The Strategic Consequences of U.S.-China Competition in the Field of Artificial Intelligence

Strategic Council Online – Opinion: The continuation of competition between the United States and China in the cyber and artificial intelligence domains without common frameworks, transparency, and normative constraints will not result in the victory of one over the other, but will instead lead to the erosion of global trust in the technology domain. A world where every platform is suspect, every algorithm is a potential weapon, and every piece of data can be considered a threat.

Moslem Taghizadeh – Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation Expert

The competition between China and the United States in the field of artificial intelligence and cybersecurity should not be viewed merely as a technological race or even a classic geopolitical conflict. What is unfolding is a clash between two different conceptions of “power in the digital age”; two philosophies of governance, each striving to shape the future of the world’s information order according to its own internal logic. In this context, artificial intelligence is neither a tool nor a goal; rather, it is the primary arena for redefining authority, sovereignty, and control in the twenty-first century.

From the American perspective, artificial intelligence is a natural extension of techno-capitalism and market-driven innovation. Power emerges from corporations, platforms, and data ecosystems, with the government playing a largely delayed and reactive regulatory role. However, this very structure, considered America’s strength, has become a contradiction in cybersecurity: when data, algorithms, and information infrastructure are in the hands of private actors, the line between national security and corporate interests blurs. The TikTok case becomes significant from this viewpoint.

America’s official concern about TikTok is the Chinese government’s access to user data or the potential for intelligence infiltration operations, but the issue is deeper than these claims. Changing TikTok’s ownership structure, even if part of its shares are transferred to American consortia, does not change the nature of the algorithm, the logic of its recommender system, or its power to shape public attention. An algorithm is not merely code, but the embodiment of a cognitive logic: what gets seen, what gets amplified, and what gets marginalized. From this perspective, TikTok is not merely an external threat; it is a mirror in which America sees its own vulnerability in governing platforms.

The strategic point here is that the United States, in its effort to counter the alleged Chinese threat, is moving towards a kind of “securitization of ownership”; i.e., the assumption that shifting shares and legal control solves the security problem. But this approach can itself lead to a kind of structural abuse: an unprecedented concentration of regulatory power over data in the hands of the government or actors aligned with it, without transparent accountability mechanisms. In other words, the danger is not only “Chinese infiltration,” but the transformation of social platforms into legitimate tools of national security on both sides of the competition.

This issue draws attention to the history of cyber competition and digital armaments. Unlike conventional weapons, cyber tools are inherently ambiguous, deniable, and constantly evolving. There are no clear red lines or stable agreements that can effectively constrain state behavior. Artificial intelligence has intensified this situation. Today, a cyberattack no longer requires sustained human presence; algorithms can autonomously detect, adapt, infiltrate, and even make decisions. This means that speed, scale, and uncertainty have reached levels that undermine the logic of classical deterrence.

In this space, America and China are building offensive and defensive capabilities, but with different mindsets. America seeks more technological superiority and operational flexibility, while China pursues systemic resilience and centralized control. This difference is not merely technical; it is philosophical.

From the Chinese perspective, cybersecurity is part of social security. Data is considered a national resource, and artificial intelligence is a tool for maintaining cohesion, predicting instability, and macro-managing society. Therefore, AI governance in China is inherently state-driven, preemptive, and integrated.

In contrast, America is still grappling with this fundamental question: can unbridled innovation, platform freedom, and national security be maintained simultaneously? Many recent American policies suggest that the implicit answer to this question is negative, but this admission, rather than leading to a review of digital governance philosophy, often manifests as ad hoc measures, export restrictions, or ownership pressures. This is why some analysts believe America is “running on the wrong track” in the AI race: focusing on model size and speed of progress without solving the problems of trust, governance, and the sustainable integration of AI into the social fabric.

On the other hand, China, despite its rapid progress, faces a different challenge. Strict control over data and algorithms, while creating security and managerial advantages, carries the risk of reduced creativity, cognitive diversity, and global legitimacy. The international acceptance of Chinese AI technologies depends not only on their technical quality but also on the level of trust in their intent and governance framework. Ultimately, the China-U.S. competition is a competition over who defines the rules of the game.

