Major Decisions and a Geodetic Analysis

KenanYasin
12 minutes ago
10 min read

The active war conducted by the United States together with Israel against Iran may be viewed as a regional conflict. However, in a geography upon which the eyes of the entire world are fixed, energy balances, system architecture, and ideological strategies prevail. Therefore, we are speaking of a war that may produce consequences on a global scale. I would like to thank all my esteemed colleagues who have evaluated this troubling situation from an astrological perspective and shared their insights.

In addition, in my own examination, I will approach the subject through geodetic cartography. Naturally, the process should be analyzed in much greater depth through the natal charts of the countries involved, their progressions, and particularly the charts of the eclipse period we are currently experiencing. However, here I will present a methodological approach focusing technically on how generational planets may be interpreted within a geodetic perspective.

A Duad Approach to the Generational Planets

As you know, I am most often a classical astrologer; I make an effort not to move beyond the seven traditional classical planets. However, in mundane astrology, I do not disregard the indications of the generational planets (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto) in relation to systemic events.

The method I prefer when interpreting planets is to consider them within a polarized system alongside the classical planets:

Uranus – Mercury polarity
Neptune – Sun polarity
Pluto – Moon polarity

This may be described as a duad model that I have developed and examined over many years through significant astrological data. Naturally, my approach is open to discussion. Indeed, any work that moves beyond the seven classical planets will always remain open to debate. Nevertheless, for me, the duad technique makes it possible to ground the nature of the generational planets in a more concrete framework through contemporary symbols. In doing so, I am able to render the abstract and collective more comprehensible by bringing it into contact with the classical system.

Since our primary subject is the war in Iran and the decision-making mechanisms behind it, let us examine these three planets through this technical lens.

When we consider Uranus (through its Mercury polarity), we may interpret it as mental strategy, data flow, intelligence, technological maneuver, and sudden decision-making. Here, Uranus functions less as a mere “shock” and more as an indicator of strategic intellectual rupture.

When we consider Neptune (through its Sun polarity), we will interpret it in terms of ideological framework, central authority, the production of legitimacy, propaganda, and belief systems. Neptune appears both in significant financial placements and at the center of processes involving the centralization or dissolution of ideology.

When we consider Pluto (through its Moon polarity), it operates through deep collective memory, fractures etched into history, energy lines, subterranean power dynamics, and mass traumatic transformations. In fact, Pluto is not so much an event-producing factor as an indicator of consequences that endure for many years. In other words, Pluto relates less to the war itself and more to the permanent marks the war leaves behind.

The Uranian Pole

In the context of Iran, let us begin our geodetic examination by considering the transit of Uranus.

Yes, Uranus has not yet fully entered its transit in Gemini. However, there are significant reasons why its influence may already be felt. The first of these is that in the heliocentric chart, the transition has already taken place (January 2026). This may indicate that, on a collective level, the mental field and communication networks are already preparing for a new phase.

Sensitivity in Geodetic Astrology

Another indicator relates to the logic of the geodetic map itself. In geodetic cartography, zodiacal signs are parceled across the globe in degrees. Therefore, we should not assume that a planet must reach 0° of a sign before its influence begins to operate over a country’s geographic placement. Especially while progressing through the final degrees of the previous sign, the themes of the upcoming sign may gradually begin to manifest on the geographic plane.

In addition, we observe that generational planets experience sign thresholds in a particularly fragile manner. While at anaretic degrees, they may display a final maneuver toward the themes of the sign they are about to enter. For this reason, their effects may be perceived as beginning prior to the official ingress. Of course, this approach remains open to discussion; however, long-term collective observations suggest that planetary threshold crossings create preliminary waves on psychological and political grounds.

With regard to developments in Iran, I have previously emphasized (during the AstroDuet talk I conducted with Rod Chang at the Astrological Association) that I interpret Uranus through its Mercury polarity. https://youtu.be/oqOLx4A82NA?si=zIiTHE6x1mOqXBHr

I would like to underline this point once more. Uranus (and its opposing pole, Mercury) functions quite effectively in deciphering the mental and strategic dimension of events. Data, intelligence, communication, decision-making mechanisms, and sudden shifts in direction may all be read along this axis. Therefore, in order to observe the mental and strategic layer of the current war between Israel–USA and Iran, it is appropriate to evaluate Uranus.

When we examine the geodetic cartography of the Uranus ingress chart, we observe that the ASC lines are concentrated over the United States, while the DSC lines cluster over China. This suggests that the flow of energy and the dynamic of mutual interaction are organized along this axis. When we take China’s trade routes to Europe into account, India, Iran, and various Middle Eastern countries naturally become part of this corridor.

