Meysam Baharloo, PhD in Political Science
Amir Mohammad Esmaeili, PhD in International Relations

Today, it is no secret that the war of the United States and Israel in West Asia against the Iran and the Axis of Resistance is part of a grand strategy aimed at containing China. However, the question is why and how. Perhaps to find the answer, one must turn to two major theorists who were influential in the First and Second World Wars. The theories of two great geopolitical thinkers, Halford J. Mackinder (1861–1947) and Nicholas John Spykman (1893–1943)—respectively known as the Heartland (the core of the Earth) and the Rimland (the maritime periphery of Eurasia)—played key roles in the strategies of the maritime powers, Britain and the United States, against the continental powers during the First and Second World Wars. Mackinder, of British origin, in his Heartland theory—based on the historical study of Eurasian states—warned Britain that if a unified political entity, as a land-based power, were to gain full control over the Heartland region (the northern section including Russia, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the northern parts of Iran, the northern parts of China, Eastern Europe, and the southern section including the African desert), it would eventually prevail over maritime powers such as Britain and become the next superpower.

Map 1. Mackinder’s map of the world

In contrast, the American-born Spykman argued that, on the contrary, dominance over the maritime periphery of Eurasia determines the next superpower, because it prevents the power controlling the Heartland from advancing toward the seas. During the Cold War, the United States, by establishing a network of air and naval bases stretching from northern Japan to the Philippines, the Strait of Malacca, the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, and ultimately the Persian Gulf, was able to confine any Asian land power to its own shores. In Europe as well, American bases in Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom—together with the deployment of approximately one-third of the U.S. Army and Air Force in West Germany—created a serious barrier against any Heartland power, in Mackinder’s sense, preventing it from easily projecting its hard power across the entire Atlantic sphere. This position was further reinforced by the presence of British and French forces and by security agreements with Iceland and Greenland. In effect, an almost complete dominance over Spykman’s maritime rim and a significant presence in Mackinder’s mid-ocean zone took shape.

Map 2. Spykman’s reconstructed model of Mackinder’s idea

Despite the aforementioned differences, these two theories shared a common feature in their mapping of the world: both China and Iran possess a northern half located within the Heartland and a southern half within the Rimland (the maritime periphery in Spykman’s formulation, or the inner crescent in Mackinder’s). For this reason, American bases in the Persian Gulf and East Asia were designed to contain this dual geography. Particularly noteworthy is that Spykman correctly anticipated that China would become the principal rival of the United States in the twenty-first century. Nevertheless, it appears that after the fragmentation of parts of the Heartland (including the Caucasus and Central Asia) following the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on 26 December 1991, and after experiencing a unipolar era, the United States sought a plan to consolidate its superpower status in the twenty-first century. This plan aims to secure U.S. dominance over the maritime rim of Eurasia before China consolidates itself as a maritime power. Accordingly, the United States—according to General Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander during the presidency of George W. Bush—devised a plan after the events of September 11 to overthrow seven countries, including Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Iran.

One of the principal reasons for selecting these countries was that, with an anti-hegemonic orientation, they were situated at key points along the maritime periphery of Eurasia (the Rimland), including the Mediterranean (Syria, Lebanon, and Libya), the Red Sea (Sudan), the Bab al-Mandab Strait (Somalia), and the Persian Gulf (Iran and Iraq), as well as the Strait of Hormuz (Iran). Consequently, if a global power rivaling the United States were to emerge in the twenty-first century, these anti-dominance states could serve as its regional partners. Therefore, it was logical to determine their fate before the rise of a new power. Another related reason was that these countries opposed the Israeli regime in the region, and their removal would shift the balance of power in favor of U.S. allies. Moreover, most of these states—including Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria, and Iran—possess vast oil and gas reserves, and the energy resources of these countries could flow into the economy of America’s rival without any U.S. control over them. One of the United States’ efforts to preserve the dominance of the dollar in the twenty-first century has been the petrodollar project, through which it seeks to control oil-producing countries and require them to conduct oil trade in U.S. dollars, thereby containing its principal twenty-first-century rival, China.