At a deeper level, this competition signifies a transition from an order based on hard power to an order based on cognitive control. Security is no longer just about protecting infrastructure; it is about managing human perception, attention, and decision-making. In this sense, artificial intelligence and cybersecurity are intertwined because both deal directly with the cognitive layer of society. TikTok, malware, recommendation algorithms, language models, and surveillance systems are all components of a single field.

If this competition continues without common frameworks, transparency, and normative constraints, the primary danger will not be the victory of one over the other, but the erosion of global trust in technology. A world where every platform is suspect, every algorithm is a potential weapon, and every piece of data can be considered a threat.

The other fundamental issue is not which country has stronger artificial intelligence; rather, it is which one can provide a model of digital governance that is both efficient, legitimate, and applicable to today’s pluralistic world. The China-U.S. competition is a test for the future of political rationality in the age of artificial intelligence, a test whose outcome will be decisive far beyond the borders of these two countries.

This text was translated using artificial intelligence and may contain errors. If you notice an apparent mistake that makes the text incomprehensible, please inform the website editors.

How Did India Bring Artificial Intelligence from the Ivory Tower to the People?

Strategic Council Online – Opinion: With a people-centric, low-cost model, India has opened a new path in artificial intelligence development that could inspire developing countries.

Hossein Dalaveri – Artificial Intelligence Researcher

Despite evident economic limitations, India has achieved remarkable progress in artificial intelligence in recent years, transforming itself from a mere consumer to a shaping player in this domain. This success has not been accidental; rather, it is the product of a practical and people-centric strategy based on two key principles: first, expanding access through low-cost consumption models, and second, long-term investment in technical human capital. Examining this approach, especially for countries facing limitations in access to capital and advanced technologies, can contain valuable strategic lessons.

The Core of Success: Prioritizing Application and Widespread Access

The key to India’s progress in AI lies not in direct competition with global leaders in fundamental research, but in focusing on the practical and scalable applications of this technology in the daily lives of millions. Relying on the success of its previous public digital infrastructures like the “Aadhaar” biometric identification system and the Unified Payments Interface, the Indian government also promotes AI as a developmental tool to solve tangible problems in agriculture, health, and administrative services. This perspective transforms AI from a luxury and specialized commodity into a user-friendly and inclusive service. In this regard, two interconnected components form the driving engine of this strategy.

The first component is the creation of a “small-packet model” for consumer access. This idea is inspired by India’s consumer revolution in the 1980s, where selling hygiene products in small, very cheap packets turned a vast low-income population into consumers. Today, this concept has extended to the AI domain. Instead of expensive monthly subscriptions, a solution to provide AI services for micro and specific applications at negligible cost has been proposed. For example, a shopkeeper can pay a negligible fee to use a text-reading service for analyzing their invoices and automating inventory management. The pilot project “IndiaAI Compute Pillar,” which provides computing power to researchers for less than one dollar per hour, also moves toward testing this same concept. The goal is to reduce the cost barrier and create a mass demand drastically.

The second component is designing a smart “talent development roadmap.” India knows that competing to attract the limited number of global AI elites is not a scalable solution; therefore, it has placed its primary focus on training interdisciplinary and applied professionals. This means educating not only engineers but also product managers, industry analysts, and specialists who can bridge the gap between technical capabilities and the real needs of different sectors of the economy.

The government’s role here is crucial: by playing the role of the “first customer” and employing AI solutions in public services, the government both creates an initial market and, by demonstrating benefit, inspires trust and demand in society. Efforts to make infrastructure access inclusive by providing low-cost computational resources to educational centers in smaller cities also fall within this framework.

Turning Limitation into Opportunity

India’s model can be inspiring for several reasons. Firstly, this model emphasizes relative self-reliance and development based on internal needs. Other developing countries, such as Iran, can also create value and provide a platform for the growth and maturity of domestic companies by prioritizing the application of AI to solve internal challenges, such as water resource management, energy optimization, and the development of telemedicine services.

Secondly, economies of scale and a large domestic market in Iran, similar to India, provide the possibility to test and develop low-cost “small-packet” models for the vast number of micro and small-to-medium enterprises.

Thirdly, a young and interested human capital is a shared initial advantage. The key to success is creating a clear educational pathway to transform this raw talent into applied professional forces, emphasizing skills that connect technology to national specialized domains.

