In the frame of the paradigm of competition between maritime (sea) and land strategies there are two grate GEOSTRATEGIC faults in global scale located at the West and East of the Eurasia that seems are the origins of current policies in the world. In fact, the global GEOSTRATEGIC confrontations are located in the onshore parts of the Eurasia. These confrontations are limited from East to onshore gap-line between land of Eurasia and Pacific Ocean, and from West to the gap-line between Eurasia and Europe and Africa. It looks that, European states and the USA and the maritime strategy allies have surrounded the land of Eurasia, and challenge the land strategy and its allies and enforce them to the spatial contraction. In opposite, Russia and China as the main actors of the land strategy try to cope with this challenge, and reach to the spatial expansion...

Although in Western studies, the role and concept of the border are becoming an abstract concept, the way of foreign governance still brings potential and actual tensions in many regions of the world in the countries on both sides of the border. This research provides a better picture of the main question of this article which is Iran's GEOSTRATEGIC understanding of Iraq. we do that by examining identity, cultural, religious, economic, etc. components. To answer the question raised in the research, a descriptive-analytical method has been used. In this research, the variables of language and ethnicity, religion, political-economic-military organization, territorial advantage, ethnic symbols, and the reason for existence and territorial cohesion have been analyzed and evaluated. In examining the situation of making political decisions based on Iran's geostrategy towards Iraq, three factors have a neutral or converging situation for Iran, while the situation is divergent in only one component, on the other hand, Iraq is divergent in three and neutral in one component, under these conditions, paying attention to the only divergent factor in two countries, which is language, ethnicity, and religion, should be a serious concern of both countries, a factor that is not so worrying for Iran in a normal situation, but If the independence of these minorities happened in Iraq, it can also limit Iran's national security.

In various definitions of national power and its components, emphasis has been placed on the objective elements of power, such as size, position, resources, population, access, etc., the basic part of which includes concepts and examples. Pleasure has created a sense of empowerment, a tendency to perpetuate and spread among human communities and political units. A trend that has been theorized many times in the form of different concepts and propositions. The critical space approach in government foreign policy is based on the study of the land and its resources for self-sufficiency and the increase of national power. Such an approach has played an undeniable role in the emergence of colonialism and the expansion of power. The aforementioned approach, known as the Lensbrom (Vital Space), along with racist tendencies, played a key role in guiding Nazi foreign policy in Germany and its expansionism. It seems that the characteristics of Iraq's political geography have caused and will continue to lead to aggressive behavior in the country's foreign policy. In this paper, the author intends to use a historical approach and descriptive-analytical methodology to recognize the place of LeBron's theory (vital space) in Iraq's GEOSTRATEGIC tendencies

Objective Identifying, counting, and categorizing GEOSTRATEGIC coastal indicators affecting global and regional strategies in the 1414-year horizon.The research is with a mixed approach, with the goals of future studies and applied, which has been done in a descriptive/analytical method with an exploratory view using the Delphi method. The statistical population is considered to be the whole number and the population includes 101 military and political experts and the sampling method is purposefully judgmental. To collect data from library and field tools (interviews and questionnaires) and to reduce the indicators and fit the model, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) has been done using SPSS software.Findings: The final model was calculated and presented for the political component of 18 indicators, the economic component of 17 indicators, the military component of 18 indicators, the natural component of 20 indicators, and the cultural component of 16 indicators. After the answer period, 22 main components were discovered and categorized using SPSS software and forming an elite panel in three stages.Conclusion: The location of the passageway, access to access roads and fossil energy resources, and control position were the most widely used indicators in the documentation of GEOSTRATEGIC theories, expressing the views of experts, and the result of the analysis of the questionnaire. In the end, according to the obtained results, it can be noted that factors such as transit location, control position, access to access passages, and energy resources will be the most effective factors in global and regional strategies.

