History demonstrates that it is impossible for a power without access to the open seas to become a global mid-level power. The events in Gaza (Palestine) and Syria are, geopolitically, matters of the Eastern Mediterranean, much like Cyprus and Libya, rather than simply being related to the British-invented concept of the “Middle East.” Since 2011, the events in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine have represented different fronts of the same maritime geopolitical conflict. The primary aim of these conflicts has been to block the sea access of powerful land-based geopolitical actors such as Turkey, Russia, and China, effectively turning them into landlocked countries. To achieve this, the goal has been to create an AmericanMiddle East that can be easily controlled by dividing the region into numerous small andlarge states, clashing along sectarian and ethnic lines, thereby, in essence, “Lebanonizing” theentire region.
Libya, Syria, Gaza, or the Eastern Mediterranean as the Geographical Heart of History
The Gaza War, initiated by Hamas with the Al-Aqsa Flood operation on October 7 and evolving into one of the most significant genocides in recent history, has temporarily ended with a ceasefire agreement signed under pressure from Trump on Israel. It is widelyanticipated that this will be followed by Trump ending the Ukraine War, aimed at haltingRussia’s invasion of Ukraine, through another ceasefire agreement, aligning with his claim of being the President who ends endless wars. Adding the fall of the Assad dynasty and the Baath Party regime in Syria to this picture, it can be said that freezing the hot conflicts along the line connecting Ukraine, Syria, and Palestine with a temporary cold truce marks the opening of a significant new chapter in the modern history of the Middle East, which began with Napoleon’s Egyptian campaign in 1798.
The best teacher and guide for understanding, evaluating, and predicting international issues is history and geopolitics; the best method is to approach events holistically by adhering to theoretical foundations. From this perspective, the primary purpose of the hot conflicts along the Rimland line—developed by the U.S. to block the sea access of Eurasia’s land-based geopolitical powers on China’s Belt and Road Initiative corridor—is to limit and control theEast and the Rising South, particularly China, under the leadership of the U.S.-led Western bloc, regardless of other causes or motives. To achieve this goal, the U.S., in the post-9/11 era, pursued global dominance in Eurasia through projects referred to as the Greater Middle East or the Broader Middle East and North Africa. These projects aimed to replace the OttomanOrder—resiliently defended by the Ottomans under the Unionists during World War I—and the British and French-led order that sought to supplant it, with an American order, creatingan “American Middle East” in the region.
The Ukraine War, driven by Putin’s ambition to establish a new mini-Soviet empire comprising Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, serves as an excellent example of a protracted war of attrition. The Anglo-Saxon bloc, having learned early of Russia’s invasion plans through successful intelligence, turned the conflict into a prolonged campaign that undermined the covert economic pact between China, Russia, and Germany—a pact fueled bycheap Russian natural gas across Eurasia, from the Pacific to the Arctic Ocean. This also thwarted Germany’s efforts to achieve de facto independence.
Thus, while the Anglo-Saxon bloc dismantled Germany’s model of economic prosperity, which was built on cheap Russian gas and access to the Chinese market, it simultane ously frustrated China’s attempt to establish rail and road connections with Hamburg’s port andRussia’s endeavor to annex Ukraine and reach the Mediterranean (via Syria’s Tartus, Libya, and Mersin Akkuyu) to restore imperial power. These efforts failed significantly, much like the Crimean War of 1853-1856.
Meanwhile, the conflicts arising from America’s attempt to replace the current Middle East—formed as a hybrid of the Ottoman Middle East and the post-World War I Middle East created by the British and French—with its own version of the Middle East have manifested in recent events involving Turkey. Examples include Barzani’s Kirkuk Referendum, Gaddafi’s overthrow, and Turkey’s intervention in Libya. The Gaza War and the Syrian Civil War also clearly exemplify this dynamic.
The intellectual foundation of modern Levant policies, which can be traced back to theAmerican independence from the British crown and India becoming the “Jewel in theCrown,” as well as Napoleon’s Egyptian campaign, lies in the main thesis of Henri Pirenne, the French-born Belgian historian and founder of the Annales school. In works such as Mohammed and Charlemagne and Cities in the Middle Ages, Pirenne argues that what created the Middle Ages in Europe was the economic collapse brought about by Muslim conquests, which isolated Europeans from Mediterranean trade, referred to by Rome as Mare Nostrum(Our Sea).
Europe overcame its confinement to the infertile European landmass with the military power gained by the Catholic Church through the Christianization of the Normans (men of theNorth, Vikings) and the Hungarians (a non-Western people of Turanian origin). The Papacy, which was the dominant political authority in the West at the time, broke this state of confinement by first destroying the state established by the Arabs in Sicily and later launching crusades against Andalusia in Spain and Jerusalem. As a result, the early Renaissance of the10th century and the emergence of institutions such as universities in Europe during thisperiod were direct outcomes of this transformation.