However, this path is not without challenges. Dependence on advanced processing hardware and semiconductors, a significant portion of which is still imported, is a significant vulnerability for India and, by extension, for Iran.

This issue can be more severe under sanctions and requires ancillary strategies such as optimizing algorithms for available hardware or targeted technology diplomacy. Also, the risk of deepening the digital divide and creating a persistent separation between those with and without access to this technology is a serious threat that affects the success of the entire project. Smart governance to balance oversight, security, and innovation space, as well as designing mechanisms to retain trained talents within the country, are among the other challenges facing this development model.

In summary, India’s experience shows that progress in advanced technologies does not necessarily require copying Western models. Relying on its indigenous conditions, India has brought AI from the ivory tower to the people and turned it into a tool for development. For Iran, perhaps the main lesson is to redefine AI as a “development-facilitating technology” and to focus on creating low-cost, high-impact, and scalable solutions for society. On this path, investing in people and creating institutional platforms for innovation will be more important than merely investing in technology.

This text was translated using artificial intelligence and may contain errors. If you notice an apparent mistake that makes the text incomprehensible, please inform the website editors.

Shadows of Impunity: The Epstein Files and the Emirati Connection

By Mohammad Hammoud

The 2026 unsealing of additional Jeffrey Epstein archives has kept the scandal alive, widening scrutiny rather than closing the file. Bloomberg News reported that the newly released records illuminate previously concealed relationships, including links extending into the United Arab Emirates.

The documents outline a network where wealth, access, and influence converged, allowing a convicted sex offender to retain proximity to powerful circles. They reference interactions involving Gulf elites and individuals connected to “Israeli” networks. What emerges is less a single conspiracy than a portrait of a transnational environment in which status appeared to soften consequences. The enduring question is not only who was connected, but how those connections were maintained for so long.

The Sultan and the "Torture Video"

Disturbing correspondence between the Emirati port tycoon and Epstein suggests a shared appetite for graphic and predatory content. As reported by the Times of India, US Representative Thomas Massie recently identified Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the chairman of DP World, as the recipient of a 2009 email in which Epstein wrote, "I loved the torture video." This exchange is particularly haunting given that sex predators often require the suffering of victims to achieve gratification. While the specific nature of the video remains under investigation, the casual tone of the message highlights the deep personal ties between Epstein and the UAE’s commercial elite. Other emails from bin Sulayem’s accounts reportedly used crude, objectifying language to describe sexual encounters, suggesting he was far more than a casual business acquaintance.
Recruitment Pipelines and the United Nations

The files have also cast a harsh light on an alleged recruitment network involving a prominent Emirati diplomat who serves as a public face for human rights. According to India Today, Hind Al-Owais appeared in hundreds of emails with Epstein, including a 2012 message where she introduced her younger sister to him, describing her as "even prettier" than herself. Investigative reporters at Inkyfada have linked these exchanges to a broader pipeline targeting women from the Arab world under the guise of "getting girls ready" for social events. This revelations have sparked global outrage over the hypocrisy of an official who speaks on women's rights while allegedly facilitating such introductions.

A Network of Middle Eastern Leaders

Epstein’s influence was not limited to the UAE but extended to several other high-ranking figures across the region. According to CBS News, Epstein maintained extensive contact with the leadership of a prominent "golf country," even boasting about a lavish tent gifted to him by a crown prince following a visit to Riyadh. The documents also name former Egyptian officials and Norwegian diplomats who served as intermediaries for Middle Eastern interests, illustrating how Epstein "collected powerful people like frequent flyer points." These connections allowed him to navigate the highest levels of regional diplomacy, often serving as a back-channel for sensitive political and business deals that benefited both Western and Middle Eastern elites.

The Dead or Alive Discrepancy

Despite the official ruling of suicide, many remain unconvinced by the account of Epstein’s 2019 death. The skepticism stems less from conjecture than from a sequence of irregularities that remain difficult to reconcile. India Today noted that prison logs listed his death as August 9—one day before he was officially discovered. On its own, such a date conflict might be dismissed as routine. Yet it coincided with two cameras outside his cell reportedly malfunctioning and guards assigned to monitor him allegedly falling asleep for several hours during a critical window.

