Vertical Sovereignty vs. Astropolitics: A Conceptual Clarification Distinguishing the Sangtarash Doctrine of Orbital Power from Dolman’s Classical Framework

By Mohammad Hassan Sangtarash

This note is intended as a conceptual clarification of the Sangtarash Doctrine of Orbital Power, particularly in response to potential comparisons with classical astropolitical theory, most notably the work of Everett C. Dolman.

Throughout the history of strategic thought, transitions between domains have consistently required a redefinition of the fundamental concept of power. Just as Alfred Thayer Mahan located power at sea, and Halford Mackinder on land, Everett C. Dolman, at the beginning of the 21st century, advanced astropolitics by conceptualizing outer space as the “ultimate strategic high ground.”

However, the rapid evolution of orbital infrastructures—particularly the emergence of proliferated satellite constellations and direct-to-user communication architectures—has fundamentally altered the operational logic of power in space. Under these conditions, Dolman’s largely positional and state-centric framework is no longer sufficient to capture the complexity of contemporary orbital dynamics.

It is within this analytical gap that the Sangtarash Doctrine of Orbital Power introduces a new paradigm—one that shifts the focus from spatial control to functional continuity and from territorial extension to infrastructural integration.

1. Vertical Sovereignty vs. Physical Occupation

The most fundamental divergence between Dolman’s framework and the Sangtarash Doctrine lies in the definition of sovereignty.

Dolman’s approach reflects a classical realist ontology, in which space is treated as a domain to be occupied, controlled, or denied in order to prevent adversarial dominance. Sovereignty, in this view, remains implicitly tied to physical presence and strategic positioning.

By contrast, the Sangtarash Doctrine introduces the concept of Vertical Sovereignty—a multi-layered construct extending from terrestrial infrastructure to geostationary orbit (GEO). Sovereignty is no longer confined to horizontal territorial boundaries; it is instead distributed across vertically integrated systems.

Within this framework, the loss of control over overhead data linkages—particularly at the link layer—constitutes a de facto erosion of sovereignty, even in the absence of territorial violation. A state may retain its borders, yet lose operational autonomy if it cannot secure the continuity of its orbital interfaces.

2. The Link Layer as the New Battlespace

Where Dolman emphasizes orbital control as a geographical condition, the Sangtarash Doctrine prioritizes continuity of function as the defining metric of power.

Emerging technologies such as Direct-to-Cell (D2C) connectivity have enabled what may be termed Sovereignty Bypass—a condition in which data flows directly from orbital systems to end users without reliance on national ground infrastructure or regulatory gateways.

Under these conditions, the principal threat is no longer limited to kinetic anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities, but extends to forms of digital infrastructural penetration. The link layer becomes the critical battlespace, where sovereignty can be incrementally diluted through external dependency rather than overt military confrontation.

This shift marks a conceptual departure from Dolman’s predominantly militarized interpretation of space, toward a hybrid model integrating cyber, infrastructural, and informational dimensions.

3. Asymmetric Orbital Deterrence for Medium Powers

Dolman’s theory is structurally aligned with the strategic logic of great powers, emphasizing dominance and control. The Sangtarash Doctrine, by contrast, is explicitly designed as an operational framework for medium powers.

Rather than pursuing costly space weaponization, the doctrine proposes a model of Asymmetric Orbital Deterrence, grounded in resilience and economic logic:

• pLEO Architectures (Proliferated LEO Systems): Increasing system redundancy through distributed constellations, thereby raising the cost of disruption.
• 
  
• VLEO Operations (Very Low Earth Orbit): Leveraging atmospheric drag for self-cleaning orbital cycles and enhanced sustainability.
• 
  

This strategic shift—from dominance to resilience—renders the doctrine both more accessible and more adaptable for states lacking extensive space budgets.

4. Spectrum Preemption and Legal-Structural Competition

While Dolman critiques international legal regimes as constraints on space militarization, the Sangtarash Doctrine identifies regulatory frameworks as a primary arena of competition.

In particular, the doctrine advances the concept of Spectrum Preemption, whereby early-moving actors secure advantageous frequency allocations and orbital slots through institutions such as the International Telecommunication Union.

This process effectively produces a new form of enclosure—one that risks structurally excluding late entrants, particularly developing states, from meaningful participation in the space economy.

Thus, the strategic contest is no longer confined to physical space, but extends into legal and regulatory architectures that shape access itself.

Conclusion: From Astropolitics to Vertical Infrastructure Security

If Dolman’s framework may be described as the geopolitics of space, the Sangtarash Doctrine is more accurately understood as the security architecture of vertically integrated infrastructure.

The distinction can be summarized as follows:

• Dolman asks: Who controls space?
• Sangtarash asks: Who controls the flow of data between Earth and orbit?
• 
  

The Sangtarash Doctrine argues that in an increasingly interconnected world, geography alone can no longer guarantee sovereignty. Power resides in the ability to sustain functional continuity across three interdependent layers: ground, orbit, and link.

Sovereignty in the 21st century is therefore no longer inscribed solely on maps—it is encoded within orbital systems and secured through the integrity of data flows.

Any apparent similarity between this doctrine and classical astropolitical thought is thus limited to the shared domain of space. At the level of ontology, operational logic, and strategic objectives, the Sangtarash Doctrine represents a deliberate and necessary departure from 20th-century paradigms toward the infrastructural realities of the 21st century.