In the geodetic map, Uranus will now progress within the Gemini parcel. This indicates that themes such as trade, communication, and transit routes will move to the forefront. In the ingress chart itself, we see that the Sun’s MC line passes over Russia–Ukraine, while Uranus, together with Venus, advances across Iran. Symbolically, these lines point to two distinct focal areas.

When the Sun’s MC line passes over a geography, that region steps onto the stage in terms of global visibility, leadership, and central decision-making mechanisms (let us recall the Neptune polarity). The MC line represents a state’s position in the world, its status, and its political orientation. The presence of the Sun MC over the Russia–Ukraine axis indicates that this region remains at the center of the global balance of power and continues to play a decisive role in matters of energy, security, and sovereignty. Even when we examine the Uranus chart specifically, we may say that it indirectly underscores the ongoing reshaping of Europe’s security architecture.

Uranus advancing together with Venus across Iran points to a different layer. Here, Uranus may represent a strategic intellectual rupture, while Venus symbolizes value, finance, and economic networks. (Nevertheless, one should not neglect deepening the analysis by examining the planetary configurations in Iran’s 1979 national chart.) When two planets become angular over the same region, it suggests that the area is open to sudden and unexpected shifts in commercial, financial, and diplomatic spheres. Iran’s placement along this line emphasizes its role as a critical nodal point in terms of energy, trade, and strategy.

In other words, on one side there is a struggle for visible power and status; on the other, a mental redesign of transit corridors and economic architecture is underway.

The Pakistan–Afghanistan Zone

At the same time, the geography of Pakistan and Afghanistan must also be evaluated within the same field of energy, for regional connections are not confined to a single focal area.

Indeed, between 24–26 February 2026, serious military clashes occurred along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. International sources reported that Pakistan conducted airstrikes against certain targets within Afghan territory, while Taliban forces in Afghanistan responded along the border line.

The extension of the geodetic Uranus line from Iran toward the Pakistan–Afghanistan region allows us to interpret the conflict as part of a broader regional energy field. The Gemini theme of Uranus relates precisely to crossings, borders, and communication corridors. The Pakistan–Afghanistan axis already constitutes a geostrategic threshold zone between Central Asia, China, and the Indian subcontinent.

For this reason, the military activity observed there should not be viewed as independent of the Iran-centered tensions; rather, it may be understood as a manifestation emerging at a different nodal point within the same mental-strategic network.

The Zangezur Corridor

If we consider Uranus as an archetype representing the mental design behind unfolding events, we may assume that the focal point concerns the trade routes and transit networks linking China and Eastern countries with Europe. While Europe’s tensions with Russia have triggered a search for alternative access to energy and resources, the geographic position of Middle Eastern countries directly influences this process. Within this framework, Iran emerges as a nodal point situated at the center of transit lines and strategic passages.

In the Uranus ingress chart, we also observe that the Moon ASC line passes through the region of the Zangezur Corridor. While the line runs directly over Baku, the corridor itself lies approximately between 40–45° north latitude, where notable paran configurations are present. The Pluto–Venus paran over Baku may suggest a significant tension along the axis of power and value. Let us recall that Pluto is polarized with the Moon and symbolizes energy, large-scale investments, and lasting imprints.

Meanwhile, the Pluto–Uranus paran passing approximately 171 km south of Nakhchivan, near the Tabriz axis, intensifies themes of transformation and sudden rupture. Here, both communication strategy (Uranus) and energy transfer (Pluto) are activated. Nevertheless, we must not lose sight of the initial framework. These indicators stand out as critical focal areas within the geodetic cartography of Uranus’ ingress into Gemini.

Therefore, the movements occurring in Iran should not be evaluated solely through the lens of direct military developments; rather, they should be interpreted as field-level reflections of trade networks, transit corridors, and strategic mental planning. Uranus here points to the invisible intellectual architecture underlying the process.

The Neptunian Pole

Uranus (through its Mercury polarity) has detailed for us the mental-strategic layer of the process. Now, through the Neptunian pole, we will turn toward the heavier, deeper, and more structural dimension of the unfolding events. Beyond Neptune’s ingress chart, the fact that it initiates a 36-year conjunction cycle with Saturn makes it more meaningful to examine our geodetic maps through this planetary pair.

The Neptune–Saturn cycle more strongly emphasizes the raw material, financial structure, and political-ideological dimensions of current developments. While Uranus describes sudden rupture and intellectual design, the Neptune–Saturn conjunction reveals within which ideological and institutional framework that design will be established.

As we know, Saturn relates to the state, institutions, and structural order. Neptune represents legitimacy, belief, collective perception, and ideological discourse. The conjunction of these two planets concerns how economic resources will be defined, within what framework energy flows will be positioned, on which ideological ground the financial system will be legitimized, and how institutional structures will be reconstructed.

In short, the conjunction points to a far broader background energy than the military developments unfolding on the ground. Here, the issue concerns observing the framework of rules through which the global system defines what is considered correct, legitimate, or acceptable.

