The Silk Roads Programme, promoted by UNESCO since the late 1980s, is widely regarded as one of the organization’s key initiatives in the field of international culture, aimed at strengthening synergy among countries located along the historic, civilizational, and cultural geography of the Silk Roads. Beyond serving as a platform for cultural interaction, the programme is directly linked to science, education, the arts, research cooperation, and broader processes of civilizational narrative-building.
Today, countries such as China, Türkiye, and India—recognizing the growing relevance of soft power and the strategic function of narratives in global politics—have invested significant effort in leveraging this programme. China in particular has sought to expand the Silk Roads agenda in alignment with its geopolitical initiatives and to utilize UNESCO-related frameworks to enhance the international legitimacy of its preferred cultural narrative.
In this context, Iran—one of the principal civilizational foundations along the historic Silk Roads—faces a dual challenge: how can it use this platform to revitalize its civilizational role without being marginalized within the narratives advanced by other powers? The present interview with Dr. Mohammad Bagher Khorramshad, Full Professor at Allameh Tabataba’i University, draws on his managerial experience in cultural policy and his strategic vision of civilization to examine how Iran can move from a largely symbolic presence toward active and influential participation—raising its diplomacy from “cultural diplomacy” to “civilizational diplomacy.”
Interview Details
- Interviewer: Marzieh Tajmiri, PhD Candidate in International Relations, University of Isfahan
- Interviewee: Dr. Mohammad Bagher Khorramshad, Faculty Member, Department of Political Science, Allameh Tabataba’i University
- Date of Interview: Tuesday, December 2, 2025
- Main Topics:
- The Cultural Silk Road in the context of 21st-century Asian transformations influenced by China’s conduct
- Iran’s civilizational, cultural, and identity-based capacities within the Cultural Silk Road
Note: In order to preserve academic independence and diversity of perspectives, it should be emphasized that the opinions expressed in this interview reflect solely the personal views of the interviewee and do not necessarily imply endorsement or adoption of a position by the Human Rights Institute of the University of Isfahan.
Interview Report
- The Cultural Silk Road in the Context of 21st-Century Asian Transformations Influenced by China’s Conduct
In outlining the broader significance of the Cultural Silk Road, Dr. Khorramshad first emphasized that this programme cannot be understood as an isolated initiative confined to UNESCO alone. Rather, it must be analyzed within the wider landscape of global trends and the geopolitical transformations of the twenty-first century. In his view, over the past two decades, a growing consensus among international analysts has taken shape that the twenty-first century will be “the century of Asia”—not only because of the continent’s deep and ancient civilizational past, but also because it has become the locus of emerging economic, political, and cultural powers.
Powers such as China, India, Iran, and Japan—despite differing levels of development—are, in varying ways, engaged in reclaiming historical roles and demanding a greater share in shaping the architecture of international order. Within this constellation, Dr. Khorramshad identified China as the most prominent rising power. Backed by immense economic resources, China has entered into an increasingly explicit competition with the United States and is seeking to consolidate its position through a comprehensive set of economic, political, security, and cultural tools.
From this perspective, the Cultural Silk Road constitutes a meaningful component of China’s broader strategy—one aimed at building a kind of cultural and symbolic coherence among Asian countries so that an “Eastern” or “Asian” narrative can be advanced as an alternative to dominant Western discourses. He argued that China’s linkage of Silk Roads-related cultural initiatives with its broader “Belt and Road” logic effectively advances economic and cultural pathways simultaneously. This larger framing makes Iran’s role within the programme more vital than may appear at first glance. In his analysis, Iran’s absence from such a process would not merely be a missed opportunity—it would function as an erosion of the historical memory of the Silk Roads and a transfer of civilizational narration to other actors.
Dr. Khorramshad further explained that China has been able to define a highly active role for itself within UNESCO’s Cultural Silk Road through a range of cultural and scientific instruments. By mobilizing Confucian traditions, language education centers, research linkages, expansive university networks, and targeted investment in cultural projects, China has promoted a pre-designed narrative of the Silk Roads—one that presents China as a “peaceful and interactive Eastern civilization” and positions it as a historical center of Asian cultural exchange.
Alongside cultural dynamism, China has combined technical and managerial initiatives, and has frequently positioned itself as a key host for Silk Roads-related events and activities within international cultural frameworks. In this sense, he argued, China leverages UNESCO-related platforms to secure a form of international legitimacy for its strategic projects. Examples such as hosting major anniversaries, youth-related events, broad participation in research initiatives, and the systematic linking of cultural programmes with geopolitical objectives indicate that China has clearly understood that soft power is a necessary complement to economic power—and that without cultural alignment among participating states, large-scale connectivity projects cannot acquire sufficient legitimacy.
