Artificial ielligence, as one of the most transformative technologies of today, has become the field of global competition. This competition takes place on two main levels:
- Competition among tech companies: Tech gias like Google, Microsoft, and Apple strive to excel in algorithms, products, and conquer global markets.
- Competition among couries: couries such as the United States, China, the United Kingdom and, on another level, the European Union, are seeking to lead this field with large investmes and long-term policies.
But in Iran, a third type of competition is observed: Governme competition with itself.
By adopting comprehensive strategies, effective regulation and large investme, the leading couries are looking for the developme and optimal use of artificial ielligence. For example, the United States has taken a series of key actions from 2016 to 2025 in order to develop and regulate artificial ielligence policies. During the Obama era, the AI policy roadmap was defined by strategic reports and research priorities. With an executive order in 2019, the Trump administration launched the US National Artificial Ielligence Initiative and issued directives for the use of AI in the federal governme. In 2022, the Biden administration published the guiding principles of the “Artificial Ielligence Bill of Rights” and in 2023 signed an executive order for new policy priorities. In addition, various laws such as the AI in Governme Act (2020) and R&D funding programs for AI in various federal agencies were developed. These measures have generally focused on promoting security, innovation, competition, civil rights and iernational cooperation in the field of AI. Over the past years, the US governme has allocated a significa budget to the research and developme of artificial ielligence. According to estimates, the total US AI research and developme budget in the civilian sector in 2025 is about $1.5 billion and in the military sector is about $2 billion.
Such information can also be provided for other leading couries, indicating the importa role that governmes play in guiding and policy-making, as well as legal and financial support for the developme of artificial ielligence.
In such a situation, the policy structure in Iran is still involved in ira-governmeal disputes over the responsibility of this technology. This situation has not only slowed down the process of artificial ielligence developme and caused confusion for private companies and activists in this field, but also makes it impossible to design a roadmap and national vision for the developme and regulation of artificial ielligence. The result of this confusion is staying at the stage of limited use of productive artificial ielligence and the design of some half-assed chatbots, which, rather than unraveling the coury’s problems and serving the decision-making system, are merely a temporary show and a tool for advertising and achieveme.
To understand the chaotic state of governance in this field in Iran, it is enough to look at the fate of the institutions defined for this technology.
The National Organization of Artificial Ielligence was established with the aim of policymaking, infrastructure developme and promotion of national capabilities in the field of artificial ielligence. However, due to the lack of ier-departmeal coordination, budget limitations and weak manageme, it quickly ran io implemeation problems. Finally, in May 1404, the governme board decided to dissolve this organization and to establish a headquarters for the developme of technology and application of artificial ielligence instead. This change was done with the aim of reducing bureaucracy, but in practice it showed the lack of stability and weakness in macro-policy. Even the building of the National Artificial Ielligence Organization was reed; An action that clearly shows the disorderly situation of this institution.
In November 1404, the Islamic Council approved the formation of the National Steering Council of Artificial Ielligence. This council, which is chaired by the preside, was formed with the aim of establishing coordination between governme institutions, the parliame and the private sector. But this action was also met with opposition. The Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution se a letter to the parliame and requested to stop the review of the project and stated the reason for this request is to preve parallel work and coordination with the previous approvals. Of course, the parliame did not pay atteion to this request and the formation of the aforemeioned council was approved.
In addition to the official structures, there is also an underground competition between the Vice Preside for Science and Technology and the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology in the field of artificial ielligence leadership. Although none of these institutions publicly admit to this rivalry, their decisions and behaviors clearly reflect this conflict.
The Scieific Vice-Chancellor considers himself to be the main policy-maker in the field of new technologies and seeks to guide long-term projects in this field by supporting knowledge-based companies. On the other hand, the Ministry of Communications, focusing on the developme of digital infrastructure and data governance, plays an importa role in creating the necessary platforms for the growth of artificial ielligence. But the lack of a clear division of labor and effective cooperation between these two institutions causes parallel work, waste of resources and slow down the developme process.
The waste of resources and energy and the slowing down of the developme process are the clear consequences of disputes and conflicts in decision-making institutions. But perhaps the most importa negative consequence is the confusion in policy making and gradually moving away from the global competition.
The competition over the responsibility of artificial ielligence in Iran, instead of creating synergy, has caused a waste of resources and a slow progress. While the world is rapidly exploiting the capacities of this technology, Iran is involved in iernal conflicts that preve the definition of macro and operational policies in this field.
If the governme cannot correct this situation and focus on cooperation instead of competition, the valuable opportunities of this technology for economic, industrial and social developme will be lost. The main question is: who will sit behind the steering wheel of artificial ielligence? Can we expect that this decree will be erusted to an independe and transpare institution or will we coinue to witness fruitless competitions?