Each detail, taken separately, may invite explanation. Considered together, they raise broader questions about oversight and accountability. The absence of a public viewing or funeral, followed by the swift cremation of his remains, eliminated the possibility of independent DNA verification. For critics of the official narrative, these circumstances leave unresolved doubts rather than closure.

The "Tel Aviv" Extraction Theory 

A more far-reaching theory contends that Epstein was removed from custody by intelligence operatives and relocated to “Israel.” Middle East Eye reported that some observers argue his role as an intermediary with access to powerful figures made him too strategically significant to be left vulnerable in a federal jail. Supporters of this view point to unverified accounts describing an unmarked van departing the facility on the morning of August 10, interpreting it as evidence of a covert transfer.

Adherents maintain that his knowledge of compromising information involving global elites would have justified extraordinary measures to secure his silence. While no conclusive proof has emerged to substantiate the claim, the limited public disclosure from the US Justice Department has allowed the theory to persist in certain circles.

Netanyahu Returns Home from Washington Empty Handed

Alwaght- The meeting of the US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was held on Wednesday, with Iran taking a center stage in the talks of the two allies. Following the meeting, Trump in a post on his social media site, Truth Social, said he favored further negotiations with Iran, but he maintained other options on the table.

However, the key point of Trump after meeting Netanyahu was the following statement: "There was nothing definitive reached other than I insisted that negotiations with Iran continue to see whether or not a deal can be consummated." 

Netanyahu’s visit to Washington is the seventh since Trump's comeback to power in 2024. But the tone of the US president after the bilateral with Trump and media reports suggest that the outcome was totally different from previous ones. 

Divided on the surface 

Trump's emphasis that he could not make any certain decision in his meeting with Netanyahu may reveal a difference with Netanyahu on the surface, but it seems that this is just a show rather than a reality. 

Netanyahu’s overriding aim in meeting Trump was to influence the US-Iran negotiations, yet there is no indication he achieved that. Idan Koller, an Israeli journalist with Walla based in Washington, reported that Netanyahu sought both to amplify opposition to talks with Tehran inside the White House and to gather intelligence on the scope of the US-Iran dialogue. 

“It was vital for Netanyahu to make sure Trump wasn’t hearing only Witkoff’s line” on the need to engage Iran. Within Tel Aviv’s right-wing camp, there is a belief that Witkoff and Kushner are naive and that Netanyahu needed to get fully read into every dimension of the Iran file," Killer said. 

Aaron David Miller, a former senior US negotiator, also weighed in: “Clearly, neither Trump nor Netanyahu stood to gain anything beyond a warm meeting and a show of unity. That said, both are consummate politicians, masters of deception and political maneuvering. Netanyahu’s problem is that it’s no longer 2015. You can’t outflank a president who is the absolute master of the Republican Party.”

Netanyahu’s push to break isolation 

After weeks of hesitation, Netanyahu shifted course and joined Trump-backed Gaza “Peace Council”, a body including Turkey and Qatar that he had previously rejected outright .

Experts suggest the decision reflects Tel Aviv’s strategic calculations regarding Gaza and Iran, describing it as an option for Netanyahu to align himself with regional powers rather than remain isolated. In reality, Tel Aviv is currently seen as an isolated actor in the region, and by announcing his participation in the Peace Council, Netanyahu sought to demonstrate that Tel Aviv is not alone.

Beyond this, Netanyahu’s move to join Trump’s Peace Council appears to signal a concession by Tel Aviv to Washington, aimed at persuading Trump to support Israel’s policies toward Iran. At the same time, the apparent outcome of Netanyahu’s recent talks with Trump suggests that the meeting, at least, yielded no tangible gains for Tel Aviv.

The absence of a press briefing with journalists, typically held after previous Netanyahu-Trump talks, further indicates that Netanyahu, at least on the surface, failed to achieve his objectives in Washington. His early departure from the White House following the three-hour meeting also suggested a tense atmosphere in the discussions between Israeli and American officials.

Trump hesitant about war against Iran

Despite Netanyahu's push to involve the US into a war against Iran, Trump's emphasis on diplomacy with Iran suggests the president is yet to decide certainly on a military action against Iran. Vice President JD Vance said on Wednesday that the mission given by Trump to them is talking to Tehran. 

