent of all submitted notes are seen by the public, making most misleading content go unchecked. Further, many notes on divisive issues like politics and elections may not see the light of day since reaching a consensus on such topics is hard. This means that many misleading posts may not be publicly flagged at all, thereby hindering risk mitigation efforts. This casts aspersions on the model’s ability to check the virality of posts which can have adverse societal impacts, especially on vulnerable communities. On the other hand, the fact-checking model suffers from a lack of transparency, which has damaged user trust and led to allegations of bias.

Since both models have their advantages and disadvantages, the future of misinformation control will require a hybrid approach. Data accuracy and polarization through social media are issues bigger than an exclusive tool or model can effectively handle. Thus, platforms can combine expert validation with crowdsourced input to allow for accuracy, transparency, and scalability.

Conclusion

Meta’s shift to a crowdsourced model of fact-checking is likely to have bigger implications on public discourse since social media platforms hold immense power in terms of how their policies affect politics, the economy, and societal relations at large. This change comes against the background of sweeping cost-cutting in the tech industry, political changes in the USA and abroad, and increasing attempts to make Big Tech platforms more accountable in jurisdictions like the EU and Australia, which are known for their welfare-oriented policies. These co-occurring contestations are likely to inform the direction the development of misinformation-countering tactics will take. Until then, the crowdsourcing model is still in development, and its efficacy is yet to be seen, especially regarding polarizing topics.

References

‍

#FactCheck: Video of Jagannath Rath Yatra in Puri Falsely Shared as Anti-Reservation Protest at Jantar Mantar

August 25, 2026

Executive Summary

‍
A video showing a massive crowd is being shared on social media with the claim that it shows an anti-reservation protest held at Jantar Mantar. However, a research done by the research wing of the CyberPeace revealed that the video is not from any anti-reservation protest at Jantar Mantar, but from the Jagannath Rath Yatra organized in Puri, Odisha.

‍