GEOSTRATEGIC realms refer to large-scale spatial zones on the Earth shaped by the rivalry among major global powers, forming extensive blocs of confrontation. These realms are structured through a combination of political, cultural, economic, social, military, security, commercial, technological, and media-related factors or a subset thereof and are typically led by a dominant actor assuming a guiding role. At the global level, two primary realms can currently be identified: the maritime realm and the continental realm. Transformations within GEOSTRATEGIC realms are infrequent and evolve over the long term, as dominant powers strive to preserve their superiority and stability by leveraging the aforementioned variables. In the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which intensified cohesion among maritime powers, a new geopolitical window has opened for China to strengthen its position within the continental realm. Moreover, the rise of Donald Trump as President of the United States and the resulting transatlantic tensions over the Ukraine war present the potential for reshaping the global GEOSTRATEGIC landscape. This study investigates these emerging fractures and examines the prospects for realignment among global realms and the rise of new strategic actors. It analyzes GEOSTRATEGIC configurations through the lens of prominent geopolitical theories and interprets the shifting dynamics between the maritime and continental realms in the current global context. The research is primarily based on library and documentary sources and follows a descriptive-analytical methodology.

Relations between China and the United States is perhaps the most complex and the most contradictions in the relations between the great powers, he said. Relationships that are influenced by multiple factors and many cases the opposite is always fluctuating and at times unpredictable. china as representative of emerging powers and America as representative symbols of the traditional powers of the twenty-first century's global rival and conflicting policies world can understand eyes are International . So on the basis of this article, using a model analysis model structural realist Kenneth Waltz adjustments also bring up the question of the security strategies of China against America movements in different regions will? With classified security strategies in China Four behavioral model balance of hard and soft balance, following hard on the soft trail, but each of them also a function of the combination of three factors: relative power, relative security and relative ideology have tried to explain this issue.

In order to achieve the goal and correctly formulate the current and future conditions of Southwest Asia, written university texts including books, articles, internet, etc. will be used. The findings of recent studies show the gradual decline of the economic position of the United States and the European Union and the emergence of new economic powers in the world, especially China and Russia, in the 21st century. Because the supply of its transmission energy guarantees the position of the hegemon on the world stage. Controlling the energy resources of the Greater Near East is considered one of the basic strategies of the United States to ensure the flow of energy to the West, curbing China as the most important energy consumer in the world, and curbing Russia with its presence in Central Asia and the Caucasus. In such a situation, the adoption of active and intelligent diplomacy in the field of energy by Iran will be very decisive and have numerous geopolitical and geo-economic effects at the regional and global levels. Therefore, national interests require that by maintaining the principles of honor, wisdom and expediency, Iran plays an effective and active role in the field of regional and global cooperation in terms of increasing production and trade.

From a geopolitical and GEOSTRATEGIC point of view, Iran and Saudi Arabia are competing with each other in increasing regions. This study seeks to analyze the GEOSTRATEGIC role of Iran in Saudi Arabia's extensive effort to strategically approach the largest emerging power in the international system. The authors have tried to answer the question of what are the most important GEOSTRATEGIC threats of the regions of the Islamic Republic of Iran in establishing a strategic alliance between Saudi Arabia and the relations of the People's Republic of China by using explanatory methods and using library and internet information gathering tools? It seems that the increase in Iran's influence in the region after the conclusion of the UN Security Council and the change in the balance of power in regional crisis in its favor, has led to the formation of GEOSTRATEGIC threats in Saudi Arabia and its closer proximity to China. The findings of the study using the theory of defensive neo-realism show that Saudi Arabia with a pragmatic approach is trying to establish a strategic alliance with China to curb Iran's influence and reduce its activism in the region. However, the People's Republic of China, with its strategic patience in its foreign policy and the strategic importance of Iran and Saudi Arabia in its developing economy, seeks to maintain a bilateral balance in its relations with both actors.

The Caspian Sea, which is the largest lake in the world, with no natural waterway to the world's open seas, with a length of 1200 km and an average width of 300 km in the east of the Caucasus, has been the source of civilization and tribes since 75, 000 thousand years ago. In the years before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Caspian Sea was known as a common sea between Iran and the Soviet Union, and this de facto border was recognized until the collapse. Iran, with the exception of its own issues, did not play a role in the issues of the region. The Caspian Basin was the sphere of Soviet influence, and the Soviet Union dominated the northern, northeastern and western parts of the region as part of its territory. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, a couple of countries were established in the Caspian region, while these states along with the great powers faced new challenges. The post-1991 Caspian Sea geopolitical region also emerged as an active and functional area. The most important issues that have changed the political geography and boundaries of the Caspian region are including: the Caspian Sea legal regime, ethnic conflicts in the countries of the region, regional energy resources as well as environmental issues. What is considered more important for Western powers is a strategic influence in a region that is considered a kind of "backyard" of Russia.