Even before the latest tensions, voices across the US political spectrum had warned against war with Iran. Among them, American analyst Jeffrey Sachs was blunt: saying “war with Iran would be extremely dangerous and harmful to the US. Israel has a very powerful voice with Trump and in UD policy, and it undoubtedly wants war. Iran has a population of 90 million, extensive missile capabilities, and a determined populace. Trump isn’t a particularly intelligent man; he should listen to the advice of regional states. Iran is a strong country in its own right, and it has strong allies.”

Iran’s missile arsenal, the prospect of retaliation, and the likelihood of regional resistance factions targeting USvinterests and personnel have injected deep skepticism in Washington about the wisdom of military action. Moreover, Trump faces no groundswell of public support for war with Iran. Even his own MAGA base remains firmly opposed to another US entanglement in West Asia war. 

Other regional developments suggest that Washington is walking back from its anti-Iranian threats. Yesterday, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan told the Financial Times newspaper that Washington is ready for compromises on uranium enrichment. This is the latest sign of Washington’s departure from its language of threat against Iran regarding the nuclear case. 

The importance of the Herat-Mazar-e-Sharif-Wakhan railway in Afghanistan and Iran’s approach

Iran’s willingness to cooperate in the construction (bilateral or multilateral) of the Herat-Mazar-e-Sharif railway and the practical exploitation of the Iran-Afghanistan-China railway route could create a huge transformation in increasing trade in the region and transit in the North-South and East-West corridors.

Samyar Rostami

In the past two decades, the Iran-Afghanistan-Tajikistan railway project has been on the minds of the leaders of the three countries of Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan.

In the past decade, with the announcement of Iran’s readiness to connect the Khaf-Herat railway to Mazar-e-Sharif (if the conditions of the Afghan government are met), the main steps for the Iran-Afghanistan-Tajikistan railway have been taken. The Herat-Mazar-e-Sharif-Wakhan railway, as a strategic route connecting Iran to China and Europe, has been the main focus of discussions between Iran and Afghanistan. Iran is advancing plans to create a new land rail corridor from Herat to Mazar-e-Sharif and continuing to Wakhan and China via Afghanistan.

The construction and development of all corridors with the participation of Afghanistan is not possible without establishing complete security and stability in this country

Tehran has introduced the construction of the Herat-Mazar-e-Sharif railway as the first phase of the Iran-Afghanistan-China strategic corridor. From this perspective, the rail connection from Herat to Mazar-e-Sharif and then through the Wakhan Corridor to the Xinjiang region of China is a strategic route.

The Herat-Mazar-e-Sharif railway is also part of the China-Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan-Afghanistan-Iran corridor plan, a 2,100-kilometer route.

In line with promoting the 14th government’s rail diplomacy. One of the main axes of the negotiation is to examine new transit routes, including a rail connection from Iran to China via Afghanistan.

Mehdi Safari, head of the Supreme Strategic Council of the North-South and East Transit Consortium, recently emphasized that to receive maximum transit, the establishment of a rail and road route with Afghanistan is being considered.

In January, Jabar Ali Zakiri, CEO of Iran Railways, held a joint meeting with Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban’s deputy prime minister for economic affairs. He discussed a new chapter in the two countries’ strategic cooperation in the field of rail transport and the plan to connect Iran to China via Afghanistan and accelerate the corridor. In addition, Kabul and Tehran recently agreed to form a joint committee to expand rail cooperation between the two sides, develop an operational and executive structure for the project in the field of rail construction and development, the presence of Iranian managers and contractors, follow up on the project’s roadmap, and then begin executive operations.

In continuation of this approach, Iran is examining operational solutions and the issue of constructing a rail route in exchange for mineral exchange on the Herat-Mazar-e-Sharif route. The plan proposes the participation of private rail activists from the two countries in financing and implementing this major Herat-Mazar-e-Sharif rail project, focusing on utilizing the potential of Afghanistan’s mines as the financial backing for this plan.

While plans to launch a passenger train on the Mashhad-Herat route are ongoing, the unprecedented jump in rail freight to Afghanistan has increased from about 5,000 tons per month to more than 70,000 tons per month in the past year.

Iran also plans to provide a rail connection to Afghanistan through the construction of the Chabahar-Zahedan railway and the Zaranj-Kandahar railway project.

