Political Research In Islamic World

fa اعتبارسنجی نظریه‌های ژئوپلیتیک و جغرافیای سیاسی Validation of Geopolitical and Political Geography Theories تخصصي Special پژوهشي Research چکیده نظریه‌های کلاسیک ژئوپلیتیک و جغرافیای سیاسی مانند قلب زمین مکیندر، ریملند اسپایکمن و دیگران، مکان‌های استراتژیک ثابتی را به عنوان «مرکز زمین» معرفی کرده‌اند. با این حال، تحولات شتابان جهان معاصر (فناوری، جهانی‌شدن، تغییرات اقلیمی، ظهور بازیگران غیردولتی) اعتبار آنها را با چالش مواجه ساخته است. این مقاله با روش توصیفی-تحلیلی و رویکرد انتقادی و با تدوین شش معیار صریح اعتبارسنجی (جامعیت، هماهنگی با شواهد، توان پیش‌بینی، توجه به بازیگران غیردولتی، پویایی زمانی-مکانی، کاربرد هنجاری) نشان می‌دهد که نظریه‌های کلاسیک میانگین نمره ۳ از ۱۰ را کسب کرده و ضعف اصلی آن‌ها در نادیده گرفتن بازیگران غیردولتی و نگاه ایستا به قلب زمین است. در مقابل، مقاله مفهوم «زنجیره تاریخ» را به عنوان چارچوبی جایگزین و پویا معرفی می‌کند که بر انباشت پنج روند تاریخی، فرهنگی، اقتصادی و فناورانه تأکید دارد. یافته‌ها فرضیه اول (ناکارآمدی نظریه‌های کلاسیک) و فرضیه دوم (قدرت تبیین بالاتر زنجیره تاریخ) را تأیید می‌کند. نتیجه‌گیری مقاله آن است که بازتعریف قلب زمین به عنوان فرایندی پویا و وابسته به انباشت روندهای تاریخی، فرهنگی، اقتصادی و فناورانه، یک ضرورت علمی برای تحلیل مناسبات قدرت جهانی در قرن بیست و یکم است.   Introduction Throughout history, political scientists and strategists have sought to identify a single, fixed geographical location as the "centre" or "heart" of the world, believing that control over that space would guarantee global supremacy. This intellectual tradition gave rise to classical geopolitical theories—such as Mackinder's Heartland, Spykman's Rimland, Mahan's Sea Power, de Seversky's Air Power, Meinig's Marginal Belt, Cohen's World Geopolitical System, and Kemp's Energy Ellipse. These theories, developed between the late 19th and mid-20th centuries, were heavily deterministic. They assumed that material geography—mountains, seas, straits, air corridors, and energy resources—was the primary and relatively stable driver of international power relations. However, the world has changed dramatically in the 21st century. Globalisation, the digital revolution, climate change, the rise of non-state actors, cyberwarfare, pandemics, and the fragmentation of traditional alliances have fundamentally challenged the static and materialist assumptions of classical geopolitics. These theories, while historically significant, no longer provide a sufficient framework for understanding the complex, fluid, and multi-dimensional nature of contemporary power. This article argues that the concept of the "Heartland" must be redefined—not as a fixed location, but as a dynamic and historical process. The authors propose an alternative analytical framework: the "Chain of History" (based on Braudel's longue durée and developed by Kaplan). This framework emphasises the cumulative weight of historical, cultural, technological, and economic trends over time, suggesting that the centre of global power is not a place, but a moving and evolving constellation of forces. This study critically validates classical theories and offers a new, historically grounded paradigm for political geography and geopolitics. Problem Statement and Research Questions Classical geopolitical theories were formulated in an era of territorial empires, industrial warfare, and limited technological connectivity. They were largely state-centric, Eurocentric, and deterministic. They assumed that geography was destiny and that certain fixed spaces—such as the Eurasian steppe (Heartland), coastal margins (Rimland), or strategic straits—would forever remain the keys to global power. Today, however, power is increasingly exercised through digital networks, financial flows, information warfare, artificial intelligence, and transnational ideologies. Moreover, the very definition of "territory" is shifting. Non-state actors, diasporas, multinational corporations, and even religious movements can generate influence without controlling contiguous land. Consequently, the central research question is: Do classical geopolitical and political geography theories—which emphasise fixed geographical locations—still possess sufficient validity to explain contemporary global realities? To answer this, the study tests two hypotheses: 1. Classical geopolitical theories lack spatiotemporal validity and cannot adequately explain the complex dynamics of the modern world. 2. The "Chain of History" framework, which emphasises the accumulation of historical, cultural, economic, and technological processes, offers a more robust and dynamic alternative for understanding the shifting centres of global power. 