ABSTRACT
Classical geopolitical studies, grounded in an anthropocentric approach and a modern rationality, have treated non-human elements such as topography as physical settings for human actions. This article, drawing on posthumanism philosophy and Actor - Network Theory, redefines the position of topography as a dynamic active force in shaping power relations. The study adopts a qualitative, descriptive - analytical approach, employing library-based and documentary sources for data collection and analysis. The findings indicate that topography is not a neutral background but a determining factor in key domains such as borders, natural resources, military strategies, and environmental transformations. Within the framework of posthumanism, agency is distributed among humans, nature, and technology, transforming space into a multilayered phenomenon; in this sense, topography can function as an active element within geopolitical decision-making networks. This role is exemplified by the influence of mountains and rivers in the formation of political borders, the strategic positioning of border regions, access to energy resources, and the shaping of states’ military strategies. By moving beyond traditional binaries human/nature and subject/object, the study introduces the concept of “topographic agency” as a novel framework for the network-based analyses of power and space. Reinterpretation of topography enables a deeper understanding of the interactions between human and nonhuman factors in contemporary geopolitics and offers pathways toward sustainable, nature-based strategies in managing shared resources and addressing climate crises. This article, by presenting a philosophical–geopolitical approach, assists researchers and policymakers in recognizing the role of the natural environment in power and global politics analyses.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Geopolitics has, since its inception, been founded upon the study of relationship between power and space. For more than a century, a substantial portion of the geopolitical literature has been based on the assumption that human beings, and particularly the state, are the most important - and indeed the only - factors shaping spatial and political relations. Within such an approach, natural elements such as mountains, rivers, plains, seas, and other topographic structures have primarily been regarded as settings or platforms for the realization of states’ political objectives. From the perspective of classical geopolitics, although nature may create opportunities or constraints, it is considered devoid of independent agency, and its meaning and function are defined in relation to human will. This understanding is rooted in the modern philosophical tradition that places human beings at the center of the social and political world and establishes a fundamental distinction between the human subject and the natural object. Within this perspective, nature is viewed as an object of knowledge, exploitation, and control rather than a participant in the production of political and social processes.
However, theoretical developments in recent decades - particularly the emergence of posthumanism philosophy - have challenged many of these assumptions. By criticizing modern anthropocentrism, posthumanism reconsiders the boundaries between human and non-human entities and emphasizes that social and political reality is the product of networked interactions among a set of human and non-human actors. Thinkers such as Bruno Latour, Donna Haraway, Karen Barad, and Rosi Braidotti have demonstrated that agency cannot be attributed solely to human beings. Giving Actor–Network Theory, every phenomenon emerges through a network of relationships among different actors, and natural elements also participate in producing social and political outcomes. Accordingly, mountains, rivers, climate, technology, and even material infrastructures can constitute parts of a network of agency. This theoretical transformation has led to the reconsideration of numerous fundamental concepts in the social sciences and humanities, including power, space, identity, politics, and security. In the field of geopolitics, the emergence of climate crises, increasing competition over natural resources, intensifying environmental conflicts, and extensive changes in the spatial structures of the world have highlighted the necessity of redefining natural factors’ role. Events such as the melting of Arctic ice, water crises in transboundary basins, competition over energy resources, and the growing vulnerability of coastal regions to climate change demonstrate that nature is not merely the setting of politics but plays an active role in shaping political, economic, and security agendas.
Although scholars such as Hafeznia, Yazdanpanah, Kamran, Akhbari, and Golkarami have emphasized the importance of geography in power relations, natural elements in these studies have largely been interpreted within the framework of human agency. Despite these developments, the majority of geopolitical studies remain within an anthropocentric framework, and topography is generally treated as an environmental variable or a physical constraint. A notable theoretical gap persists in the geopolitical literature, as no coherent framework has yet been provided for understanding the agency of topographic elements and their role in power and space production. Therefore, drawing upon the foundations of posthumanism philosophy and the theory of distributed agency, this study seeks to redefine the concept of topography in geopolitical studies and to demonstrate that topography is not merely the setting of politics but part of the network that produces politics and power. The chief objective is to provide a theoretical explanation of the “Topographical Agency” and to examine its implications for rethinking the concepts of power, space, and geopolitics. The central question is: In light of posthumanism philosophy, how is the concept of topography redefined in geopolitical studies, and what implications does this redefinition have for understanding power, space, and agency in contemporary geopolitics?

