Geopolitics is a word that conjures up images. In one sense, the word provokes ideas of war, empire, and diplomacy: geopolitics is the practice of states controlling and competing for territory. Geopolitics had a history before the term itself came in to use in 1899 by Swede Rudolf Kjellen. It is apparent that many of great figures in the history of political thought, from the ancient Greeks Aristotle and Thucydides to the early modern Florentine Machiavelli and later writer such as Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Turgot, Madison, Rousseau, Hegel and Marx, had ideas about political territoriality and effects of Geographical location and access to resources on conflict and war that can be regarded as basic elements of Geopolitics & Political Geography.
Many of Geopolitics scholars believe that thought and practice of Geopolitics have a long history. However, the science of Geopolitics is relatively new, and its history from 115 years ago until now (2014) has been full of ups and downs. There is no consensus among scholars about the definition of this science although different definitions have been proposed so far. Based on these definitions, the knowledge and practice of Geopolitics have different eras.
This research, which is fundamental, was done by using descriptive-analytic method. Different resources and papers related to Geopolitics were studied and different Periodic categorization of thought and practice of Geopolitics were extracted and investigated. The investigation of these Periodic categorization indicated that the emergence of the word Geopolitics was a turning point that differentiated different Periodic categorization of Geopolitics: (1) Historical Periodic categorization of thought and practice of Geopolitics (2) Periodic categorizations related to the formal history of Geopolitics sciences.
Result and The term of Geopolitics was first used by the Swede Rudolf Kjellen in 1899, and The term of Political Geography was first used by the French Turgot though these have older roots. This is so despite the best efforts of international relations theorists to find it in the Greece of Thucydides or the Italy of Machiavelli. In other word The roots of thought and practice of Geopolitics was articulated by the philosopher Aristotle in ancient Greece in the third century BC. The Greek philosopher Aristotle developed his theory of the city state in about 350 BC in his book, Politics.
different Periodic categorization have been offered from thought and practice of Geopolitics. for example Agnew shown that how three specific epochs or eras of Geopolitics developed over the period from the early nineteenth century to the 1980s: T first period the early nineteenth century(1815–75); second, (1875- 1945) and third, (1945- 1990). the three discourses or modes of representation he discusses are referred to as Civilizational Geopolitics, naturalized Geopolitics and ideological Geopolitics. other example is Modelski’s model. Modelski’s model of world leadership is dynamic. The strength of the world leader rises and falls. Over the course of centuries, the mantle of world leadership has passed from one country to another in a sequence of cycles of world leadership. Each cycle of world leadership lasts approximately 100 years. Modelski’s Cycles of world leadership consist of: Portugal 1500s; Netherlands 1600s; Great Britain 1700s; Great Britain 1800s; United States 1900s. Power, in the model, is about strength and dominance, it is about the ability to exercise military force across the globe. For people such as Martin Jones and others the history of Geopolitics and Political Geography as academic sub-discipline can be roughly divided into three eras and era of ascendancy from the late nineteenth century to the World War II; an era of marginalization from the 1940s to the 1970s; and an era of revival from the late 1970s onwards.
The investigation of these Periodic categorization indicated that the emergence of the word Geopolitics was a turning point that differentiated different Periodic categorization of Geopolitics: (1) Historical Periodic categorization of thought and practice of Geopolitics (2) Periodic categorizations related to the formal history of Geopolitics sciences. Considering the negative and positive points of different Periodic categorization, we offer a comprehensive Periodic framework of the thought and practice of Geopolitics. This framework is comprehensive and includes all previous areas and different aspects of geopolitics. In the proposed framework the thought and practice of Geopolitics have been divided into three eras: pre-modernism, modern Geopolitics, and post-modern geopolitics.
Although the word geopolitics was only coined in the early years of the twentieth century, applied geopolitics has been practiced from time immemorial by those seeking to extend their political power and influence across the globe. In other word in practical terms, Geopolitics must be as old as the quest for territory and security, as old as diplomacy, strategy, envy and fear. Alexander the great must have indulged in Geopolitical scheming so must Napoleon and many other commanders, conquerors and emperors.
Each of two Periodic categorizations (Historical Periodic categorization of thought and practice of Geopolitics & Periodic categorizations related to the formal history of Geopolitics sciences), has negative and positive points. Also, there are many commonalities and differences among these Periodic categorizations. Considering the negative and positive points of different Periodic categorization, we offer a comprehensive Periodic framework of the thought and practice of Geopolitics. This framework is comprehensive and includes all previous areas and different aspects of geopolitics. In the proposed framework the thought and practice of Geopolitics have been divided into three eras: pre-modernism, modern Geopolitics, and post-modern geopolitics.
Today geopolitics is no longer exclusively the preserve of a privileged male elite who used the authority of their academic position to frame policy for a particular country. Though these publications still exist (for example see the discussions of Samuel Huntington and Robert Kaplan), most academics who say they study geopolitics are describing the situation of those who are marginalized, and advocating a change in their situation. Study of the state is often critical, but it just one component of a complicated world—rather than a political unit with the freedom to act as the theory suggests it should in a simplified and understandable world.