3. Theoretical Framework and Key Concepts This research is built upon three interconnected theoretical pillars: a) Classical Geopolitical TheoriesThese include Mahan's emphasis on sea power (1890), Mackinder's Heartland thesis (1904), Spykman's Rimland correction (1944), de Seversky's Air Power doctrine (1950), Meinig's Marginal Belt, Cohen's World Geopolitical System (1990s), and Kemp's Energy Ellipse. All share a common flaw: they view geography as a static, deterministic stage upon which great powers act, ignoring historical agency, cultural transformation, and technological change. b) The "Chain of History" (Zanjireh-ye Tarikh) This concept, rooted in Fernand Braudel's longue durée (1949) and popularised by Robert Kaplan (2012), argues that geopolitical realities are the product of centuries of accumulated human interactions, ecological conditions, technological innovations, and cultural identities. It posits that today's conflicts, alliances, and power centres are not sudden events but are links in a long historical chain. This chain includes past trade routes, imperial boundaries, linguistic frontiers, and religious divides, all of which continue to shape present-day geopolitics. c) Critical Geopolitics Building on the work of Ó Tuathail (1996) and Agnew (2003), critical geopolitics argues that geopolitical theories are not neutral scientific descriptions but are constructed discourses that serve particular political interests. This approach allows us to deconstruct classical theories, exposing their colonial, Eurocentric, and power-serving origins. It also opens the door to including non-material factors—such as identity, religion, and collective memory—in geopolitical analysis. Methodology This research employs a descriptive-analytical method combined with a critical discourse analysis (CDA) approach. Data were collected through systematic library research, including a review of classical and contemporary textbooks, peer-reviewed journal articles, and historical documents on geopolitics. Data Analysis: The analysis was conducted in four stages: 1. Discourse Identification: Identifying the core spatial-territorial discourses Embedded in classical theories (e.g., "Heartland," "Rimland," "Energy Ellipse"). 2. Historical Contextualisation: Examining the historical conditions (industrialisation, colonialism, world wars) that shaped these theories. 3. Contemporary Evaluation: Testing the validity of these theories against 21st-century realities, including digitalisation, climate change, and the rise of China. 4. Framework Synthesis: Proposing the "Chain of History" as a more comprehensive and dynamic explanatory model. Findings The findings of this study are presented in seven key points: 1. Classical Theories Lack Spatiotemporal Validity Each classical theory was deeply rooted in its own time. Mahan's sea power reflected the zenith of the British Empire. Mackinder's Heartland was a response to the expansion of the Russian and German empires. De Seversky's air power assumed strategic bombing could win wars—a hypothesis repeatedly disproven (Pape, 1996; Biddle, 2002). These theories cannot be universalised across different eras or cultural contexts. 2. The "Heartland" is a Dynamic Process, Not a Fixed Place Rather than being a static zone (e.g., Eastern Europe or Siberia), the "Heartland" should be understood as a fluid nexus of power, shaped by the accumulation of Historical, technological, and cultural interactions. For instance, in the 19th century, the global centre of gravity might have been the North Atlantic; in the 20th, the Eurasian landmass; and in the 21st, it may be the digital domain or the Indo-Pacific. The Heartland is therefore a moving process, not a fixed territory. 3. Technological and Digital Factors Redefine Geography Classical theories neglected the transformative role of information technology. Today, cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, and satellite networks enable power projection without physical control of territory. A state can disrupt an adversary's economy or political system remotely, rendering traditional geographic advantages less relevant. 4. Non-State Actors and Transnational Networks Classical geopolitics was state-centric. Contemporary power, however, is increasingly shaped by non-state actors: multinational corporations, terrorist groups, transnational religious movements, and global financial institutions. These actors operate across borders, creating a multi-layered and fragmented geopolitical landscape that does not conform to the static maps of classical theorists. 