Methodology
This study is fundamental in purpose and adopts a qualitative, descriptive–analytical methodology. The data were collected through library and documentary studies. The research sources included classical and contemporary works in geopolitics, posthumanism philosophy, Actor–Network Theory, political geography, and environmental studies. The analytical process was conducted in three stages. In the first stage, key concepts related to agency, space, power, and topography were extracted from the primary texts. In the second stage, these concepts were compared and examined across the two fields of posthumanism philosophy and geopolitics in order to identify their similarities and differences. In the third stage, through theoretical synthesis, a conceptual framework was developed to explain the role of topographical agency in geopolitical processes. To enhance the conceptual validity of the findings, different sources were compared with one another, and the analyses reviewed several times to ensure the theoretical comprehensiveness of the proposed framework.

Results and discussion
The findings indicate that posthumanism philosophy provides the possibility for a fundamental redefinition of the position of topography in geopolitical studies. Contrary to traditional approaches that regarded topography as a neutral setting for political action, within this framework topography is recognized as one of the elements of the network of agency that participates in the production of power through its interaction with human beings, technology, and political structures. The first domain in which the role of topographical agency becomes evident is political borders and territories. In the classical view, borders are often considered the product of political decisions made by states. However, the findings indicate that natural features play a pivotal role in the formation, stabilization, and redefinition of borders. The Himalayan Mountains constitute a prominent example of this situation. This mountain range has not only created a natural barrier between states but has also played a role in determining security patterns, communication routes, access to water resources, and even the formation of territorial identities. Therefore, political borders cannot be regarded merely as the result of human agreements; rather, they are the outcome of networked interactions among states, technologies, natural resources, and topographic structures.
The second domain concerns natural resources. The findings indicate that natural resources cannot be understood without their topographical context. Access to oil, gas, water, and other strategic resources is profoundly influenced by the natural characteristics of the land. For example, in the Caspian Sea, differences in seabed depth among the coastal states have distributed opportunities for exploiting energy resources unevenly. Here, topography is not merely a physical constraint but plays an essential role in determining the geopolitical position of states and their degree of access to resources. Regarding the Nile River Basin, the natural structure of the region and its topographical characteristics have directly influenced the distribution of water and the emergence of political tensions among Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia. Such instances demonstrate that what is referred to as a “resource” is not merely a natural reality but the product of a network of relations among natural elements, extraction technologies, and political structures.
The third domain of the findings relates to military strategies. The examination of diverse cases illustrates that topography has a determining role in shaping the logic of war, defense, and security. Mountainous regions generate the patterns of warfare and defense that differ from those of plains. In the Himalayas, inaccessible highlands have become part of the defensive systems of states, whereas the vast plains of Ukraine have provided different conditions for armored and mechanized operations. An analysis of the Russia–Ukraine war reveals that the natural characteristics of the terrain affect the speed of military advances, the selection of tactics, and even the types of weapons employed. Therefore, military power cannot be understood solely as the result of commanders’ decisions or technological capabilities; rather, it should be regarded as the outcome of the interaction among human beings, technology, and topography.
The fourth domain of the findings concerns environmental change. The results indicate that climate change and the topographical transformations associated with it are redefining the geopolitical structure of the world. The melting of Arctic ice has created new maritime routes and intensified competition among global powers for control over these areas. Likewise, sea-level rise, coastal erosion, droughts, and the reduction of freshwater resources have generated extensive geopolitical consequences. In the case of Iran, declining precipitation, falling groundwater levels, and water crises in border basins such as the Helmand and Aras river basins represent examples of the direct impact of environmental change on national security and foreign relations. This situation demonstrates that nature is not only a subject of environmental policymaking but also part of the logic of politics and national security. The findings further indicate that the geopolitical significance of different regions does not arise from their intrinsic characteristics. Rather, it is the result of their position within a network of political, economic, natural, and technological relations. From this perspective, topography, alongside other elements, participates in shaping the geopolitical value of spaces.
The findings have imperative implications for reconsidering fundamental concepts in geopolitics. First, concerning power: in classical geopolitics, power is attributed to states, military institutions, and political organizations. However, from a posthumanism perspective, power is the product of networked relations among human and non-human actors—not something possessed, but produced through position and interaction within networks. Thus, mountains, rivers, seas, and climatic systems gain geopolitical significance not solely from physical characteristics but from their role within political, economic, security, and environmental networks. The central question shifts from who possesses power to how power is produced, distributed, and reproduced through relational networks.
Second, regarding space: traditional approaches view space as a fixed, passive container for political processes. The findings indicate that space is dynamic, relational, and continuously reproduced. Climatic changes, technological developments, and topographical changes alter the meaning and function of space. Space is thus not merely the precondition of politics but also its product through diverse interactions.
Third, geopolitics itself is redefined. Within a posthumanism framework, geopolitics is not simply the influence of geography on politics, nor merely the analysis of spatial discourses. Instead, it becomes the study of how power and space are jointly produced through networks of human and non-human actors. This challenges the nature–politics divide, showing that natural elements participate in political processes—especially significant in the Anthropocene, where climate crises and ecological transformations shape global politics. Ignoring natural agency leads to incomplete analyses and ineffective policies.
Incorporating non-human actors is thus increasingly necessary. Moreover, the conceptual model shows that the topography–geopolitics relationship operates through multiple, reciprocal interactions. Changes in the four principal domains—borders, resources, military strategies, and environmental transformations—affect each other and reconfigure power and space. For example, environmental changes may alter resource access, intensify competition, and influence security and territorial arrangements. Technological developments may also modify the geopolitical significance of topographical features. These dynamics confirm that topography is not merely one element among many but an active participant in producing and reproducing geopolitical realities.