Overall, Dr. Khorramshad concluded that China’s experience demonstrates how a state can employ culture as a strategic instrument, transforming its presence in international institutions from mere participation to a form of cultural leadership. For Iran, this lesson is particularly significant: Iran possesses comparable potential, yet has not used it in a sufficiently structured and sustained manner—while other states, including Germany, Kazakhstan, Oman, and others, have recognized the advantages of accompanying China’s approach more systematically.
- Iran’s Civilizational, Cultural, and Identity-Based Capacities within the Cultural Silk Road
In response to the question of Iran’s potential position within this evolving field—and whether it might be left out—Dr. Khorramshad argued that Iran’s absence, given its civilizational depth and geopolitical location, is not only improbable but deeply harmful. In his view, Iran’s absence would amount to a denial of its historical role and a full transfer of the region’s cultural narrative to rival actors.
Using a “contrary meaning” argument, he explained that even if Iran does not enter this programme in an executive and proactive manner, the project will not stop; rather, countries such as Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, India, and even smaller actors will fill the space and impose their own narratives upon the historical frame of the Silk Roads. Under such conditions, Iran would leave no imprint on the “blank canvas” upon which a shared civilizational narrative of the East is being drawn—resulting in a reconstructed Silk Roads identity that excludes Iran. This may contradict historical reality, he noted, but in the realm of soft power it is the dominant narrative—not historical accuracy—that often prevails.
Dr. Khorramshad then emphasized Iran’s immense capacities—assets that few states possess to a comparable degree, and which make Iran’s presence not merely desirable but necessary. He framed Iran as inheriting two major civilizational periods: (1) Iranian civilization before Islam, and (2) the Islamic–Iranian civilization after Islam. These two periods, he argued, are not contradictory but complementary, and each provides a wide basis for Iranian civilizational agency within the Cultural Silk Road.
As a concrete illustration, he referred to the Nowruz cultural sphere. Nowruz is not confined to Iran’s political borders; it extends across wide areas of Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Middle East, South Asia, and parts of West Asia. Therefore, if Iran can activate this sphere as a “Nowruz cultural coalition,” it would gain an enormous platform for organizing cultural cooperation. He recalled that during his tenure in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, efforts were undertaken to register Nowruz within UNESCO and the United Nations, with participation from countries such as Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Türkiye, and others—demonstrating that Iranian cultural diplomacy around Nowruz and similar elements is feasible in practice.
Dr. Khorramshad also highlighted Iran’s potential within the broader Islamic civilizational domain. He argued that Iran possesses a cultural position in the Islamic world that other states may lack, even if they enjoy greater economic power. He noted that even within Huntington’s civilizational analysis, Islamic civilization was presented as a serious counterpart to Western civilization, and Iran, Türkiye, and Saudi Arabia were identified as potential leadership candidates—while Iran was, in his recounting, ultimately portrayed as holding the strongest cultural leadership capacity.
From this standpoint, Iran’s cultural position could still serve as a pillar for shaping relationships within the Cultural Silk Road, particularly through cultural and symbolic elements connected to Shi’a heritage and events such as Ghadir, in cultural linkage with countries such as Iraq, Lebanon, Azerbaijan, and parts of Central Asia. At the same time, he stressed that these capacities must be presented in ways that do not provoke political sensitivities—framed primarily through cultural, artistic, and spiritual registers.
Alongside these strengths, Dr. Khorramshad enumerated a set of structural weaknesses that have constrained Iran’s role. In his view, culture has consistently been placed lower than economics and politics in domestic policy hierarchies, and this has prevented the design and sustained pursuit of long-term cultural strategies. He also pointed to limited availability of specialized personnel in international institutions, including cultural diplomats and Iranian experts engaged in UNESCO processes. According to him, Iran often becomes involved only at later stages, sporadically and in a limited manner—whereas other countries participate from the outset, shaping concepts, instruments, and narratives from the beginning.
In this context, he argued, Iran’s share in drafting UNESCO-related documents, projects, and scientific programmes is not commensurate with its civilizational capacities—an imbalance that is visible in the Silk Roads field as well. He noted that Iran has 29 properties inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List. He also referred to Iran’s recent initiatives, including UNESCO’s 2025 resolution recognizing the text of the Cyrus Cylinder as a charter of human rights, and the inclusion of Kashan in the UNESCO Creative Cities Network (UCCN) in 2025. Yet despite these developments, he argued that Iran’s presence remains limited in agenda-setting and in leading large-scale regional cultural programmes.