The Persian Gulf region is one of the strategic and important regions in the world which has always attracted the attention of regional and trans-regional powers. In the contemporary world, the Persian Gulf region and the countries of the Southwest Asia region have been among the most challenging and controversial regions in the world. This region has been the hotbed of geopolitical crises and the site of ideological conflicts and the active hotspot of political and regional crises. In addition to the domestic context, the presence and involvement of trans-regional and global powers in activating and intensifying these challenges and crises have played a very crucial role. Although the macro-structures of the global geopolitical system have overshadowed this space, the powers within the region (the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia) have played a leading role in shaping the geopolitical atmosphere of the current situation, which is based on ideological and geopolitical values. The current study seeks to examine the ideological and geopolitical implications of Iran and Saudi Arabia for the region and the need to adopt a geo-economic strategy to overcome intra-regional geopolitical challenges. The results show that the adoption of a geo-economic strategy by Iran and Saudi Arabia can pave the way for a dialogue of cooperation and convergence and pave the way for entering a new regional geopolitical system for regional development and regionalism.

In every society, security is the outcome of the interaction between various internal and external factors. With regard to Iran, the country’s security is susceptible to crisis and vulnerability, because of its revolutionary and ideological nature, its geopolitical and geo-strategic location, as well as its cultural and ethnic conditions. In current international circumstances, the traditional approach to security, which exclusively focuses on military and external factors, has lost its appeal, and is unable to provide a persuasive account of security issues. New factors with cultural and ideological aspects should be taken into consideration, when discussing Iran’s national security. Currently, within the framework of the Shi’ite geopolitics, which is a combination of cultural and ideological factors, access to vast resources of energy and a geopolitical and strategic location, Iran enjoys a special position. For both cultural-ideological and strategic-security reasons, the West is interested in such a position. In this paper, Iran’s security issues within the framework of the Shi’ite geopolitics are considered.

After US strike on Iraq, emergence of the second Shiite government in the Middle East is one of the most important focal points of the history of the region past the Islamic revolution victory because new changes have been made on the Mideast geo-strategic and geo-politic interactions given the revived Shiites and their represented identity in the regional states as well as their geopolitical-ideological effects on the regional security and authority structure. The issue, raised as a Shiite crescent designed or new geopolitics of Shiism formed, has been underscored by a large number of cross-regional and regional authorities; besides their reactions to the increased soft power of Shiites and Iran have aggravated the intense sectarianism. Accordingly, thanks to the significant role of new changes of regional geopolitics in the new security, socio-political order in the Middle East, this article deals with analytic evaluation of how process or project of new geopolitics of Shiism in the Middle East is formed, identified and politicized and has discussed essentials of the Islamic Republic of Iran's foreign policy in this regard. This research aims to study and geopolitically elucidate the status of Shiites in the Middle East and reasons behind the formation and importance of Shiism geopolitics in the region. Based on this, this research has looked at geography and historical background of isolation, tyranny, suppression and social discrimination of Shiites as the minority religion in the Muslim world and has assessed the areas of a critical approach to Mideast geopolitics in the shape of Shiism geopolitics in the face of hegemony geopolitics. Therefore, main question of this research is that: "On which of the two approaches of hegemony geopolitics (in the shape of a project) or resistance geopolitics (in the shape of a process) has the new geopolitics of Shiism been formed?" Analytic-descriptive method has been applied in this research. Considering the fact that the researcher has both attempted to designate what's of new geopolitics of Shiism in the Mideast and sought to elucidate geopolitical considerations dominant over the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, collection of information has been made by different methods; generally by library and internet and findings have been appraised based on a qualitative analysis. Although Shiite crescent design can be considered as end result of strengthened social, economic and political potentials of Shiite geopolitics in the region, paving the ground for modified ideological and political map of the Mideast and has helped increased self-awareness and identification of Shiites in the region, no consensus exists over how it has appeared in the Mideast. This is while two discourses of hegemony geopolitics (raised by superior cross-regional and regional powers and in line with preserving and expanding their interests as a pre-designed project and resistance geopolitics (posed by Shiites as a social movement against ruling history-long structural discrimination in the region in the shape of a process) have been forged by different narrations. Nevertheless, plot of Shiism geopolitics can be regarded as dialectics of the two discourses of hegemony geopolitics and resistance geopolitics in the form of a process following a project and a discourse structure which is both constructed and constructive. Shiism geopolitics is on one hand a critical statement of representing the collective and individual identity of Shiites when they express their dissatisfaction over the status quo and try to turn it into a desired situation and on the other hand, it is a discourse structure in the hegemonic geopolitics to maintain the status quo for balance of power in the Mideast.

