The Five Seas Strategy

The Five Seas Strategy is a vision of economic and geopolitical integration linking the Mediterranean, the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea (or, in some sources, the Arabian Sea). Its primary aim is to establish a regional cooperation zone, independent of external intervention, by creating transport, energy and trade routes between the countries of the region.

In this article, I will analyse the current situation, using artificial intelligence to examine how the Five Seas Strategy originated, how it has taken shape, and what potential scenarios and courses of action might emerge in the coming years, and to evaluate potential scenarios for Turkey and the region.

In 2009, the then-President of Syria, Assad, passionately described what the Five Seas Strategy entailed in an interview:

“When the economic sphere between Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran is integrated, we will link the Mediterranean, the Caspian, the Black Sea and the Persian Gulf. We are not merely significant in the Middle East. When we link these four seas, we will become the world’s inevitable hub for investment, transport and many other matters.”

These were not empty words. By 2011, Assad had led delegations to Turkey, Romania, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon to launch the Five Seas projects and had signed agreements. This took place at a time when Libyan leader Gaddafi was in the process of constructing the “Great Man-Made River”—the largest water project in history—alongside a coalition of nations including Sudan, Ethiopia and Egypt.

US Ambassador to Ankara Tom Barrack, following his meeting with Patriarch Bartholomew on Thursday, 27 November 2025, answered questions from Manolis Kostidis of the Kathimerini newspaper outside the Patriarchate and spoke about the US’s new roadmap:

Barrack stated, “When His Holiness the Pope visited America, the issue of reopening the Heybeliada Seminary was raised in the Oval Office. This is of great importance not only to President Trump but also to President Erdoğan. We therefore sought to indicate the possibility of the school reopening in September 2026.”

Barrack also responded to the question, “You mentioned a ‘formula’ from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean. What does that mean?” to which he replied:

“The Spice Route and the Silk Road connected the East to the West via three or four different routes. And along this route of prosperity came the blending of civilisations. It could happen again, but since 1919 we have been hindered by nation states. The idea of every country, every state, being governed by a different type of government hasn’t worked very well. So, to create a new model of prosperity, consider this: we have the Caspian Sea, which is rich in fossil fuel resources opening up to the Mediterranean, and Greece and Turkey act as a gateway to this region.

Cyprus is also important for this area. There cannot be an abscess in the middle of a healthy body. Every part of the body must be healed. That is why our hope is that this too will be included...”

Earthquake expert Prof. Dr. Şener Üşümezsoy, however, stated: “Syria has now become the 51st state of the US.”

In his article in the Turkish Left magazine, Üşümezsoy made the following observations:

“The US theory of creating a Kurdish belt is a very narrow strategy; instead, a line comprising Azerbaijan, Turkey, Syria and Israel is being formed. In this way, the US will create a belt that dominates five seas. This was the primary factor behind the US shifting its course from the PYD to Shara.

The aim of the US’s policy shift in this region is to establish dominance over a vast area. This area spans from Spain to the Levant. It is based on a theological reconciliation between Catholic and Orthodox traditions around the Mediterranean. The new situation in Syria is also a component of this.

This analysis we conducted months ago has now been proven by the facts. This new sphere of influence has been designed to act as an obstacle to Russia’s access to the Mediterranean via its Orthodox corridor. On the other hand, it also blocks China’s access to Europe. The fact that US airstrikes in Syria did not come to the PYD’s rescue this time is also the result of the alliance between Trump and Erdoğan, which is theostrategic (Theostrategy (Theo-Strategy) is a strategic approach that analyses the relationship between international power politics and religion, utilising religious beliefs and structures as tools in pursuit of geopolitical objectives. It refers to the integration of theological elements (such as missionary work and ecumenism) into strategic planning within global systems and power struggles) between Trump and Erdoğan.

Instead of a Kurdish-American corridor, an area encompassing the Red Sea, the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea – that is, five seas – has been established. US strategy has thus transformed.”

Retired Vice Admiral Cem Gürdeniz stated in a programme broadcast on his YouTube channel on 28 January 2026: “The US’s new national defence strategy document clearly states that Washington is no longer a rule-setter but a selective actor. We are faced with a picture of the US that is retreating to the Western Hemisphere, leaving other regions to allies and regional defence identities; yet it declares it will never relinquish control of energy basins, critical minerals and geopolitical maritime chokepoints.

This document is not a display of power, but rather a repositioning document for a power that is withdrawing from multilateralism and globalisation.” With this statement, he explained that the US continues to maintain its interest in this region, which is home to these geopolitical maritime chokepoints.

ANALYSIS OF THE FIVE SEAS STRATEGY

1. The Five Seas Strategic Spine: Main Axis

The land and political spine of this strategy is the following axis:

Caspian Sea → Azerbaijan → Turkey → Syria → Israel → Eastern Mediterranean / Red Sea

From the US perspective, this axis simultaneously fulfils the following functions:

• Energy

• Military access

• Naval supremacy

• Dividing rival powers.