Another key weakness, in his assessment, is the shortage of effective cultural branding. He maintained that artists, filmmakers, and writers must play a more significant role in cultural narrative construction. While South Korea, through entertainment industries, music, television series, and cultural brands, has achieved global influence, Iran has not built comparable branding mechanisms. He also cited Türkiye as an example of using historical television series and Ottoman-era narrative construction to consolidate its regional image. From his viewpoint, Iran’s challenge is not a lack of cultural potential, but rather insufficient strategic utilization of existing capacities by cultural producers and policymakers.
Dr. Khorramshad further emphasized Iran’s artistic assets. Iranian music, he argued, has natural linkages with the music of many societies along the Silk Roads, and Iranian cinema—given its achievements over recent decades—could serve as a common cultural language across the region. He recalled his proposal for initiatives such as “Silk Roads Music” and “Silk Roads Cinema,” which reportedly received positive attention, including from Chinese counterparts. In his view, Iranian music has undergone historical evolution from East to West along the route, creating organic connections that could support a major Silk Roads music festival as a shared language among nations. He similarly believed that Iran’s post-revolution cinematic development provides substantial capacity for initiative in the field of “Silk Roads Cinema.”
Policy Recommendations
- Developing a National Strategy for the Cultural Silk Road
To move beyond symbolic participation in the Cultural Silk Road programme, Iran requires a coherent, inter-institutional national strategy defining an active role within this field. This strategy should focus on Iran’s engagement at early stages—conceptual design, drafting of instruments, and shaping UNESCO reference projects—rather than confining involvement to episodic participation in implementation. Early entry into cultural policy processes strengthens Iran’s ability to influence dominant narratives and prevents historical marginalization. Without such a strategy, Iran risks becoming an involuntary, reactive actor in a field of civilizational competition.
- Activating Transnational Cultural Coalitions Based on Iran’s Civilizational Assets
One of the most effective pathways for Iranian agency within the Cultural Silk Road is the formation of transnational cultural coalitions rooted in shared civilizational assets. Nowruz, the Persian language, Islamic–Iranian heritage, and historical-cultural linkages all offer capacities for multilateral networks that can operate beyond political borders. Such coalitions should be designed within participatory and non-confrontational frameworks to reduce political sensitivity while increasing Iran’s cultural legitimacy.
- Transitioning from Project-Based Engagement to an Identity Strategy
Civilizational diplomacy, as a comprehensive approach, should replace narrow, project-centered conceptions of cultural diplomacy. Whereas cultural diplomacy often remains confined to short-term initiatives, civilizational diplomacy draws on long historical continuities and deep meaning structures. This approach enables simultaneous activation of Iran’s two civilizational layers—ancient Iranian civilization and Islamic–Iranian civilization—without reinforcing artificial dichotomies between them.
- Targeted Investment in Civilizational Branding
Effective Iranian participation in the Cultural Silk Road is not feasible without attractive narrative construction and sustained civilizational branding. Art, cinema, music, and literature should be recognized as formal instruments of external cultural policy. Initiatives in film and music can create a shared language among societies along the route and transmit an Iranian narrative in non-political yet influential forms. Without such narratives, even the deepest civilizational assets will not translate into durable soft power.
Conclusion
The interview with Dr. Khorramshad indicates that Iran does not face a simple dual choice in relation to the Cultural Silk Road; the real choice is between active presence and exclusion from the narrative. Today, the Silk Roads is not merely a cultural project—it has become an arena of narrative, civilizational, and identity competition among Asian powers. In a world where soft power has growing importance, a country that cannot produce its own narrative will inevitably consume the narratives of others. For this reason, Iran must recognize its civilizational capital and deploy it strategically to secure effective presence in this field.
This analysis further suggests that Iran—unlike many regional states—possesses two vast civilizational foundations that can operate as major drivers of a civilizational policy. The Nowruz cultural sphere, Iranian arts, music, cinema, calligraphy, and Islamic and Shi’a cultural heritage can place Iran in a position where it becomes not merely a participant but an initiator of Silk Roads cultural programmes. Dr. Khorramshad emphasized that civilizational diplomacy, due to its scope and depth, can integrate these capacities, move Iran beyond reactive patterns, and enable more coherent agency.
Ultimately, the interview’s central message is that the world is entering a civilizational phase of competition. If Iran seeks to preserve and reconstruct its historical role, it must participate actively in this competition. Such participation cannot be achieved through political engagement alone; it requires the production of civilizational thought, cultural narrative-building, academic participation, and the presence of artists within international arenas. The Cultural Silk Road represents an exceptional opportunity for Iran to redefine and recover its historical identity and to claim its genuine share in shaping the cultural future of Asia.
