a permanent border architecture; the map of Iranian depth, which aims to transform the network into a viable deterrent after the collapse of some of its links; and the map of the Arab vacuum, in which collapsed, wealthy, and limited-sovereign states alike become the arena where the first two visions are tested. For this reason, the coming confrontation is not solely about Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, or the nuclear program, but rather about who has the right to define the regional space: Are borders a product of international law, or of the ability to establish facts on the ground? Is sovereignty a function of the nation-state, or a space for negotiation among armies, proxies, corridors, intelligence, and technology? Here, the attempt to overcome the geopolitical constraints imposed by geography is a direct cause of political and military activity in the region. Robert Kaplan had established the term “geography’s revenge” to address the situation of countries that thought they were capable of managing politics through force alone, before finding themselves governed by terrain, depth, population density, corridors, security gaps, sea views, and strategic exposure or immunity. All of this makes geography an important factor in determining the foundations and capabilities of national security, and the state’s ability to defend itself in all circumstances. Keywords: Iran, Israel, Geopolitics, Geographical Expansion, Strategic Depth, Deterrence, National Sovereignty, Regional Security.
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter