In the 21st century, international competition has transcended traditional military and diplomatic tools, evolving into a multi-dimensional structure shaped by knowledge production, perception management, and the construction of legitimacy frameworks. One of the regions where this transformation is most prominently observed is the Middle East. Conflicts and political crises in the region are now determined not only by military and political balances on the ground but also by how they are presented and represented to the global public via digital platforms. In this process, digital channels have moved beyond being objective transmission conduits; they have transformed into strategic spaces that construct the meanings attributed to events, define the boundaries of legitimacy, and become a foundational element of geopolitical reality. Within this framework, the Middle East has begun to stand at the center of a multi-layered competition for hegemony and legitimacy conducted in digital space, reaching far beyond physical battlefields.
Beyond the mere acceleration of information flow, this transformation points to the institutionalization of a sophisticated hybrid warfare paradigm operating through mechanisms of perception operations, normative framing, and the strategic construction of political truth. Within this paradigm, digital platforms have transcended being mere communication channels to become constitutive actors that blur the boundaries between the military and the political, as well as between reality and representation, creating a field of continuous struggle. Consequently, US-based global platforms such as X, Meta, and YouTube have ceased to be neutral tools in this process; they have transformed into strategic arenas where geopolitical discourses are shaped, normative values are selectively applied, and international legitimacy is produced. This shift ensures that the digital realm serves not only for the transmission of information but also as a vehicle where geopolitical interests and the production of legitimacy are staged. In this context, the similarities and differences between the digital representation of protest movements in Iran and the online legitimization of Israel’s regional military operations clearly demonstrate how the digital space has evolved into an extension and complement of Western-centric (particularly US and Israel-oriented) geopolitical interests.
The process carried out by the United States and Israel on digital platforms demonstrates that, in both cases, the same tools (algorithmic visibility, moderation policies, viral narratives) are utilized to fulfill a similar function: producing legitimacy by providing a normative framework. In the case of Iran, this framework defines the state through ‘human rights violations’ and a ‘lack of democratic legitimacy,’ whereas in the case of Israel, it places the state within the discourse of the ‘right to self-defense’ and ‘counter-terrorism.’
However, the use of these common tools serves two fundamentally opposing strategic goals. While digital representation in the Iranian case aims to erode the state’s internal legitimacy and position it as a ‘problematic’ actor that can be isolated internationally, digital legitimization in the Israeli case seeks to consolidate the legitimacy of the state’s foreign policy actions and protect it under international law. In other words, the same digital mechanisms operate norms (human rights, freedom of expression) as a tool of attack/interrogation on one side, while mobilizing norms (self-defense, security) as a tool of defense/protection on the other. Within this framework, it is demonstrated that digital platforms are not merely passive instruments of reflection; rather, as constitutive agents, they actively reconstruct the boundaries between ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ actions in international relations. This reconstruction process solidifies the central role of digital platforms in contemporary power struggles by embodying how normative power is operated in practice—selectively, instrumentally, and in alignment with geopolitical interests.
In this framework, the representation of social movements in Iran on digital platforms constitutes a paradigmatic example of this new competition. What occurs here, beyond simple news reporting, is that events are detached from their local context and endowed with global political meaning through symbols and narratives made visible by platform algorithms. For instance, the viral spread of the ‘Woman, Life, Freedom’ slogan placed the protests within a discursive framework that structurally questioned the legitimacy of the Iranian state. This digital representation positions Iran as a constant source of ‘crisis,’ ‘oppression,’ and ‘instability,’ while fueling a narrative that marginalizes the state’s capacity for reform.
This process, which represents the digital operational form of Joseph Nye’s concept of ‘soft power,’ aims to erode Iran’s internal legitimacy without the need for direct military intervention. Furthermore, in this respect, the digital space functions as a tool that complements traditional economic sanctions and policies of diplomatic isolation by providing them with a social foundation and a moral justification. Simultaneously, these platforms serve as an intelligence basin. The massive flow of data generated during the protests enables real-time analysis of social dynamics and international public opinion trends, thereby providing a resource for the long-term strategic planning of the United States toward the region.