Tehran continues its multilateral efforts towards rail diplomacy with Afghanistan. At the trilateral meeting in October 2025 between Afghanistan, Iran, and Turkey, they agreed to develop trilateral cooperation in the field of railways by launching the Herat-Mazar-e-Sharif railway project with joint and comprehensive cooperation and using the financial, technical, and human resources of the aforementioned countries.

This is while China’s “economic interaction” within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has grown by 75 percent to $213.5 billion in 2025. In fact, transportation and transit, win-win cooperation between the two countries of Iran and China in important projects, such as the electrification of the Tehran-Mashhad railway, rail connection of the two countries through Pakistan, investment in Shahid Rajaee Port, can be strengthened along with the rail connection of the two countries through Afghanistan.

Positive consequences

Landlocked Afghanistan is trying to develop the rail transport network throughout the country.

For example, Abdul Ghani Baradar, while welcoming the Herat-Mazar-e-Sharif railway project, has ordered that the Tehran-Kabul Joint Committee be established as soon as possible and the practical work of the project begin without delay. Afghanistan has the potential to connect the Middle East-China, Central Asia-South Asia and become a regional hub for trade, transit, and economic development.

The launch of the railway will put the central and northern provinces on the path of progress and development and could be an opportunity to export minerals to Afghanistan’s vast mines. In addition, it can grant the country the right of transit annually.

If the new corridor becomes operational, Afghanistan will be directly connected to China, and the chances of Beijing’s greater presence in Afghanistan’s mineral resources will also increase.

The Herat-Mazar-e-Sharif railway could also be extended to Sherkhan Bandar in Kunduz province to connect to the Tajik border. It will also reduce the level of threats by linking interests and help develop sustainable stability and security in the region.

The construction of the Herat-Mazar-e-Sharif railway is also of interest to supporters of the multipolar connectivity network and Eurasian allies such as Russia and China. Afghanistan’s northern neighbors, such as Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, are now more inclined towards safer routes through Iran.

Obstacles and perspectives

Although the first phase of the Herat-Mazar-e-Sharif project will proceed in the form of a feasibility study until March 2026, upgrading the existing infrastructure and building a new railway line through mountainous obstacles requires huge financial resources.

The construction and development of all corridors with the participation of Afghanistan is not possible without establishing complete security and stability in this country. In fact, the future structure of the Afghan political system, the achievement of peace, or the outbreak of civil war can all have a negative or positive impact on the railway plans. Getting around US sanctions on Iran is also considered a major problem.

In fact, the Herat-Mazar-e-Sharif railway is part of the Chinese corridors. Therefore, there is a possibility of more investment and practical participation of China in this project.

However, Iran’s willingness to cooperate in the construction (bilateral or multilateral) of the Herat-Mazar-e-Sharif railway and the practical exploitation of the Iran-Afghanistan-China railway route could create a huge transformation in increasing trade in the region and transit in the North-South and East-West corridors.

Samyar Rostami, а political observer and senior researcher in international relations

Disarming Hamas; Reconstructing Gaza or Reproducing Occupation in a New Form?

Strategic Council Online – Opinion: At a time when regional tensions are increasing simultaneously with the escalation of the Iran-U.S. confrontation, the Gaza file has entered a new and complex phase; a phase that is not merely military, but profoundly political, legal, and strategic.

Barsam Mohammadi – Regional Affairs Expert

The behind-the-scenes efforts of the United States and the Israeli regime to advance what is termed the “second phase of the Trump plan for Gaza” indicate that the reconstruction of this war-torn strip is envisioned not as a human right, but as a lever to engineer the future security and political order of Gaza. The central axis of this plan is the complete disarmament of Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups as a precondition for any reconstruction and Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza.

From the perspective of international law, this approach raises fundamental questions: Can the reconstruction of a devastated territory be conditioned upon the disarmament of a force that defines itself within the framework of resistance against occupation? And does such a condition not signify the transfer of occupation from an overt military form to an institutional and security-based format?

