Türkiye poised to strengthen its hand in the Eastern Mediterranean

Regional and international shifts—most notably the collapse of the Assad regime, as well as President Trump’s second term in the White House—have given Ankara renewed confidence

Türkiye poised to strengthen its hand in the Eastern Mediterranean

The discovery of natural gas in the Eastern Mediterranean over the past 15 years has driven a series of important political developments in the region and created a fascinating regional architecture. At its core lies close cooperation between the triangle—Israel, Greece, and Cyprus—alongside the establishment of the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum in January 2019, in which Egypt plays a leading role. In addition to the above states, the Forum also includes Jordan, Italy, and Palestine, with its headquarters in Cairo.

For its part, Lebanon was invited to join the Forum, but was unable to do so (even as an observer, as was suggested discreetly). Since then, the region has undergone many upheavals, yet, interestingly enough, the regional alignment has largely remained intact despite the significant tensions caused by the war in Gaza.

Importantly, Türkiye has been absent from this framework—and not by coincidence. In many ways, this regional architecture emerged as a response to Turkish policy, which most states in the region perceived as confrontational and against their interests.

Over the years, Türkiye has tried to challenge this configuration. In recent years, it has succeeded in restoring its ties with Egypt and the Gulf states (notably Saudi Arabia and the UAE), and even relations between Ankara and Athens have warmed considerably. Regional and international shifts—most notably the collapse of the Assad regime, as well as President Trump’s second term in the White House—have given Ankara renewed confidence.

Türkiye had already sought to “fight back” years earlier, signing in 2019 an agreement with Libya to demarcate their Exclusive Economic Zones. Libya, since the fall of Gaddafi in 2011, has been embroiled in civil war, divided between two rival authorities: one in Tripoli (formally recognised internationally), and another in Tobruk under General Haftar. The 2019 maritime agreement was signed with Tripoli, carving up relevant portions of the Mediterranean between Türkiye and Libya—effectively disregarding the island of Crete. But neither regional states nor the wider international community recognises this agreement.

In recent months, Ankara has made notable headway with the Tobruk government, which looks increasingly likely to ratify the 2019 agreement. Greece has rushed to block this move, with the Greek Foreign Minister visiting Libya twice recently, seeking Cairo’s support (which, as noted, rejects the Turkish-Libyan maritime accord), but with little success so far.

Through calculated policy, Türkiye has strengthened its ties with General Haftar, although he has yet to ratify the maritime agreement. Ankara has exploited Egypt’s relative weakness, although Libya has traditionally held a high place in Cairo’s national priorities. With Turkish-Egyptian relations improving in recent years, Cairo appears reluctant to risk undermining this progress so quickly.

In recent months, Ankara has made notable headway with the Tobruk government, which looks increasingly likely to ratify the 2019 agreement

Growing tensions

Meanwhile, tensions between Greece and Türkiye have escalated in recent months, even before the latest developments between Libya and Türkiye. Ankara has objected to the Greek-Cypriot electricity interconnector, claiming its route crosses Turkish economic waters.

This triggered a wave of diplomatic moves in Brussels, as Athens sought EU backing to constrain Türkiye. The Greek prime minister visited Israel (a trip criticised in Athens because of the Gaza war) to secure Israeli support. That support was naturally forthcoming, given the strained ties between Jerusalem and Ankara, and given that the planned pipeline is also meant to include a Cypriot-Israeli segment in the future.

So, what are the implications of these moves, and will they raise the temperature in the Eastern Mediterranean?

It is clear that Türkiye's objective is to challenge the regional architecture that has taken shape over the past 15 years, which excluded Ankara. Notably, Türkiye's strategic position has improved over the past two years, largely thanks to dramatic developments in Syria, Trump's return to power, and Europe's shifting security needs, considering the declining American commitment to Europe and NATO. Ankara also leverages the migration issue, particularly Europe's (and mostly Italy's) fears of rising migration waves from Libya, to bolster its regional standing.

The concern remains that these moves could intensify regional tensions, particularly between Ankara and Athens. The trigger could well come from licensing disputes over drilling in contested Mediterranean waters, especially near Crete, and from disagreements over the electricity interconnector, which is considered vital for the European Union. The EU has pledged €670mn to the project.

Regional rivalries will also be tested by dramatic shifts in Syria and Lebanon. With al-Sharaa's regime stabilising in Damascus, both countries are expected soon to pursue agreements on their land and maritime borders. These maritime boundaries in the Mediterranean hold great economic and regional importance.

Ankara's close ties with al-Sharaa and its growing self-confidence suggest that Türkiye will seek to strengthen its role in the Eastern Mediterranean

Growing confidence

Ankara's close ties with al-Sharaa and its growing self-confidence suggest that Türkiye will seek to shape these processes to strengthen its role in the Eastern Mediterranean. Such moves will inevitably affect all regional states—particularly Israel, Greece, Cyprus, and Egypt—as well as Europe.

At the same time, the current circumstances present a fascinating opportunity for high-level international diplomacy. The collapse of Assad's regime, the new Lebanese government and its intentions to disarm Hezbollah, and Iran's (temporary?) weakness form a strategic opportunity for an ambitious process that could help stabilise the region.

However, there is at present no strategic player of stature (Kissinger?) capable of weaving such diplomatic moves. The integration of Türkiye into the existing regional fabric— a great advantage, together with the proactive policies of the Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia and the United—could significantly contribute to regional stability.

But what about Israel? Adept at reading the regional map, after its rupture with Türkiye and the onset of the Arab Spring, it moved quickly to embed itself in the emerging Eastern Mediterranean architecture. That strategy has proven valuable: despite current strains in its relations with Egypt and Jordan, no major breakdowns have yet occurred—neither with Greece nor with Cyprus, which remain supportive to Israel in Brussels. But Israel's war on Gaza, its destructive foreign policy and plans to annex the West Bank could hurt those ties.

Under these circumstances, one can expect Türkiye to capitalise on the above developments to strengthen its standing and reassert itself as an indispensable player, just as it was excluded when the successful Eastern Mediterranean architecture was forged.

If so, stormy waves await the Mediterranean, along with challenging days for regional diplomacy. Israel, standing at a promising strategic crossroads, appears to have knowingly missed the opportunity, unlike what it did 15 years ago.

font change