The emergence of the Seljuk and Mamluk Turks onto the stage of history halted Europe’s progress at that time. The process began with the Seljuks, a tribe that miraculously settled in Iran, followed by Chaghri Beg’s military genius in defeating the Ghaznavids. This led to the Sunnification of the region, referred to as the Middle East by the British, which waspreviously dominated by Shiite Arabs and under the control of the Shiite Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt. This transformation established the order that prevailed in the region until recenttimes. In this regard, contrary to popular belief, the dominant order in the Middle East was established not by the Ottomans, but by the Seljuks.
The Sunni order established by the Seljuks in the Middle East, symbolized by figures such as Tughril Bey, Sultan Alp Arslan, Nizam al-Mulk, and Al-Ghazali, was able to dominate theEastern Mediterranean due to the actions of Nur ad-Din Mahmoud Zengi, often regarded as part of the Syrian Seljuks. After consolidating power in Syria, Nur ad-Din ended the ShiiteFatimid Caliphate and captured Egypt. The subsequent conquest of Jerusalem by theAyyubids reestablished them as the dominant power in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The Mamluks, by both halting the Mongols and completely eliminating the Crusader states in the Levant, ensured the continuity of this dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean for an extended period. The supremacy established by the Ottomans in the 16th century extended this dominant position across almost the entire Mediterranean. However, as this dominance began to wane from the 17th century onward, the Ottoman Empire also began to decline.
Similarly, Rome, initially a land power, became an empire by defeating Carthage, an oldPhoenician colony (known as New Town), after a long struggle, gaining control over theMediterranean and the Phoenician trade routes. Conversely, the conquests of Syria and Egypt by Muslim Arabs, emerging as a contender for global dominance, transformed the Arabs andIslam into a world power. At the same time, Constantinople’s loss of control over the Levant, which encompassed its wealthiest provinces, Egypt and Syria, led to the collapse of theRoman Empire.
The geopolitical pillars of the strategy to isolate the Ottoman Empire from the Mediterranean included the direct British control of Egypt and Cyprus, the recreation of Byzantium as Greece, and the reinvention of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem as a Jewish state. Napoleon’s failure in his Egyptian campaign culminated in the establishment of Greece in 1827, following the destruction of the Ottoman and Egyptian navies by the British, French, and Russian fleets, which had intervened to suppress the Greek uprising. Although organizations such as Freemasonry, emerging from the bourgeois fraternal associations of European cities, often rooted themselves in ancient Egypt, Europe’s failure in Egypt led to a redefinition of its civilization around Greece, now independent from the Ottoman Empire.
Israel, meanwhile, emerged as the most significant geopolitical outcome of World War II in the Mediterranean. On one hand, it established a Western presence in the region; on the other, it enabled the control of the northern rim of the Arabian Peninsula and the Hejaz region, securing the Mediterranean connection. According to Europeans, the primary reason for the disappearance of Crusader states such as the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the County of Edessa(Urfa), the Principality of Antioch, and the County of Tripoli was their demographi cunsustainability. The establishment of Israel under the guarantees of Britain, France, theSoviets, and the United States addressed multiple issues as a demographically sustainable geostrategic project. It not only solved the Jewish problem in Europe by resettling Jews in their historic lands but also reintroduced them into the Muslim geography, resolving numerous challenges simultaneously.
History demonstrates that it is impossible for a power without access to open seas to becomea global mid-level power. The events in Gaza (Palestine) and Syria are geopolitically matters of the Eastern Mediterranean, much like Cyprus and Libya, rather than simply being related to the British-invented concept of the “Middle East.” These issues must be addressed, approached, and policies formulated within this context. Since 2011, the events in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine have represented different fronts of the same maritime geopolitical conflict. The primary goal of these conflicts has been to block the sea access of powerfulland-based geopolitical actors such as Turkey, Russia, and China, effectively turning theminto landlocked countries. To achieve this, the strategy has been to create an American MiddleEast that can be easily controlled by dividing the region into numerous small and large statesclashing along sectarian and ethnic lines, thereby, in essence, “Lebanonizing” the entireregion.
The operation launched by the opposition in Aleppo, which initially evolved into an unforeseen outcome as it became evident that the Assad regime was collapsing from within, and resulted in the regime’s overthrow, may ultimately signify, albeit not yet fully realized, the equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War in the region. Thus, the fall of the Assad regime and the ceasefire in Gaza hold a “Zero Hour” effect that willlargely determine what happens next in the Middle East. The struggle for the EasternMediterranean, the geographical heart of history, is entering a new phase.