Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer
In recent years, the information warfare has become a convenient label for nearly every dispute-taking place on television screens, social media timelines, and diplomatic platforms. Information warfare does not begin with technology; it begins with intent. At its core, it is the organized effort to influence what people believe, how they interpret events, and how they make decisions. The actors involved identify a strategic objective perhaps to discredit an opponent, create doubt around an institution, soften resistance to a policy, or simply distract the public from a sensitive issue. Once the objective is defined, the next step is to design a message that serves this purpose. This message may be entirely false, partly distorted, or based on selective truth. What matters is not factual accuracy, but its ability to achieve the intended psychological effect.
The second layer of information warfare involves identifying the audience. Contrary to the impression created by the sheer chaos of online communication, the targeting of audiences is far from random. Different groups are mapped according to their political leanings, social grievances, emotional triggers, and information habits. Some audiences are chosen because they are sympathetic and can amplify the message; others because they are vulnerable and can be manipulated; still others because they are influential and can legitimize the narrative. In many cases, the same message is packaged differently for each audience, giving the impression of organic conversation while serving a coordinated strategy.
After the message and the target are determined, the next question is distribution. Here, the digital environment becomes central. Social media platforms enable speed, repetition, and scale. A single post, if amplified by networks of aligned accounts, can travel through thousands of feeds in minutes. Bots and anonymous accounts add layers of noise, making it difficult to identify the original source. Sometimes, false or distorted content is seeded in smaller online communities where it can grow without scrutiny before being pushed into mainstream discourse. Traditional media may then pick up fragments of these narratives sometimes unintentionally giving them a sense of legitimacy. Information warfare also relies heavily on timing. Messages are often released to coincide with moments when the public is already anxious or confused during political crises, international conflicts, economic downturns, or major social incidents. In these moments, the boundaries of certainty are thinner, and people are more receptive to simplified explanations or emotionally charged interpretations. A narrative introduced at the right moment can overshadow verified information, crowd out alternative perspectives, or redirect attention entirely.
Another key element is repetition. Even the most implausible claims can begin to feel familiar through constant exposure. Repetition does not persuade through logic; it persuades through familiarity. The more frequently a narrative appears, the more “natural” it seems. This is why information warfare rarely depends on a single message. Instead, it unfolds through a steady flow of posts, comments, videos, statements, and commentary all reinforcing the same underlying theme. Information warfare also thrives on ambiguity. Rather than presenting a clear alternative version of reality, many campaigns focus on creating doubt. The aim is not necessarily to make the audience believe a particular story, but to make them question whether any account can be trusted. This erosion of confidence weakens institutions, undermines civic debate, and leaves the public in a state where strong emotions replace rational judgment. In such an environment, actors promoting disruptive narratives find greater room to operate.
It is also important to understand that not all information warfare is foreign or coordinated. Domestic actors politicians, pressure groups, commercial interests use similar tactics to shape public perception. During elections, governments and opposition parties alike craft selective narratives, highlight or conceal information, and rely on online networks that blur the line between persuasion and manipulation. Similarly, commercial entities may use tailored messaging to influence consumer attitudes or discredit competitors. The techniques may differ in sophistication, but the underlying logic remains similar. A particularly concerning aspect is the speed at which false or misleading content spreads compared to verified information. Verification requires time, evidence, and consistency; misinformation requires none of these. Once a claim circulates widely, corrections rarely achieve the same reach, even when they are clear and authoritative. In some cases, attempts to correct misinformation only reinforce the false narrative by keeping it in public discussion.
Information warfare also benefits from a deepening distrust in traditional institutions. When citizens feel isolated from political processes, disillusioned with public service delivery, or suspicious of mainstream media, they become more receptive to simplified explanations and emotionally charged narratives. This creates fertile ground for actors who operate with minimal accountability. It requires rebuilding public trust through transparency, improving media literacy, and strengthening independent journalism. Citizens must learn to recognize patterns of manipulation, question the origins of the information they encounter, and demand evidence rather than emotion. Institutions, for their part, must communicate more clearly, respond to crises more responsibly, and avoid creating information vacuums that others can exploit.