2. The Five Seas (From the US Perspective)

The five seas targeted by the US via this axis are as follows:

1. Caspian Sea – Energy source

2. Black Sea – Encircling Russia

3. Eastern Mediterranean – Energy + military bases

4. Red Sea – Global trade and strait control

5. (Indirect) Basra / Indian Ocean link – Middle Eastern depth

The Aegean and Marmara act as transit zones in this structure, whilst the Black Sea functions as a key front.

3. The Role of Key Countries

1. Azerbaijan – The Caspian Gateway

• The only secure gateway opening the Caspian energy basin to the West

• An energy outlet excluding Russia and Iran

• For the US:

Azerbaijan serves as a tool to sever the China–Russia–Iran triangle from Central Asia, and is the eastern anchor point of the corridor.

2. Turkey – Key Gateway and Supporting Pillar

• The only continuous NATO territory between the Caspian and the Mediterranean

• Thanks to the Straits (Montreux):

Control of entry and exit to the Black Sea

• From the US perspective:

An indispensable but controllable actor

Turkey is central to this corridor, but also the most problematic partner.

3. Syria – The Severed Intermediate Segment

Syria is the most critical breaking point in this strategy.

The US objective:

• To sever the land link between Turkey, Iran and the Arab world

• To maintain the corridor extending to the Eastern Mediterranean as a controlled zone of chaos

For this reason:

• Syria is left unstable.

• Central authority is kept weak.

• Maritime access (Latakia–Tartus) is transformed into a limited front with Russia.

Syria is the deliberate void of the corridor.

4. Israel – Military and Technological Fixed Base

• For the US:

Undisputed forward outpost

• For Eastern Mediterranean gas:

Security

Military protection

• Route opening to the Red Sea:

Eilat – Aqaba – Bab el-Mandeb link

Israel is the most stable and loyal pillar of this strategy.

4. The Belt the US Wishes to Create

This structure ultimately produces the following US-centred belt:

Caspian Sea → Caucasus → Anatolia → Levant → Eastern Mediterranean → Red Sea

The functions of this belt:

a. Squeezing Russia from the South

• Black Sea

• Caucasus

• Eastern Mediterranean

b. Encircling Iran from the West and North

• Azerbaijan

• Iraq–Syria corridor

• Israel

c. To control China’s Central Corridor

• The Turkish segment of the Belt and Road

• Access points to the seas

5. US Dominance Across Five Seas

Through this corridor, the US:

• Caspian Sea → Directs energy flows.

• Black Sea → Restricts the Russian navy.

• Mediterranean Sea → Turns it into a NATO inland sea.

• Red Sea → Controls global trade.

• Indian Ocean link → Establishes the Asia–Europe balance.

This is a modern application of classical sea power theory (Mahan).

6. Critical Consequences for Turkey

In this scenario, Turkey:

• Is intended to be pushed from the position of a central country

• To that of a transit country + an ally under pressure.

Therefore:

• Full alignment with the US → loss of strategic autonomy

• Distancing from the US → risk of the belt breaking

In this structure, Turkey will either become a rule-maker or the main playing field

of the game.

7. Potential Outcomes for Turkey Depending on Scenarios

Yes, according to this framework:

The US aims to establish a geopolitical dominance belt linking the five seas via the Azerbaijan–Turkey–Syria–Israel axis.

This belt:

• Combines land and sea

• Energy and military power

• Alliance and chaos simultaneously.

8. How Can Turkey Break or Reshape the Five-Sea Belt?

I. Where Is the Belt’s Weak Point?

The Azerbaijan–Turkey–Syria–Israel axis established by the US is based on the following assumptions:

Turkey remains isolated.

Syria remains permanently divided.

Energy routes can bypass Turkey.

The Black Sea could become a fully-fledged NATO lake.

What Turkey must do is invalidate these assumptions one by one.

II. Breakthrough Strategy (Hard Break)

1. Stabilising the Balance in the Black Sea (Montreux Shield)

The door to any relaxation of the Montreux Convention is firmly shut.

Black Sea:

Neither a Russian lake

Nor a NATO lake

The military continuity of the US ‘belt’ is severed here.

If the Black Sea remains in balance, the northern tooth of the belt is broken.

1. Filling the ‘Vacuum’ in Syria

The US’s most critical pillar is Syria’s instability.

Turkey:

Controlled normalisation with Damascus

If it assumes the role of an actor effectively defending Syria’s territorial integrity:

The US land corridor is severed.

A necessary geopolitical distance emerges between Israel and Turkey.

If Syria achieves stability, the centre of the corridor collapses.

1. Blocking the Energy Bypass

The EastMed pipeline axis centred on Israel–Greece–Cyprus:

Not economic

Militarily risky

Turkey:

Maintains the equation: “Cheap if I’m there, expensive if I’m not.”

How does it do this?

TANAP/TAP capacity expansion

By effectively demonstrating that it is the only rational route for Israeli gas

If energy does not pass through Turkey, it cannot reach Europe safely.

III. Re-shaping Strategy (Soft Rebuild)

Breaking it is not enough; a Turkey-centred architecture must be put in place.