5. Environmental and Climate Change as Geopolitical Forces Classical theories barely considered environmental factors. Today, climate-induced migration, water scarcity, and resource competition are reshaping regional and global politics. The Arctic, Once a remote periphery, is becoming a new centre of strategic interest due to melting ice and new sea routes—a phenomenon no classical theorist could have predicted. 6. The "Chain of History" as a Superior Framework The "Chain of History" offers a more comprehensive model. It recognises that contemporary geopolitics is not a blank slate but is shaped by centuries of previous actions. The borders, conflicts, alliances, and identities of today are products of a long historical accumulation. For example, the tensions between Russia and Europe are not just about military balances but are rooted in centuries of imperial expansion, ideological conflict, and cultural divergence. Similarly, the Sino-Indian border dispute, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Sunni-Shia divide in the Middle East are all "chains" that extend far back in time. 7. Need for Interdisciplinary and Multi-Factor Analysis The article concludes that any valid geopolitical analysis today must integrate not only physical geography but also history, economics, technology, culture, and environmental science. A mono-causal or geographically deterministic approach is no longer tenable. Discussion and Conclusion This study has critically validated the theoretical foundation of classical geopolitics and political geography. It confirms the first hypothesis that these theories, despite their historical importance, have lost their explanatory power in the face of 21st-century complexities. They were products of their time, reflecting specific industrial, colonial, and military conditions that no longer dominate global affairs. The second hypothesis—that the "Chain of History" provides a more dynamic and powerful analytical framework—was also supported. The concept, rooted in Braudel's longue durée and extended by Kaplan, allows scholars and policymakers to see contemporary geopolitical phenomena as part of a long, continuous, and evolving process. It encourages a shift from static mapping to dynamic historical interpretation. The authors propose the following redefinition of the "Heartland": The Heartland is not a fixed geographical space but a historical and dynamic process. It is the accumulated product of civilisational, technological, economic, and cultural interactions that, over time, give rise to shifting centres of global power. It is neither timeless nor placeless but is always embedded in a specific historical chain. Practical Recommendations: • For Scholars: Move beyond deterministic and static models. Integrate historical sociology, political economy, and cultural studies into geopolitical analysis. Adopt long-term historical perspectives. • For Policymakers: Avoid policies based solely on fixed geographical assumptions (e.g., "who controls the Strait of Hormuz controls the world"). Instead, consider historical trajectories, technological trends, and socio-cultural dynamics. • For Curriculum Design: Geopolitics courses should include critical geopolitics, historical sociology, and case studies on the "Chain of History" to train students in multidimensional analysis. • For Future Research: Empirical testing of the "Chain of History" framework is needed, focusing on specific case studies such as the Belt and Road Initiative, the Arctic scramble, cyber warfare, and the geopolitics of climate change. <div></div> ژئوپلیتیک, جغرافیای سیاسی, قلب زمین, زنجیره تاریخ, اعتبارسنجی نظریه. Geopolitics, Political Geography, Heartland, Chain of History, Theory Validation, Classical Geopolitics, Critical Geopolitics, Longue Durée. 53 70 http://priw.ir/browse.php?a_code=A-10-2565-1&slc_lang=fa&sid=1 Mohammadreza Soltani محمدرضا سلطانی mohamadr.soltani@ut 0075553643 10031947532846009201 Yes Ph.D. Student, Department of Political Geography, Alborz Campus, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. دانشجوی دکتری، گروه جغرافیای سیاسی، پردیس البرز، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. Zahra Pishgahi Fard زهرا پیشگاهی فرد zfard@ut.ac.ir 10031947532846009202 10031947532846009202 No Professor, Department of Political Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran استاد، گروه جغرافیای سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران Hasan Kamran Dastjerdi حسن کامران دستجردی 10031947532846009203 10031947532846009203 No