In today’s world, most conflicts, despite their military dimensions and diplomatic frameworks, can be interpreted through the lens of economic interests and geopolitical calculations. These varying and at times contradictory geopolitical interpretations are decoded and given meaning through established geopolitical theories. If the world is divided into two broad categories, the first is the Heartland, or the “pivot area,” a region encompassing Russia and Central Asia that is resource-rich but lacks direct and effective access to open waters. This landlocked territory has repeatedly undergone political transformations throughout history. In contrast lies the Rimland, or the “marginal lands,” comprising countries and coastlines connected to open waters that control a significant share of global trade, an arena in which the United States holds considerable influence and dominance.
Within this framework, another geopolitical concept known as the Crossland is emerging. It functions as an intersection point between the Heartland and the Rimland and could become a new pathway for either cooperation or confrontation. The United States, operating within this framework, is working to construct a geopolitical “wall” around Russia and China to prevent these two powers from expanding freely and becoming unchallenged forces. The tensions surrounding Iran can also be assessed within this context. Iran functions as a wall or chokepoint, capable of either blocking or facilitating the communication corridor between the Heartland and open waters.
If Iran is defeated in its confrontation with the United States, the project of encircling the Heartland will enter a more critical phase. If Iran holds its ground, however, the wall will crack, and Russia and China will gain the opportunity to play a more active role in regional and global affairs. Russia could gain access to warm waters, while China could secure its energy supplies more easily. Should the United States succeed in bringing Iran under its control, the encirclement of China and Russia would be complete, leaving both powers confined within the landlocked boundaries of the Heartland, a development that could restore American dominance over global power dynamics.
Against this backdrop of intensifying rivalry among major powers, plans are taking shape that bear directly on Afghanistan’s geographic position. The responses of regional states to this situation can be analyzed through the paradigm of regionalism versus globalism. Two major plans concerning Afghanistan are currently being developed within this framework. The first involves Central Asia, together with the South and North Caucasus, being advanced under Russia’s Eurasianist strategy and its broader geopolitical doctrine. This plan is a response to chronic instability, political fragility, and Western interventionism in the Heartland belt. Russia and regional countries are navigating a process of crisis management and controlled tensions, one that also reflects the roles played by the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, and certain Arab states under the framework of the Abraham Accords.
The ultimate aim of these plans is to control Russia’s traditional sphere of influence, disrupt indigenous regional security structures, open pathways for American access to these areas, and ultimately complete the encirclement of China. The Eurasian belt, by contrast, stands as a counterforce to this trend, seeking to establish a new regional balance of power. Following the crises in the Middle East, this approach is being pursued with greater urgency in Central Asia and the Caucasus.
The second plan centers on an axis comprising Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, and possibly Iran. This grouping, responding to projects such as “Greater Israel” and “Greater India” and resisting anti-regional orders, is working toward a form of security convergence under the banner of an “Islamic NATO.” The plan faces serious obstacles, however, including the absence of a coordinated security structure, opposition from the United States, Israel, and India, a lack of geographical contiguity, the vast geographic scope compounded by security threats, the potential fallout from a war between Iran and the United States, and deep religious, political, and ideological divisions that place considerable friction on the path toward forming such an arrangement.
In broad terms, a crisis arising from a potential Iran-US confrontation could severely erode the region’s deterrent capacity and make the construction of a new security order far more difficult. Iran’s position in this evolving geopolitical structure depends on two key factors. The first is whether Iran’s current political system can withstand the United States’ new strategic pressures, or whether it will undergo structural change and slide into instability. The second is which geopolitical alignment Iran would gravitate toward if its current system survives: the Eurasian bloc or the Islamic NATO coalition. China’s posture is also significant here, as Beijing may support such convergence given that its strategic, economic, and security interests are well served by such coalitions.
Afghanistan, meanwhile, remains mired in uncertainty. Under the control of a single group that lacks both national and international legitimacy, the country functions as a potential source of instability and a flashpoint for friction among regional and extra-regional powers. In its current state, Afghanistan occupies the position of a buffer state with neither cohesion nor inclusion in broader security or geopolitical structures. It is neither part of a regional security belt nor a member of the coalitions currently forming around it.
The way in which neighboring, regional, and extra-regional powers view Afghanistan must therefore be understood within a wider geopolitical framework. If the country remains outside these emerging arrangements, the risk of its descent into a deeper security and geopolitical crisis will grow. While external actors have long treated Afghanistan as an arena for competition and the pursuit of their own interests, new developments could set the country on one of two very different paths: becoming a focal point of conflict and a security quagmire where opposing forces cancel each other out, or moving toward regional integration that could lay the groundwork for improved security, economic development, and more stable governance.
The divergence in actors’ objectives, the contradictions in their approaches, and the tensions between regional and extra-regional interests have significantly deepened the complexity of the situation. The war in Ukraine, Europe’s energy crisis, the Iran-US standoff, and the weakening economic capacity of Persian Gulf states all exert direct pressure on these dynamics and push key players toward either confrontation or accommodation over Afghanistan. In these circumstances, Afghanistan, as a Crossland point positioned at the intersection and fault line of the Heartland and the Rimland, has become one of the most sensitive and contested geographic spaces in the world.
You can read the Persian version of this analysis here:
