Every semester, in the first session of the geopolitics course I teach, my students and I discuss how various geographical elements influence countries' foreign policies and how they constitute a discipline called “geopolitics.” We begin by enumerating elements of physical geography and then move on to economic, political, social, cultural and military geographical elements. Subsequently, we spend each week examining the most significant geopolitical theories from the late nineteenth century to the present, observing the impact of each geographical factor on the foreign policy of countries within the region we study, the Nowruz cultural sphere.

Throughout the semester, students typically express their views on the most important geographical factors influencing foreign policies around the world. Sometimes they assert that access to seas and open waters is crucial, or that the access of great powers to vast territories and the management of trade routes are important. They then suggest that to gain the upper hand in foreign policy, powers must have sufficient access to both land and sea.

They also highlight the importance of natural resources, especially fossil fuels, and as the weeks of study progress, they emphasise the significance of access to water resources, particularly in the context of transboundary rivers, where a country’s upstream or downstream position plays a vital role in shaping its relations with other nations. Occasionally, they state that the size of a country and its neighbours can significantly impact its foreign policy, and at times they go further, considering technological capabilities for air superiority effective in shaping modern geopolitics and now they are gradually introducing artificial intelligence into geopolitics.

For some time now, I have been contemplating that “people” are a significant geographical element that can influence foreign policy but has been less addressed in geopolitical theories. Although Alfred Mahan, in his six principal elements to consider when studying a country’s geopolitics, refers to “the character of the people”, he still maintains that sea power leads a country to superpower status in the world. Mackinder and Spykman, the most prominent geopolitical theorists in the first half of the twentieth century, primarily valued land power, access to mineral resources and the simultaneous control of sea and land routes in their writings.

Also read: The Indo-Iranian Legacy Is a Quiet Reminder of Where Real Strength Comes From

Even the Germans, who talked about racial superiority and its impact on interstate relations, did not assign a role to the people in the game among leaders. During the Cold War, even though geopolitical studies were largely sidelined, the focus remained solely on superpowers, even in doctrines like “deterrence” and “détente”. When Samuel Huntington introduced the idea of the "Clash of Civilisations" in the 1990s, while presenting a new world map based on cultural, religious and racial differences, states were still considered the primary actors in the conflict between civilisations.

In the 21st century, whether it is Zbigniew Brzezinski's new Great Game, which recalls the 19th century and re-emphasises the importance of controlling territories and resources; Dugin’s Eurasianism, which seems to be a continuation of Huntington’s idea with a Russian approach; or China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which quietly prioritises economic geography and advances its agenda, none have addressed the role and status of “people” in shaping a country’s foreign policy.

However, in studying the impact of natural factors on foreign policy, one must ask: what good are mountains, rivers, seas, natural resources and agricultural lands without people?

In the study of economic geography, whose economic situation are we examining? For whom is inflation? Who falls below or rises above the poverty line? For whom does the economy grow or not grow?

In the study of political and military geography, when we say a region is a buffer, we must ask: between whom? And when it is said that a territory was a crossroads, it must be asked: for whom?
In social and cultural geography, isn't it the people whose linguistic, ethnic, religious and racial diversities we discuss? Aren't they the ones who determine the population growth indices we debate? Aren't they the ones whose literacy rates or access to healthcare we examine?

Sometimes we become so enchanted by numbers and maps, and so carelessly overlook what the numbers describe and the maps display, that we forget “people” is a living index, and unlike most geopolitical indices, they possess an independent will to bring about change in a countrys’ foreign policies. Therefore, perhaps alongside defining geopolitical indices to increase countries’ power at the international level and transform them into sea, land, or air powers, one could also speak of “people’s power” and consider it an important geopolitical tool in advancing a country’s foreign policy agenda.

Thus, it may be necessary to re-examine the views of the masters of geopolitical thought with a fresh perspective and administer geopolitics courses anew, taking into account a major index – named the “people”.

Mandana Tishehyar is a faculty member, Department of Asian Studies, ECO College, Allameh Tabataba'i University. She did her PhD from Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. She lives in Tehran.

This article went live on March fifth, two thousand twenty six, at forty-three minutes past four in the afternoon.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.