Map 3. The strategic location of the seven counter-hegemonic states on the Eurasian Rimland

Therefore, the war against Iran, as the final stage in consolidating the power of the United States in its competition with China, has been pursued for two reasons: the acquisition of oil and gas resources and the containment of Iran’s geography—points that U.S. officials have repeatedly emphasized. U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham recently stated in an interview: “Venezuela and Iran possess 31 percent of the world’s oil reserves. We are going to partner with 31 percent of the known reserves. This is China’s nightmare.” This statement was met with a response from the spokesperson of Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where Esmaeil Baqaei wrote: “Very rare moment of honesty: It’s all about OIL.” Furthermore, in an article that the White House spokesperson recently reposted on the social media platform X, K. T. McFarland writes that China has purchased a large portion of its oil—at significant discounts—from three sanctioned countries: Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. This has been vital for the success of China’s industrial production and will also be essential for its technological advantage in the information age. If China no longer has access to discounted oil from Venezuela and Iran, it will face a major vulnerability in the coming years. Even if it imports Russia’s entire energy capacity at discounted prices, it would still be forced to purchase oil and gas at market prices to make up the shortfall. As President Trump stated after calling for Maduro’s removal, if China wishes to buy oil, it can purchase it from the United States at market prices.

The geographical containment of Iran also contributes to restraining China’s rise. The United States understands that by 2035 the Chinese navy will surpass its own. For this reason, the United States must maintain dominance over the maritime periphery of Eurasia, particularly the Persian Gulf. This is why Michael Flynn, the National Security Advisor during the first Trump administration, stated that Israel’s victory against Iran would consolidate American global dominance and expand Israel’s influence in the region. Thereafter, the United States could shift its focus away from the Middle East and concentrate on China as the principal adversary of the twenty-first century. Moreover, if positive relations with the United States were to emerge in Iran following a change of government, this would benefit the United States and contribute to weakening China. Dominance over Iran’s geography, in light of the theories of Mackinder and Spykman, could hinder China’s path to enhance its global power in two ways:

A) The possibility of access to and dominance over Central Asia and the Caucasus:

The northern half of Iran, as part of the Heartland, possesses distinctive geographical and civilizational access to the landlocked states of Central Asia and the countries of the Caucasus. These states have historically been under Russian influence. Moreover, they are located within the Heartland region. Increasing divergence of these countries from Russia and China would benefit the allies of the United States, as parts of the Heartland (the states that emerged from the former Soviet Union) would be separated from Russian influence and alignment.

b) The possibility of control and dominance over the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean:

The southern half of Iran, as part of the maritime periphery (Rimland), provides the capacity to dominate one of the most important energy transit routes and chokepoints—the Strait of Hormuz. According to a report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), approximately 14.2 million barrels of crude oil and an additional 5.9 million barrels of petroleum products pass through this strait each day—amounting to roughly 20 percent of total global oil production in the first quarter of the year. Control over the Strait of Hormuz would make it possible to strategically undermine one of China’s most significant initiatives under the Belt and Road project, namely the Gwadar Port and the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor, since China sought through this route to bypass the Strait of Malacca and the U.S. naval presence.

Undoubtedly, the United States seeks to secure its hegemonic military–economic dominance in West Asia and North Africa. To achieve this objective, the United States and its regional arm (Israel) will refrain from no instrument, as the issue concerns determining the position of the next superpower of the twenty-first century in the competition between China and the United States. This is while, to date, China has viewed Iran not as its western security wall but rather as a high-risk actor in West Asia. By contrast, the United States considers Iran’s strategic weight extremely significant for containing China and advancing the “petrodollar” order project. Nevertheless, through its resistance, Iran has succeeded in eliminating a large portion of U.S. air and naval bases in the West Asian and Persian Gulf region. Consequently, expectations are growing among Iranian public opinion and elites that China could seize this opportunity and take the initiative in cooperation with Iran.

In order to prevent the consolidation of the petrodollar order, the stabilization of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz is of critical importance. Moreover, the greater the independence of regional countries through the removal of U.S. military bases, the less they will be subjected to American pressure to sell oil within the dollar-based system. One proposal raised by some analysts for China is to employ its diplomatic power as a responsible global actor to advance a “nuclear-weapon-free zone” in the region, with particular emphasis on the nuclear disarmament of Israel. China, Russia, India, and Iran are the only four countries that are members of both the Shanghai International Organization and BRICS. Therefore, with the consolidation of military or security deterrence, Iran—possessing the world’s largest reserves of oil and gas—could emerge as a military, security, and economic pillar.

Furthermore, in order to address the insecurity of the Strait of Hormuz resulting from the United States’ war against Iran, China could support a regional security initiative involving Iran, Pakistan, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council, Iraq, and Lebanon. Such an initiative would entail the dismantling of destroyed U.S. bases from the region, the transfer of Persian Gulf security to regional countries, the expulsion of the U.S. Navy from the Persian Gulf, the deployment of Russian or Chinese forces in southern Lebanon, and the establishment of a Palestinian state. In addition, in exchange for guaranteeing the security of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran could be connected to the Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), and the obstructive U.S. sanctions in this regard could be lifted.