Introduction: Philosophical research in the study of political geography in Iran is very limited. Among the existing cases, we encounter a kind of theoretical confusion that results from a lack of sufficient scientific and philosophical accuracy. Therefore, this study seeks to address the critical philosophical geopolitical critique in the writings of Ó Tuathail and Dalby by pointing out the necessity of conducting philosophical research in the field of geography and enumerating some of the negative consequences of this fundamental neglect. The whole focus of critical geopolitics is on the field of epistemology; As if ontology could exist independently of ontology. As a result, it cannot offer a cognitive and theoretical approach to geography and erroneously pretends that science and objectivity are possible only in a positivist form. Ignoring the importance of ontology has made critical geopolitics unable to offer a liberating approach, contrary to its claims. This is why we encounter widespread confusion in the cognitive debates of Ó Tuathail and Dalby. The present study is a kind of fundamental-theoretical research that tries to answer the proposed questions by using the method of logical analysis and library resources. The alternative theoretical basis is derived from Bhaskar’s philosophy of science as critical realism.

Conclusion: Critical geopolitical ontology is a kind of human-centered, idealistic, and therefore subjectivist ontology that reduces the whole of reality to discourse and thus lacks a layered philosophical approach and cannot interact with the non-discourse and structural layers of reality and, more importantly, with reality. Explain discourse and non-discourse). Because of this flat ontology, critical geopolitics cannot discern the mental and objective layers of geopolitical reality and their dialectical relationship. As a result, theorizing is reduced to a mere critique that preoccupies the subject before recognizing the subject.