As Russia's only navigable port in the Baltic Sea, Kaliningrad has a prominent GEOSTRATEGIC position. Kaliningrad Oblast as an exclave region is miles away from Russian mainland, and is actually situated closer to some European member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Kaliningrad's militarization and Russia's policy of defending itself against NATO's Eastward Expansion have heightened the tensions among regional countries. Since 2008, Russia has activated the so-called ‘Iskander diplomacy’, redesigned its weapons of mass destruction, and launched large-scale military maneuvers. The 2014 Ukraine crisis showed that Russia has no intention to leave Eastern Europe. Moreover, Kremlin withdrew from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe in 2015. The combination of these measures led to the revival of militarism in the Kaliningrad region, and created a security dilemma in the Baltic Sea, when NATO member countries in the region reacted by emphasizing deterrence. In this paper, to make sense of the new developments in the region, the author attempts to answer two key questions:  1. What had been the most significant effects of the GEOSTRATEGIC position of Kaliningrad as Russia's external guardhouse in the Baltic Sea on the Russia-NATO security integral in the region?; and 2. What will be the most likely defense models of the Baltic countries given Russia's power preponderance in the region? In the hypothesis, it is asserted that the geographical location, resources, and re-militarization of Kaliningrad have led to the formation of a security dilemma in the Baltic region in the form of an arms race, which has in turn fueled the rival states' fear of each other and  has increased the probability of a threatening confrontation between military forces of Russia and NATO allies.The research hypothesis will be tested within the framework of defensive realism theory, since the security dilemma is perhaps the theoretical cornerstone of defensive realism. The security dilemma theory and the broader spiral model constitute a persuasive theory of war between states, and explain the outbreak of war and the maintenance of peace. The advocates of the security dilemma theory argue that an increase in security of one state might make other states less secure, not because of misperceptions or imagined hostility, but because of the anarchic situation of international relations. The method of research is conceptual analysis, which is useful for examining concepts for their semantic structure. The main uses of conceptual analysis include refining and clarifying concepts in theory, practice, and research as well as arriving at precise theoretical and operational definitions for research. Conceptual analysis evaluates concepts, terms, variables, constructs, definitions, assertions, hypotheses and theories, by examining them for clarity and coherence, and critically scrutinizing their logical relations in order to identify assumptions and implications. Conceptual analysis, which is occasionally called theoretical research and closely related to critical thinking, is not merely a matter of language or language use. The conceptual analysis exposes (typically unconsciously) practical inconsistency, such as when someone rejects logic by employing a valid deductive argument or adopts a realist approach in their research while explicitly claiming allegiance to antirealist perspectives.According to the conceptual analysis method derived from the rational positivism approach, the relationship between NATO and Russia is considered an integral game with the typical function of fear. The findings show that the current security spiral between Russia and NATO lies at the top of the defensive-offensive approach. However, this international game of power is one in which direct conflict is unlikely, at least in the short-run. The reliance on NATO’s nuclear weapon capabilities to provide a tangible assurance of the success of the Alliance’s credible deterrence has not been an ultimately reliable guarantee against Russia's regional ambitions. This failure is due to both morality and rationality because of the arguments made on the basis of practical and rational reasons, such as the territorial proximity of Russia and the Baltic counties, the difference in opinions and priorities within NATO, and potential for the escalation of conflict. Russia is justifiably considered to have conventional power preponderance in the Baltic region. The creation of a conventional balance of power in the Baltic region is not feasible for the Baltic countries either individually or collectively even with the provision of additional forward-positioned allied battalions. The defense models of the Baltic countries are by necessity fully nonaggressive, because there is no room for them to use pre-emptive initiatives, extraterritoriality, or hybrid instruments of defense policy.