من البحر يأتي الخبر: كيف يُحكم العالم؟

With what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb, the discussion about seas and waterways renews as one of the most important keys to power and influence in international relations. The sea is not merely a geographical expanse or a trade route, but a crucial element in shaping alliances, creating balances, and determining the positions of states on the map of global influence.

The term "landlocked countries," which refers to countries that do not have a maritime outlet, reveals an aspect of this reality; the absence of direct access to the sea imposes economic and strategic constraints, making the state more dependent on its neighbors for access to global markets, although it does not necessarily prevent it from possessing power and influence.

As a researcher in international relations, I am always fascinated by those political theories that resonate in reality, as if history is re-testing them before our eyes. Among the most prominent of these are the theories of maritime power that attempted to answer a fundamental question: How do states govern the world?

In the nineteenth century, the American strategic thinker Alfred Thayer Mahan presented his famous thesis in the book "The Influence of Sea Power upon History," emphasizing that naval superiority was one of the most important reasons for the rise of great empires. A state that possesses fleets and ports, and can protect trade routes, has exceptional tools to enhance its economic and military power.

The British Empire, whose influence extended across continents, was a historical testament to this idea; its naval superiority contributed to the protection of its trade, the expansion of its colonies, and the consolidation of its international presence.

Then came the geopolitical scholar Nicholas Spykman to give this idea a broader dimension. He believed that the key to global balance lies in controlling the coastal areas surrounding the Eurasian landmass, which he called the "Rimland," opposing Halford Mackinder, who granted the heart of the Eurasian landmass greater strategic importance.

Spykman's thesis concluded that whoever controls the Rimland can influence the fate of Eurasia, and whoever dominates Eurasia holds a crucial key in the global balance of power.

If we contemplate the map of the world today, we understand why major powers are competing around straits, ports, and naval bases. The Strait of Hormuz represents a vital artery for energy, while Bab el-Mandeb is a strategic gateway for trade between Asia and Europe, whereas the Suez Canal and the Strait of Malacca form two critical nodes in the movement of the global economy.

Therefore, maritime alliances, the spread of American fleets, and the competition for ports and military bases do not seem to be separate events; rather, they are an extension of an ancient strategic logic that is renewed with the tools of the era.

Although technology, aviation, and space have reshaped the concept of power, the seas still carry more than 80% of the volume of global trade and remain a primary arena for economic and military competition.

Here lies the great paradox: while the borders of states may be drawn on land, a significant part of their security, prosperity, and influence is determined at sea.

Thus, anyone who wishes to understand how the world is governed should not limit themselves to looking at maps of states and their borders, but should contemplate the seas that separate and connect them simultaneously.