Slopaganda
On February 28, 2026, the U.S. and Israel initiated an armed conflict against Iran. Widely discussed as the first AI-fueled war, the war has engendered many debates on the moral complexity of modern warfare and AI’s role. One of the most interesting progressions is the use of AI to generate propaganda called slopaganda. Throughout the war, both the United States and Iran have used slopaganda to exchange political jabs. Iran, in particular, has created numerous high-quality, AI-animated LEGO videos that have gone viral and gained international popularity. Even though both AI-generated content and propaganda aren’t new, the way that the U.S. and Iran have used slopaganda to achieve military objectives is distinctive. Ultimately, its success makes it clear that this new form of non-lethal, militarized AI is here to stay. That is why I believe policymakers should include it in discussions of AI ethics.
To understand why this matters, take for example the development and use of AI in lethal forms, like Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS). AWS have to follow the principles of jus in bello, which regulate the conduct of parties during armed conflict. In contrast, we don’t have ethical guidelines for institutions using slopaganda in their official capacities, despite the overt military themes. Furthermore, the way the U.S. and Iran are using slopaganda is important because it shows a pivot from traditional warfare that has increasingly included the digital realm, but mostly relied on gains achieved on the ground. Now, the gains achieved online are part of an online military objective (e.g., undermining the adversary’s authority and the trust its people have in its institutions) as well. Consequently, the meme war between the two countries provides a real-world example of what that pivot looks like ethically.
The Costs of Shitposting Diplomacy
The use of slopaganda in the U.S./Israel war in Iran demonstrates that countries will conduct war online and with social media algorithms. Denise Garcia notes in her new book, The AI Military Race: Common Good Governance in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, that militarized AI disincentivizes countries equipped with AI capabilities to use diplomatic means to solve global conflicts or to reinvest in social justice issues. Instead, she worries that countries will resort, at whatever cost, to their AI systems or programs.
Furthermore, she notes that the use of militarized AI can shift societal norms, undermine global stability, and make wars more frequent and perpetual. Because this is the first AI-fueled war, I believe we are seeing this shift unexpectedly with slopaganda. For example, the United States popularized shitposting as a new form of diplomatic communication. However, this has come at an ethical cost of trivializing the loss of human life and undermining the significant negative impact armed conflict has on democratic values and human dignity globally.
In addition, the U.S. and Iran engaging in this meme war is only further instilling distrust in government institutions, exacerbating political polarization, and amplifying and creating new frustrations with government. It isn’t just chronically online people who are viewing content about the war and growing increasingly frustrated as algorithms feed them more (dis/mis)information about it. Robust research shows that dis/misinformation and social media both play a significant role in polarization and increase the likelihood of provoking offline violence. The use of slopaganda is not an exception.
While Garcia focuses on weaponized AI, particularly lethal AI, I extend her account. I apply it to the pervasive use of slopaganda in this U.S./Israel war against Iran, as it has become a new form of weaponized AI. My concern is that other enterprising countries may see the success of this use of AI and rely on slopaganda and memetic forms to wage their wars. Consequently, they may feel less obligated to engage in traditional diplomatic approaches to address global issues and tensions. This may result in more countries prioritizing short-term online influence over establishing more stable international relationships.
Although the slopaganda videos and memes are persuasive and highly shareable, they can conceal the true costs of armed conflict. For example, the public may be more familiar with the AI-generated videos than they are with any formal or sanctioned talks or actions taken during the conflict. Additionally, both the United States and Iran have had diplomats or official government social media accounts share different forms of memes and slopaganda instead of informational text for the public. Furthermore, official government accounts and diplomats using slopaganda normalize shitposting as a political and military tool. They also shift expectations about the role of government social media accounts. Instead of communicating important, fact-based information, these accounts are increasingly posting informal, meme-based content and slopaganda. This changes the public’s standards of institutions and the types of communications expected of them.
Thus, we must expand our conceptions of militarized AI to include this new frontier and establish ethical guidelines of its use. The U.S., Israel, and Iran will not be the last and only countries to substantively use AI in the digital battleground or through slopaganda. However, policymakers can develop ethical standards and guidelines, so that memes do not overshadow human values. Consequently, if we want our governments to use AI for the common good, as Garcia does, then we need to restore diplomatic communication and refocus our intention on social justice issues. This requires establishing clear ethical guidelines and accountability mechanisms for the institutions posting slopaganda on official accounts. This starts with recognizing that slopaganda is a new form of non-lethal militarized AI.