The other side of the process reveals how Israel’s military activities in the region are legitimized through ‘securitization’ on digital platforms. In alignment with algorithmic preferences and platform moderation policies, operations in Gaza and Lebanon are predominantly presented within the frameworks of ‘self-defense’ and ‘counter-terrorism’ discourses. This discursive structuring limits the visibility of content regarding the humanitarian costs of the operations, relatively narrowing the reach of critical perspectives that question the actions within the context of international law. Thus, while universal norms such as ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ gain central importance in the Iranian context, these norms are relegated to the background in the Israeli case in the face of ‘state security’ discourse. This double standard demonstrates that the source and operational mechanism of normative power reside in US-based private technology companies and their algorithmic logic, rather than in states. This situation points to a coded reflection of a specific geopolitical order in the digital realm, rather than the universality of norms. This coded structure does not remain merely an abstract conceptual framework but gains functionality through concrete mechanisms of the symbiotic relationship between US and Israel-based actors and digital platforms. These mechanisms operate at three fundamental levels: the circulation of human capital, legal-strategic coordination, and the unity of economic interests. The operation of these mechanisms specifically in the Middle East, particularly regarding policies toward Iran and Israel, reveals that the relationship produces concrete geopolitical outcomes rather than being an abstract structure.
First, the circulation of human capital constitutes a critical channel that blurs the distinction between the state and the private sector. Former members of high-level intelligence (CIA, NSA) and the defense bureaucracy carry their security clearances, access to intra-state networks, and perceptions of national interest into technology companies. For instance, an former intelligence analyst specializing on Iran working in the ‘security policies’ unit of a social media platform directly influences content moderation and algorithmic visibility decisions regarding campaigns targeting the Tehran administration. These individuals, in positions such as ‘public policy director’ or ‘chief security advisor,’ shape content moderation, data sharing protocols, and the strategy for relations with the state. Conversely, transitions from technology companies to the state’s digital units also occur, which enables the state to regulate by better understanding the technical and commercial realities of platform operations.
Second, legal-strategic coordination operates through structural incentives and mandates rather than direct orders. The state utilizes indisputably legitimate concerns—such as ‘counter-terrorism,’ ‘foreign interference,’ ‘child sexual abuse,’ and security threats—as the foundation for regulatory and legal pressure on platforms. This framework facilitates classifying Iran’s state-affiliated groups or specific political discourses under ‘terrorist propaganda,’ while evaluating certain types of anti-Israel activism within the context of ‘antisemitism’ or ‘hate speech.’ Within this process, transparency reports are demanded, rapid removal mechanisms for specific content categories are developed, and indirect pressures are applied to intervene in algorithmic recommendation systems. By complying with these demands, platforms both mitigate the risk of legal sanctions and strengthen their image as ‘responsible actors.’ Consequently, the state’s geopolitical priorities become integrated into the internal policies and practices of the platforms.
Third, the unity of economic interests constitutes the fundamental pillar of the relationship. Large technology platforms depend on the international political and economic influence of the US government to maintain their global market access and operational stability. Protection in trade wars, diplomatic support in entering foreign markets, and positioning global competitors against the digital platforms of rival countries (such as China and Russia) are critical forms of support provided by the state to these companies. For instance, the comprehensive US sanctions regime against Iran severely restricts the capacity of platforms to provide services to users in Iran, generate advertising revenue, or develop local collaborations. Platforms view compliance with these sanctions as a prerequisite for maintaining their relationship with the US and their access to the global financial system. In return, the dominance of platforms over the global communication infrastructure provides an indispensable strategic resource for the United States’ soft power projection, reaching target audiences, and shaping the public opinion of rival states. This interdependence creates a powerful structural incentive for platforms to act in alignment with the state’s foreign policy line.
These three mechanisms—the flow of human capital, legal coordination, and economic interests—reinforce each other, ensuring that the digital legitimacy order functions not as a simple case of state control, but as a complex and self-sustaining system in which both parties play an active role. This system institutionalizes a permanent digital front that has become a full-fledged component of ‘hybrid warfare’ and shapes regional policies. In this context, the tightening of content moderation regarding Iran or the algorithmic amplification of narratives that legitimize Israel’s security discourse reveals the direct impact of this system on regional politics.
The role played by digital platforms in the power struggle in the Middle East goes far beyond being simple information tools. Functioning as constitutive components of geopolitical reality, these platforms define the boundaries of which violence is visible, which voice is heard, and which claim is deemed legitimate. The structural superiority of the United States in this field extends its regional hegemony beyond military and economic realms, consolidating it within the world of perceptions and meanings. This situation brings to the fore critical questions regarding how resistance against digital asymmetry will be shaped in the future and how regional actors will adapt to these new power dynamics.
The digital front of hybrid warfare, as seen in the examples of Iran and Israel, does not only create a field of struggle among regional actors; it also maintains its importance as a fundamental environment where a global order is renegotiated on the axis of technology, law, and sovereignty. In this context, through the symbiotic relationships between states and technology companies, digital platforms have become a permanent component of contemporary hybrid warfare by producing continuous perceptual and discursive pressure while minimizing the costs and risks of military intervention.
