In a recent commentary, Robert Kaplan reminds us how important geography is when we consider what other nations are doing. He says that if “you want to know what Russia, China or Iran will do next, don’t read their newspapers or ask what our spies have dug up—consult a map. Geography can reveal as much about a government’s aims as its secret councils.”

He laments that geography has been replaced with talk about “economics, globalization and electronic communications.” While it is true that modern transportation and the Internet connect us to all parts of the world, it is also true that mountains and oceans still define a nation and its borders.

Why, he asks, are we hearing so much about the islands of the South China Sea? They are a blue water extension of the Chinese mainland and a reserve of an abundance of hydrocarbons.

Why does Russian President Vladimir Putin want buffer zones in Eastern Europe? For the same reason the czars wanted them. Russian is a “vast, continental space that is unprotected by mountains and rivers.”

Iraq is a country drawn in the sand by Winston Churchill. It combines different ethnic groups. In the past it was the Sumerians, Akkadians and Assyrians. Today they are the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites.

What about Iran? It sits on the Iranian plateau, which is “an impregnable fortress that straddles both oil-producing religions of the Middle East: the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea.” Geographically, it is in a favored position to dominate both Iraq and Afghanistan. Robert Kaplan says that its location and geography make it “essential for the United States to reach accommodation with it.”

Of course geography is not destiny. But this commentary by Robert Kaplan reminds us that our foreign policy would make more sense and be more effective if we considered the geographic realities of many of the countries we want to influence. He correctly reminds us that before we craft our policies, maybe we should pull out some maps. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.