Iran isn’t just a transit hub—it’s a geopolitical keystone. Sitting at the crossroads of Central Asia, the Middle East, and the Indian Ocean, it anchors a stretch of territory Nicholas Spykman called the “Rimland”—the coastal fringe encircling Eurasia that he believed held the key to global power. As part of the Middle Eastern segment of this Rimland, Iran serves as a strategic hinge connecting disparate regions and power centers. So when we talk about pipelines, ports, and railways, we’re not just tracking logistics—we’re tracing the contours of influence. And for a superpower like the United States, influence is currency. A government in Tehran that resists U.S. hegemony—and aligns with rivals like Russia or China—complicates the balance of power in a region Washington has long sought to shape. It’s not the first time, either. In 1953, the U.S. and Britain orchestrated a coup to remove Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, after he nationalized the oil industry. The goal? Reassert control over resources and restore a more compliant regime.
Today, Iran’s geography still grants it command over vital energy corridors and maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil supply flows. This isn’t just cartography—it’s leverage. When calls for “regime change” surface, they echo a familiar playbook. It’s not just about ideology or human rights—it’s about recalibrating the map. Look up the Rimland Theory, and you’ll see why Iran’s position has always made it more than just a waypoint. It’s a fulcrum—and Washington’s been here before.
While Rimland Theory emphasizes Iran’s coastal access and its role in controlling maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz, Heartland Theory pulls the lens inland. Halford Mackinder’s Heartland—stretching from Eastern Europe through Central Asia—was seen as the “geographical pivot of history,” a landmass rich in resources and shielded from sea power. Iran, though not at the core of the Heartland, lies at its southern threshold, acting as a gateway between the Heartland and the Rimland.
This makes Iran a kind of geopolitical hinge: whoever influences Iran can project power both into the Heartland (toward Central Asia and Russia) and outward into the Rimland (toward the Indian Ocean and beyond). That’s part of why Iran has long been courted, contained, or confronted by global powers—from the 1953 coup to today’s sanctions and strategic partnerships.
As Halford Mackinder warned: “Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; who rules the World Island commands the world.”
—Tina Antonis
Related:
American Diplomacy Shifts, Strategy Remains: Undermining Russia Through Iran
Heartland vs. Sea Power: Why the Rimland Will Shape the Future of World Order
Air University Press: Iran, China, and the Future World Order: Unipolarity or Multipolarity?
Iran Is a Threat, But Is Far From Being a Regional Hegemon
The Shia Rimland Theory, State Rationality and the Role of Iran as a Regional Power
Ms. Cat’s Chronicles 