The Trump Plan; Solely in the Interest of the Zionist Regime

The aforementioned plan, presented as a 20-article program, emphasizes the monopoly of military power held by an entity known as the “National Committee for the Administration of Gaza.” According to this plan, all armed groups, including internal security forces and local police, must either be dissolved or, after rigorous vetting, be integrated under the direct supervision of this committee. The practical outcome of such a model is the elimination of any independent power outside the structure approved by the United States and Israel; a structure whose nature, composition, and degree of autonomy remain ambiguous.

The first step envisions the complete destruction of tunnels, weapons depots, and weapons manufacturing workshops, followed by the gradual handover of light weapons concurrently with increasing the capacity of the local police. According to this plan, the reconstruction of Gaza is contingent upon the complete fulfillment of this process, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces is defined not as a legal obligation, but as a conditional concession at the end of the process. In practice, this logic transforms reconstruction from a humanitarian and legal obligation into a tool for exerting political pressure.

Legal Challenge

From the perspective of international humanitarian law, this approach faces serious challenges. Under the Geneva Conventions, the occupying power is responsible for providing the basic necessities of the civilian population in the occupied territory. It cannot tie this responsibility to the fulfillment of specific political or security conditions. Conditioning reconstruction on the disarmament of the resistance, in fact, transfers the costs of occupation onto the civilian population and uses humanitarian needs as a bargaining chip; an act that contradicts the spirit and text of humanitarian law.

Within this framework, Hamas’s position is based on rejecting disarmament under conditions of continued occupation. The leaders of this movement have repeatedly emphasized that they consider the weapons of the resistance not as a bargaining tool, but as part of the Palestinian nation’s inherent right to self-defense and the realization of the right to self-determination. This argument, although contentious from the perspective of classical international law, which primarily focuses on states, holds a significant place in contemporary legal literature concerning occupied territories and liberation movements.

Disarming Hamas; A Strategic Objective of the Zionist Regime

In contrast, the Israeli regime has defined disarmament not merely as a security measure but as a strategic objective to eliminate the resistance structure in Gaza. Statements by officials of this regime indicate that the intended disarmament includes not only the collection of heavy weapons but also light and personal arms. Such an approach effectively eliminates any possibility of organized resistance in the future and fundamentally alters the balance of power in Israel’s favor.

Strategic Consequences

At the strategic level, the consequences of this plan extend beyond Gaza. Imposing the disarmament of the resistance in Gaza could become a model for dealing with other resistance files in the region and affect the equations of the West Bank, Lebanon, and even the security order of West Asia. On the other hand, implementing such a plan without regional and international consensus risks exacerbating instability and reproducing violence.

The scenarios ahead are diverse. In one scenario, economic and humanitarian pressures might push a part of the resistance structure to accept a minimal agreement, but such an agreement, lacking social legitimacy, would be fragile. In another scenario, the political deadlock continues, and the reconstruction of Gaza is delayed; a situation that could lead to the re-eruption of violence. A third scenario, less likely but more strategic, is the formation of a comprehensive political framework with international guarantees, in which the issue of resistance weapons is addressed not unilaterally, but within the context of ending the occupation and establishing mutual security mechanisms.

Ultimately, the central question is whether the disarmament of Hamas will lead to peace and stability, or whether it merely reproduces occupation from a direct military form into an institutional and security-based format. Experience demonstrates that sustainable peace is unattainable without addressing the political roots of the conflict, including occupation, the right to self-determination, and mutual security guarantees. In this sense, if the reconstruction of Gaza becomes a tool for unilateral political engineering, it will not only fail to lead to stability but may sow the seeds of a new round of instability in one of the most sensitive points of West Asia.

This text was translated using artificial intelligence and may contain errors. If you notice a clear error that makes the text incomprehensible, please inform the website editors.

How Iran Built Its Scientific Program Beyond Hegemony

By Mokhtar Haddad

Since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran under the leadership of Imam Khomeini (may he rest in peace) in 1979, the confrontation with the West has not been confined to political or security arenas. It has extended into one of the most sensitive domains of the modern international system: the production of knowledge and advanced technology.

Unjust sanctions, originally designed to prevent Iran from accessing sources of power, gradually turned into a catalyst pushing the country toward scientific and technological self-reliance.

More than four decades on, we now see a distinctly Iranian experience in building science under siege—one that raises broader questions about the ability of states outside the Western system to acquire the tools of knowledge and progress.