This article studies whether the Islamic world's geopolitics has enough capacity and capability to compete in the power game and world leadership. The results of this article indicate that Islamic world's geopolitics with a lot of economic, military, strategic and ideological capacities is capable enough to compete with great powers in the track to achieve world leadership; on the condition that the ground for convergence and overlapping of the resources of Islamic countries is prepared through international organizations and challenges and barriers are removed. As an important country in the world of Islam, Islamic republic of Iran can use its material and spiritual geopolitical potentials to play an unparalleled role in this respect.

Domination on vital geopolitical and geo-economic areas can change the balance of power in the world. The Persian Gulf is one of the geostrategic regions that had such potential in throughout history and it has always been in the greed of great world powers. The purpose of this study is to explain the strategic position of the Persian Gulf in the new policies of Saudi Arabia. In other words, revealing the position of the Persian Gulf   in Saudi Arabia's macro strategies is the goal pursued in this article. So the question is: What is the position of the Persian Gulf in new regional strategies? The hypothesis is that due to the ideological nature of the geopolitics of the Persian Gulf, which is linked to the survival of Saudi Arabia and as well as the geo-economic value of the Persian Gulf as the main transit route of this country, the Persian Gulf is still considered to be the central geopolitics and the center of gravity of Saudi Arabia's strategic policies. It is not possible transition to the Persian Gulf. The present research has been conducted with using descriptive-analytical method and library sources

Geopolitics is of great importance in integration and divergence of States and regional groupings and organizations. The Persian Gulf Cooperation Council as a regional organization, from the beginning of establishment was not a successful pattern of regional integration regardless of integrative grounds; such as religious believes, cultural similarities, and civilizational dependencies. From a geopolitical approach, the aim of this article is to analyze the obstacles for integration in the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council. These obstacles include border disputes, hydropolitics crises, hegemonic struggles, different levels of development, ideological differences and monetary challenges.

The world is divided into various geopolitical regions, one of the most prominent of which is the Persian Gulf and south-western Asia. In recent decades, this geopolitical and strategic region has always been one of the tension regions in the world and has been intensifying in recent years. Although geopolitical events in the Southwest region of Asia have influenced by the global geopolitical structure, its security arrangements and geopolitical structure have depended on largely to Saudi Arabia's and the Islamic Republic's behavior as two superior regional powers and two rival powers. Therefore, the research problem is how the geopolitical relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia and within context what geopolitical discourse can be realized the cooperation and convergence between them and generally in the southwest of Asia. This research is done using descriptive-analytical method and using library data. The results of the research show that the relations between these two regional powers are based on ideological geopolitical indices that have led to militarism, rivalry over domains of influence, ideological rivalries, the division of geopolitical space, increased tensions, and proxy wars in the region. However, if geo-economics strategy and discourse in the region are adopted, regional co-operation and integration and also regional development and sustainable security can be provided.

The geo-economic and geopolitical status of Iran in the world and its ideological and geo-cultural position in the Islamic world have given her a significant place regard to world developments and transformations. Iran’s geopolitics is constantly undergoing change because it is located in a political and strategically sensitive area. Iran’s foreign policy which is directed by the twenty years perspectives of development document, aims at achieving development, welfare, raising of people’s standard of life, security, and promotion of the international status of the country. With the above objectives in sight, Iran is facing difficult choices and challenges and has to reassess the geopolitical situation of the regional and extra-regional countries in order to be able to have constructive and effective interaction in her foreign policy. This will provide the proper atmosphere and maximum opportunity and reduce the threats arising from geopolitical changes in surrounding areas and in particular in her western borders. It is necessary for Iran to make use of the opportunities in the geopolitical changes of Iraq for its national interests. The aim of the present article is to examine the necessary elements of constructive interaction in Iran’s foreign policy towards Iraq.

In recent years the Middle East has been facing with Intense crisis that is resulted of geopolitics rivalries and identical and ideological confrontation, Interventions and rivalry of the Great powers and growth of terrorism and fundamentalism. Outcome of such a situation was different wars and struggles that have been continuing so far and given rise to Displace of millions of people and immigrants to Europe. With regards to that, the present research is amid at to study different security consequence of enter of the Middle Eastern immigrants to Europe. The research method is analytical- explanatory and Copenhagen School is utilized for analyzing the research. The research findings reveal that immigrants’ tsunami to Europe, has threatened security indexes of this region in different sections of political, economic, social and cultural. In other words, flood of the Middle Eastern immigrants to Europe led to increase of terrorist threats, disassemble of ethical combination and consequently national unity, cultural confrontation and multiculturalism, empowering of radical right parties and weakening of political stability of European countries. Also, entry of the immigrants in addition to imposing financial costs for the countries, it has been challenging process of strengthening of European Union as an international institution.