Vertical Sovereignty Misunderstood: Reframing Orbital Power Beyond the “Golden Dome” Paradigm Vertical Sovereignty: Reframing Orbital Power via the Sangtarash Doctrine

By Mohammad Hassan Sangtarash

1. Beyond Militarization: Space as the Backbone of Sovereignty

The emergence of large-scale orbital defense initiatives led by the United States Space Force signals not merely a technological evolution, but a structural transformation in the nature of sovereignty. Programs associated with architectures such as the “Golden Dome” reflect a growing recognition that space is no longer a supporting domain—it is a constitutive layer of state functionality.

Yet policy discourse remains trapped in a binary logic: space as either militarized or demilitarized. This framing is no longer analytically sufficient. The Sangtarash Doctrine of Orbital Power rejects this dichotomy and instead conceptualizes space as an infrastructural domain through which sovereignty is operationalized.

Within this framework, the central issue is not whether space should be militarized—this process is already underway—but how sovereignty is constructed across vertically integrated systems linking orbit, digital networks, and terrestrial infrastructure.

This shift requires abandoning legacy deterrence models rooted in Cold War thinking. Orbital space is not a conventional battlefield; it is a system-of-systems environment where disruption propagates across domains with cascading effects.

Failure to internalize this transformation leads to strategic misalignment—precisely the risk embedded in interception-centric architectures such as “Golden Dome.”

2. The Legal Blind Spot: Toward Jurisdiction Over the Link Layer

One of the most critical gaps in current orbital strategy lies in its legal foundation. The Outer Space Treaty prohibits national appropriation and restricts weapons of mass destruction in orbit, yet it does not address sovereignty as a functional, vertically distributed construct.

The Sangtarash Doctrine highlights this gap by reframing sovereignty as continuity of function rather than territorial control. In this context, control over orbital infrastructure—particularly the link layer—becomes a de facto extension of sovereign authority, even in the absence of formal legal recognition.

This produces a structural asymmetry: states depend on orbital systems for governance, security, and economic activity, yet lack enforceable jurisdiction over the infrastructures that sustain these functions. The result is functional dependence without legal sovereignty.

A forward-looking legal framework must therefore recognize the link layer as a functional sovereign interface. This includes the development of concepts such as a “Right to Continuity,” under which deliberate disruption of orbital-terrestrial connectivity—through jamming, cyber intrusion, or signal interference—could be treated as a violation of sovereign integrity.

Additionally, the growing role of private actors such as SpaceX necessitates regulatory frameworks that align corporate-operated infrastructure with sovereign legal regimes. Without such alignment, orbital connectivity risks evolving into a quasi extra-territorial system beyond meaningful governance.

In this sense, the absence of legal architecture is not merely a gap—it is a destabilizing force within the emerging order of vertical sovereignty.

3. The Ground Layer Revisited: Sovereignty as a Closed-Loop System

While orbital systems enable continuity, sovereignty is ultimately instantiated in the terrestrial domain. Any doctrine of vertical sovereignty that fails to integrate ground infrastructure risks becoming abstract and operationally incomplete.

Figure 1: The Vertical Sovereignty Framework as a Closed-Loop System.

This schematic illustrates the Sangtarash Doctrine’s conceptualization of sovereignty as a vertically integrated, closed-loop system composed of the Orbital Layer (functional presence), the Link Layer (integrity of data flow), and the Ground Layer (terrestrial instantiation). Sovereignty, in this model, does not reside in any single layer, but emerges from the continuity of interaction across them. The diagram also highlights the “sovereignty bypass” pathway enabled by Direct-to-Cell (D2C) architectures, through which orbital systems can directly interface with end users, potentially circumventing nationally controlled terrestrial gateways.

The link layer depends on physical infrastructures: ground stations, user terminals, energy grids, and digital backbone systems. These are geographically situated, politically regulated, and physically vulnerable. Their disruption can nullify even the most advanced orbital capabilities.

Vertical sovereignty must therefore be understood as a closed-loop system, where orbital, digital, and terrestrial components are interdependent. Control of orbit without resilience on the ground produces only partial sovereignty.

This has direct implications for national strategy. States must invest not only in orbital assets, but also in hardened, redundant, and decentralized terrestrial infrastructures capable of sustaining connectivity under stress.

Moreover, the resilience of this loop determines real sovereignty. A state may possess satellites, yet lack sovereignty if its ground interfaces are externally controlled or easily disrupted.

Thus, sovereignty in the vertical age is not anchored in orbit alone, but in the continuity of interaction between orbital systems and the terrestrial environment.

4. Interception vs. Continuity: A Strategic Miscalculation

The “Golden Dome” model reflects a continuation of interception-based logic rooted in earlier missile defense paradigms. It prioritizes detection, tracking, and kinetic neutralization of threats.

While technologically sophisticated, this approach misidentifies the center of gravity in orbital power. It treats space as a battlespace of discrete targets rather than an interconnected infrastructure layer.

