At the outset of the second quarter of the twenty-first century, artificial intelligence has moved beyond being a technological tool and economic catalyst and has become part of the hard core of power in the international system. We are witnessing a phenomenon that can be described as “platform territoriality,” a process in which the boundaries of national sovereignty are increasingly defined not by geographic lines on a map, but by the reach of operating systems, data layers, and cloud computing capacity. In this emerging environment, Technology Diplomacy Institute also approaches the question of national sovereignty and international influence in relation to states’ control over critical layers of deep technologies and strategic supply chains.
Within this emerging environment, the international order of artificial intelligence is moving toward intense geotechnological bipolarity. On one side, the Western front, led by the European Union and the United States, is seeking through instruments such as the EU AI Act and White House executive orders to translate its ethical codes and technical standards into globally applicable rules. This process represents a form of “digital enclosure,” whose natural outcome for countries that do not align with the West would be “standardization isolation” and structural exclusion from global value chains.
At the same time, emerging global blocs, particularly BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, are building a parallel architecture. Unlike the Western approach, which the text characterizes as based on “top-down and control-oriented regulation,” this emerging architecture is grounded in a “development-oriented governance” paradigm that recognizes cultural pluralism, national sovereignty over data, and equitable access to computing infrastructure. For the Islamic Republic of Iran, which faces severe sanctions regimes and export controls in the hardware domain, engagement with this emerging order is not a choice between passivity and symbolic participation. It is presented as a vital requirement for technological survival. This brief examines this environment and sets out the “Prism Balance Doctrine” as a proposed overarching strategy for the country.
Problem Definition and the Roots of AI Balkanization
A precise understanding of the challenges facing technology diplomacy requires moving beyond conventional explanations and examining the underlying layers of power. Current trends in global governance indicate that the world is moving toward the “balkanization of artificial intelligence.” The trajectory of US policy toward semiconductor supply chains and restrictions imposed on advanced computing architectures, including Nvidia graphics processors, is presented as evidence of a “technical choke-point strategy.” The stated objective of this strategy is to concentrate the capacity to train large foundation models in the hands of several major Western multinational companies.
In this environment, international AI Standardization processes taking place through institutions such as the International Organization for Standardization and the International Telecommunication Union have become a field of diplomatic soft power competition. Western documents, drawing on concepts such as “trustworthy AI,” introduce a range of legal requirements and data-auditing mechanisms that, according to the text, would effectively mean the voluntary transfer of cyber sovereignty for independent political systems. In contrast, the Global Initiative on AI Governance advanced by China within the BRICS framework emphasizes non-interference and respect for sovereign choices. This fundamental paradigm conflict creates room for Iran, as emerging blocs seek platforms in which “joint technology development” takes precedence over “ideological regulation.”
Iran’s Strategic Paradoxes and Policy Tensions
Developing a realistic strategy is impossible without directly confronting contradictions within domestic policymaking. Iran faces two structural tensions in its efforts to align with BRICS initiatives, both of which have so far hindered the formation of a coherent technology diplomacy.
The first is the “sovereignty-connectivity paradox.” Iran’s domestic security and decision-making establishment, with the aim of protecting information assets and national security, tends toward a doctrine of “closing data borders and achieving complete cyber independence.” Yet within the logic of AI development, data is a dynamic and transnational resource. Without access to large and diverse regional and international data pools, the country cannot train domestic intelligent models or play a role in the global digital economy. Absolute data isolation therefore risks excluding domestic knowledge-based companies from the BRICS market, while unrestricted acceptance of cross-border data flows raises sovereignty concerns.
The second is “technocratic plurality and institutional fragmentation” inside the country. At present, responsibilities related to artificial intelligence and digital diplomacy are distributed among parallel institutions, including the Supreme Cyberspace Council, the Vice Presidency for Science, Technology and Knowledge-Based Economy, the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This structural fragmentation has left Iranian representatives in international forums without a unified “position paper,” making the country’s response to multilateral initiatives more reactive, episodic, and personality-dependent than grounded in an institutionalized strategy.