As we observe in the chart, the lines corresponding to the moment of conjunction in geodetic cartography present a more structural picture. Over Iran, the Sun DSC line becomes active. The transit Uranus MC line will also fall within the same geodetic parcel in this region.

Here, we may say that Iran indicates both an identity field defined through external actors and a potential for sudden and visible rupture on the world stage. The DSC line is associated with opposition, open hostility, and diplomatic axes; the Sun in this position suggests that central authority is being defined under external pressure. Meanwhile, Uranus on the MC line indicates that Iran’s international position may be shaped by sudden and unexpected developments.

As you know, the Saturn–Neptune conjunction occurred at 0° Aries. Geodetically, this position naturally becomes effective over Greenwich. However, Greenwich should not be considered merely as a geographic meridian. Historically, the United Kingdom has been the center of global time reference and maritime trade. For this reason, the conjunction becoming angular at this location should prompt us to consider the possibility of a restructuring of the global systemic reference framework.

When we examine the lines through the Saturn–Neptune conjunction, we indeed observe that they become particularly pronounced over the United Kingdom and its associated countries. The greater visibility of the planetary placements over Britain and its connected regions suggests that the process may be linked to the Anglo-centered financial and trade system.

For example, the appearance of Venus–Mercury DSC lines over India points toward a policy of balance conducted through trade, diplomacy, and financial relations. The Mars IC line observed over Australia corresponds to themes of strengthening defense infrastructure and internal security architecture. All of these placements indicate that even countries far from the direct battlefield may assume roles within the security and trade dimensions of systemic transformation, do they not?

Although the Saturn–Neptune conjunction may initially appear U.S.-focused, when the geodetic distribution is taken into account, it points more clearly toward an Anglo-financial framework reshaping systemic dynamics. Instability in the Middle East will directly affect energy prices. Consequently, London-centered financial markets (particularly the Brent oil benchmark) gain significance. Furthermore, if we refocus on the chart, we observe that commercial and geostrategic changes on the Chinese side may shift the axis back toward the West. In such a scenario, the U.S.–British Atlantic bloc may become more coordinated. Additionally, should Europe experience an energy crisis, U.S. LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) supply and the Anglo financial system may once again come to the forefront.

Washington – Jupiter IC Line:

The Jupiter IC line passing over Washington in the chart is also noteworthy within this context. The IC line relates to internal security, domestic legitimacy, and foundational structures. Jupiter here suggests that the United States may ground its strategic domestic decisions within a framework of ideological and legal expansion.

Therefore, the Saturn–Neptune conjunction chart will naturally emphasize the question of regime in Iran. In previous conjunctions and transitions, we can clearly observe events that significantly affected Iran.

During the 1952–53 Saturn–Neptune conjunction, the coup in Iran that resulted in the overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadegh represented a profound internal political rupture. Yet it also entered history as an intervention that altered the country’s ideological and geopolitical orientation. Astrologically, we can interpret the conjunction as intertwining state structure (Saturn) with external intervention or behind-the-scenes operations (Neptune).

In the 1989 Saturn–Neptune conjunction (accompanied by Uranus) the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Khomeini and the subsequent leadership transition created a threshold moment in which the regime’s institutional continuity was tested. Once again, we may interpret this as a redefinition of the relationship between ideological structure and institutional authority.

Of course, the influence of the conjunction is not limited to Iran. On a global scale, it provides broader clues regarding the Anglo-financial system, international trade law, and the architecture of energy. Historically, the Saturn–Neptune conjunction has often corresponded with the transformation of ideological structures. For example, the 1989 cycle (also accompanied by Uranus) coincided with the fall of the Berlin Wall. In brief, it may be understood as the dissolution of an old structure evolving into a new institutional framework.

For this reason, it may be wiser to interpret the developments in Iran not merely as a regional war, but as part of a longer-term transformation in which the global system itself is being redefined.

Thank you,

Kenan Yasin Bölükbaşı

Founder DAA, ISAR Cap, council APAI, AA Member and C*I*A Eu Representative

Notes and References

1953 Iranian coup: Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men; Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Iran Coup of 1953.”
1989 Berlin Wall and the transformation of the Cold War: Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Fall of the Berlin Wall.”
Historical evaluations of Saturn–Neptune cycles: Richard Tarnas, Cosmos and Psyche.Brent oil benchmark and London energy markets: ICE Futures Europe – Brent Crude benchmark documentation.
On the Zangezur Corridor: International Crisis Group reports; BBC Monitoring; Al Jazeera – analyses on the “Zangezur Corridor” (post-2020 Caucasus developments).
Detailed explanation of the Duad approach: Kenan Yasin & Rod Chang (Astrological Association), AstroDuet Talk, YouTube, 2026. https://youtu.be/oqOLx4A82NA