This leads to a critical miscalculation: success is defined by interception rates rather than systemic resilience. Yet in vertically integrated systems, disruption does not require destruction. Temporary denial of service can generate strategic effects comparable to kinetic impact.

Furthermore, kinetic interception introduces systemic risks. Debris generation—captured in the concept of Kessler Syndrome—threatens the long-term sustainability of orbital environments. Thus, a system designed to enhance security may simultaneously degrade the infrastructure upon which that security depends.

Interception-centric architectures are therefore not only inefficient—they are structurally misaligned with the logic of vertical sovereignty.

5. Medium Powers: From Costly Defense to Networked Autonomy

A defining strength of the Sangtarash Doctrine lies in its applicability to medium powers. Unlike classical astropolitics—which emphasizes dominance—this framework prioritizes functional autonomy within constraint.

For these states, replicating large-scale interception systems is neither feasible nor strategically necessary. Instead, advantage lies in distributed, resilient, and cost-efficient architectures.

Proliferated low Earth orbit constellations, software-defined satellites, and adaptive communication networks reduce single points of failure and enable rapid recovery. These systems embody continuity rather than control.

The economic logic is equally important. Distributed architectures create deterrence through cost asymmetry: disrupting a resilient network becomes more expensive than its strategic benefit. In this model, sovereignty is secured not through impenetrable defense, but through recoverability and operational continuity.

This represents a paradigm shift from capital-intensive defense toward network-centric security—particularly critical for states seeking autonomy without escalation.

6. From Platforms to Systems: Where Power Actually Resides

A persistent analytical error in current policy is the conflation of platforms with systems. Satellites, interceptors, and sensors are treated as discrete assets rather than elements of a larger architecture.

The Sangtarash Doctrine rejects this view. Power in the vertical domain resides not in platforms, but in the architecture of connectivity linking them.

This distinction is decisive. Destroying individual assets does not necessarily degrade a system designed for redundancy and reconfiguration. Conversely, disrupting the link layer can collapse functionality without physical destruction.

Strategic focus must therefore shift from asset protection to network integrity. This includes cybersecurity, spectrum control, anti-jamming systems, and dynamic routing capabilities. In this framework, resilience—not dominance—defines power.

The future of orbital strategy will be determined less by who controls space, and more by who can sustain systems within it under stress.

7. Policy Implications: Managing Competition in the Vertical Domain

If vertical sovereignty is accepted as a structural reality, policy must evolve beyond binary debates about militarization. The objective is not to eliminate competition, but to manage it in ways that preserve systemic stability.

This requires a multi-dimensional approach: developing legal recognition for functional sovereignty, prioritizing non-kinetic resilience, and establishing norms to limit destabilizing behaviors such as debris-generating actions.

Importantly, this is not a call for restraint rooted in idealism, but for strategic realism adapted to infrastructural complexity. In a system-of-systems environment, instability propagates across all actors.

States must therefore balance competition with preservation of shared orbital infrastructure. Competition in space is inevitable. Systemic collapse is not.

8. Governing the Link Layer: Toward an Integrated Space Convention

The identification of a legal blind spot necessitates a proactive response. The Sangtarash Doctrine implies the need for a new legal framework recognizing the link layer as a domain of functional sovereignty.

Such a framework could introduce a “Right to Continuity,” under which deliberate disruption of orbital-terrestrial connectivity constitutes a violation of sovereign integrity.

It must also define jurisdiction over dual-use infrastructures, ensuring that privately operated systems remain accountable to sovereign legal frameworks when operating within a state’s vertical domain.

Additionally, international law must distinguish between passive orbital transit and active functional interference—effectively defining the concept of “vertical intrusion.” Without such developments, the legal architecture of space will remain misaligned with its operational realities.

9. Geopolitical Consequences: Redefining Power on Earth

Vertical sovereignty fundamentally transforms geopolitical structure. Power is no longer defined solely by territorial control, but by access to and control over orbital connectivity.

This shift may produce new forms of dependency. States lacking independent link-layer capabilities risk becoming structurally dependent on external infrastructures—effectively reducing their strategic autonomy.

Traditional concepts such as “landlocked states” are also redefined. In a vertical paradigm, connectivity replaces geography as the primary determinant of access.

New alliances may emerge based on shared orbital architectures rather than geographic proximity, creating virtual zones of sovereignty that transcend traditional borders. In this emerging order, political geography is no longer purely horizontal—it is vertically stratified.

Conclusion: Sovereignty Rewritten in Orbit

The “Golden Dome” paradigm reflects a transitional misunderstanding. It recognizes the importance of space, yet misidentifies the source of power within it.

The Sangtarash Doctrine offers a more precise framework: sovereignty is no longer defined by position or territory, but by the ability to sustain functional continuity across vertically integrated systems.

The central strategic question is therefore not how to dominate orbit, but how to maintain continuity through it. States that fail to adapt will not lose territory—they will lose autonomy. And in the age of vertical sovereignty, autonomy is the true measure of power.