The Prism Balance Doctrine and Three Operational Strategies for Iran
To overcome these tensions and transform the threat of international isolation into a strategic advantage, this brief proposes the Prism Balance Doctrine. A prism receives a single beam of light and separates it into diverse and functional spectrums. Accordingly, Iran should not dissolve into emerging blocs. Instead, it should redefine its national interests through different channels of engagement with BRICS members, seeking infrastructure from China, security models from Russia, and open protocols from India. The doctrine is expressed through three broad strategies.
Strategy One, A National AI Diplomacy Consortium
To engage with complex structures such as the BRICS technical commission, Iran needs an agile coordinating mechanism capable of operating beyond slow ministerial bureaucracy. This strategy calls for the creation of a three-part national consortium. Within this structure, the Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly or the National AI Center, whose status is described in the text as unclear, would provide the “technical standards production” layer. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Organization for Development of International Scientific and Technological Cooperation would provide the “formal and legal negotiations” layer, while think tanks working on technology policy and technology diplomacy would serve as the “strategic secretariat and trend-monitoring arm.” The immediate output of this structure would be the formulation of an “official Iranian doctrine for AI governance in BRICS,” enabling Iranian representatives to negotiate in working groups using technical, legal, and BRICS-compatible language and shifting Iran’s position from passive listener to rule-setting proposer.
Strategy Two, Regulatory Intermediary Zones for Regulatory Adaptability
To resolve the tension between domestic security and the need for international connectivity, the country’s entire legal system cannot be transformed at once. An alternative strategy is to use free zones, such as Maku or Kish, as “grey zones for data regulation.” Within these areas, a special legal regime would be established that modifies the stricter rules of the mainland and aligns them with a “BRICS AI governance framework.” Iranian knowledge-based companies and their international BRICS partners could then share data in a technically controlled environment, train joint models, and obtain compliance certificates recognized across the BRICS market. Without placing the core of data governance in the capital at risk, this mechanism would keep open a window of connectivity to the global economy.
Strategy Three, Track II Diplomacy and the Creation of a BRICS-Tech Knowledge Network
Formal diplomacy in advanced technologies has been accompanied by significant delays and conservatism because of political considerations and the weight of sanctions. The third strategy is therefore to activate think tank diplomacy as a channel for advancing international understandings. This institute, as an independent but policy-oriented institution, can establish informal channels with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, leading Indian think tanks, and Russian research centers. Establishing a “BRICS-Tech” think tank network would make it possible to develop shared conceptual language around issues such as “indigenous AI ethics,” “algorithmic security,” and “confronting digital colonialism” before governments enter binding agreements. These joint policy reports would facilitate the work of official decision-makers and significantly increase Iran’s bargaining weight within the BRICS Plus structure.
Strategic Action Plan and Timeline
Turning the doctrine into a tangible policy reality requires the phased implementation of the following measures within defined time horizons.
- Institutional layer, three-month horizon: Establish the initial core of the AI diplomacy consortium with the support of the Organization for Development of International Scientific and Technological Cooperation and establish its analytical secretariat within the institute to integrate analytical positions.
- Legal and regulatory layer, six-month horizon: Draft the regulations for a “BRICS Special Data Regulatory Zone” in cooperation with the Free Zones Secretariat and the Organization for Development of International Scientific and Technological Cooperation or the National AI Center, in order to facilitate the exchange of AI training data in sandbox environments.
- International networking layer, one-year horizon: Hold the first international BRICS Geotechnology Forum hosted by the institute and launch a roadmap for aligning Iranian AI standards with emerging blocs.
From the Periphery to the Core of International Rule-Making
In the emerging global order, countries are divided into two categories, those that write the rules of the game and those that must follow them. Iran’s absence from AI standard-setting processes represents a threat that, according to the text, is potentially more consequential than hardware sanctions because software and standards-based sanctions have a structural and institutionalized character. The Prism Balance Doctrine argues that Iran can rely on the emerging architecture of AI governance within emerging blocs not only to break the Western isolation barrier but also to redefine its geopolitical identity. With this mission in mind, the institute seeks to act as a strategic agent of this transformation by connecting the analytical layer with the layer of governmental implementation.