Rebuilding the scientific state after the Revolution

Before the Revolution, Iran was largely part of a system that consumed Western technology without possessing a real capacity to develop it or control its trajectories.

Higher education was limited in reach, and scientific research was disconnected from the needs of the economy and society.
The shift began when the country’s leadership, after the Revolution’s victory, recognized that political independence without a national scientific foundation would remain fragile.

According to data from Iran’s Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology, the country witnessed a major expansion in the number of universities, research centers, and technological institutes, with particular emphasis on their geographic distribution across provinces and cities.

This expansion was accompanied by a redefinition of the university’s role—from a traditional educational institution to an integral part of a national production system linked to industry, energy, agriculture, and other sectors.

When science becomes a sovereign decision

In the Iranian experience, scientific development was not left solely to market forces. Instead, it was incorporated into the state’s strategic planning. Official reports indicate that scientific policies were directed toward serving the people and the country, foremost among their goals achieving self-sufficiency and reducing dependence on external actors.

This approach made scientific research a core component of the country’s development equation, helping explain Iran’s insistence on protecting its scientific infrastructure.

The peaceful nuclear program: knowledge at the heart of international conflict

The peaceful nuclear program represents the clearest example of the intersection between science and politics in Iran’s case. From Tehran’s perspective, the dispute with the West was less a technical disagreement than a struggle over the right to possess advanced knowledge.

According to reports by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, the country succeeded in developing a peaceful nuclear fuel cycle, relying on domestic expertise, at a time when channels for technology transfer were completely closed. This capability went beyond enrichment to include civilian applications in medicine, agriculture, and energy.

The Iranian message in this context is clear: denying access to knowledge does not halt progress—it often accelerates it through alternative means.
Medicine and life sciences: tangible outcomes of scientific investment

Among the sectors that most clearly reflect the impact of scientific investment is healthcare. Data from Iran’s Ministry of Health point to notable progress in areas such as organ transplantation, infertility treatment, and the production of advanced pharmaceuticals, particularly biotechnological drugs.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Iran faced a compounded challenge: a global health crisis under conditions of sanctions. Even so, scientific institutions managed to develop domestic vaccines and expand pharmaceutical production capacity, reinforcing the concept of “health security” as an integral part of national sovereignty.

The space program: breaking the monopoly on space

The Iranian space program may be one of the most significant markers of scientific advancement in the international context. Historically, space has been the exclusive domain of major powers, and any developing country entering this field is often seen as crossing unwritten red lines.

Nevertheless, in recent years, Iran has announced the launch of several domestically produced satellites, along with the development of national launch platforms and satellite carriers. Reports by the Iranian Space Agency indicate that these satellites were designed for civilian purposes, such as communications, natural resource monitoring, environmental disaster management, and agricultural planning.

The strategic importance of the space program lies not only in its technical results but also in its symbolism. Mastery of space technology requires a complex chain of knowledge in engineering, materials science, software, and control systems—fields classified among the highest levels of technology.

Advanced technology and investment in scientific capital

Beyond space, Iran has established a notable presence in advanced technologies. In nanotechnology, for instance, Iran ranks highly worldwide in terms of published research output and achievements, according to both domestic statistics and international reports.

Research institutions are also working on developing national artificial intelligence applications in medicine, industry, and data management, alongside growing support for startups and knowledge-based industries as part of efforts to build an economy less dependent on oil.

At the core of this system is human capital. Reports by the National Elites Foundation point to programs aimed at supporting young researchers and creating an environment conducive to innovation, despite ongoing economic challenges.

Science and sovereignty in an unequal international system

The Iranian experience raises a central question in international relations: Does the current global order allow countries outside the Western core to possess the tools of advanced science?

From Iran’s perspective, building a national scientific base is not a luxury but an existential necessity. Science is viewed not merely as a means of development but as a pillar of independence.

Conclusion

The Iranian experience offers a model of a state that chose to invest in knowledge in the face of Western monopoly. Despite immense challenges, Iran has succeeded in building a multi-layered scientific system encompassing nuclear energy, medicine, space, and advanced technology. For international observers, the significance of this experience lies not only in the scale of its achievements but also in the lesson it offers: science, even under siege, can become a pathway to development, independence, and sovereignty.