Conclusion
The findings reveal that posthumanism philosophy provides an appropriate theoretical foundation for redefining the role of topography in geopolitical studies. Contrary to conventional approaches that assume topography as a passive setting for human action, this study shows that topography constitutes part of a network of distributed agency and actively contributes to power relations, spatial structures, and geopolitical transformations. The concept of Topographical Agency suggests that natural features participate in the production and reproduction of power across borders, resources, military strategies, and environmental change. Accordingly, power is not a centralized, exclusively human phenomenon but a distributed, relational process emerging from interactions among human actors, natural elements, and technological systems. Space likewise transforms from a static container into a dynamic, multilayered, and relational phenomenon.
Geopolitics thus becomes the study of networks among humans, nature, and technology, where no single actor holds absolute power; all contribute differently to geopolitical realities. This approach suits contemporary challenges like climate crises, environmental security, resource conflicts, and transboundary governance. Practically, policymakers should pay greater attention to natural environments in shaping security, resource management, spatial planning, and climate adaptation. Recognizing topographical and environmental agency can foster more comprehensive and sustainable policies. Ultimately, redefining topography through posthumanism opens new horizons for geopolitical studies and deepens understanding of power-space relations today.

Funding
There is no funding support.

Authors’ Contribution
Abed Golkarami (first author) was responsible for designing and conducting the research, formulating the theoretical framework, analyzing the findings, and writing the main sections of the article. Babak Shafiei (second author) contributed to gathering sources, the methodology, and the scientific review of the text, while Ali Amiri (third author) collaborated on the literature review, editing, and final proofreading of the article.

Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the expert advisors and interview participants who provided valuable insights and guidance for this paper.