1. Pulling Azerbaijan from the US Sphere of Influence into the “Centre”

Azerbaijan’s ties with the West cannot be severed.

But energy and security are linked via Turkey.

Core principle:

“Ankara is Baku’s gateway to the West.”

If this is achieved:

The Caspian leg becomes Turkey’s lever, not the US’s

1. Controlled Distance, Controlled Cooperation with Israel

Neither a complete break

Nor full integration

Turkey:

Removes Israel from being solely the US’s forward outpost.

Israeli gas, trade, security:

Cannot ignore the Turkish factor.

If Israel’s irreplaceability is broken, US dominance in the Mediterranean will soften.

1. Multilateralising the Red Sea Link

The US and the Red Sea:

Seeks to control it unipolarly.

Turkey:

Somalia

Qatar

Egypt (under control)

If Turkey transforms the Red Sea into a multi-actor arena through Horn of Africa diplomacy:

The US’s southern extension will be diluted.

IV. The Great Balance Move: Three-Way Chess

Turkey’s success depends on this balance:

Power Turkey’s Role

The US: Indispensable but not fully aligned

Russia: A counterbalance but not dependent

China: An economic partner but militarily distant

Turkey must not be anyone’s outpost; it must be a gateway none can do without.

V. Clear Outcome (Open and Firm)

If Turkey seeks to:

Completely break this chain

→ Stability in Syria + Black Sea balance are essential

If it wishes to reshape it

→ It must convert its energy, straits and transit superiority into bargaining power

The most critical sentence is this:

The US’s Five Seas Belt cannot be established without Turkey;

but if Turkey so wishes, that belt can be rendered inoperable without the US.

Possible scenarios for the 2025–2035 period

Below, I present realistic, divergent and mutually exclusive scenarios for the 2025–2035 period within the context of the Five Seas Belt (the Azerbaijan–Turkey–Syria–Israel axis) we have been discussing. These are not wishful thinking; they are geopolitical possibilities constructed on the basis of power balances, energy, and war–peace thresholds.

2025–2035

Five Seas Corridor: Four Main Possible Scenarios

SCENARIO 1 — The US Corridor Consolidates

(“Turkey at the Centre, But Under Control”)

Probability: 30%

What would the ideal scenario look like from the US perspective?

Turkey–US relations undergo a soft normalisation.

Syria remains in a low-intensity, fragmented state.

Israel–Turkey relations recover along the energy and security axis.

Azerbaijan opens up to the West, but remains outside NATO.

Five Seas Outcome:

Black Sea: NATO pressure increases, but the Montreux Convention is preserved.

Caspian Sea: Energy flows to the West, bypassing Russia.

Eastern Mediterranean: NATO’s influence becomes more pronounced.

Red Sea: US-led control

Turkey: A transit country, but not a rule-setter

Risk for Turkey:

Strategic autonomy erodes; manoeuvring space narrows in the long term.

SCENARIO 2 — Turkey Reshapes the Belt.

(“Central Power Scenario”)

Probability: 25%

What would be the most rational yet challenging scenario for Turkey?

Controlled normalisation between Damascus and Ankara

Syria’s territorial integrity is effectively strengthened.

The Azerbaijan–Turkey axis deepens in energy and defence.

Distant yet necessary cooperation with Israel continues.

Balance of power politics in the Black Sea hardens.

Five Seas Outcome:

Black Sea: Balance is maintained; US–Russia are checked.

Caspian: Turkey becomes the main gateway.

Mediterranean: No energy project proceeds without Turkey.

Red Sea: A multi-actor structure emerges.

Turkey: One of the architects of the Belt

Gain:

Turkey does not break the Belt; it bends it to its own advantage.

Risk:

US pressure + potential for economic manipulation.

SCENARIO 3 — The Belt Breaks, the Region Descends into Chaos

(“Hard Break Scenario”)

Probability: 20%

High risk – high uncertainty

How does it happen?

Widespread new conflict in Syria

Hot contact along the Israel–Iran line

Uncontrolled escalation in the Black Sea

Energy routes become military targets.

Five Seas Outcome:

Black Sea: Military crisis zone

Caspian: Energy flow is disrupted.

Mediterranean: Fleets face off

Red Sea: Trade is disrupted.

Turkey: Becomes a crisis management hub.

For Turkey:

Challenging in the short term, may create new power vacuums in the long term.

SCENARIO 4 — Evolution Towards a Multipolar Balance

(“US Influence Wanes, the Belt Dissolves”)

Probability: 25%

What would the system’s exhaustion scenario look like?

The US focuses on domestic issues and the Pacific.

China economically strengthens the Middle Corridor.

Russia adopts a more defensive stance in the Black Sea.

Regional actors (Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia) come to the fore.

Five Seas Outcome:

Black Sea: Regional balance

Caspian Sea: Multi-directional energy market

Mediterranean Sea: The US is no longer the sole determinant

Red Sea: Regional competition

Turkey: Balancing power

Advantage:

Turkey’s room for manoeuvre expands.

Risk:

Lawlessness and regional friction.

Comparative Summary

Scenario US Power Turkey’s Role Risk

1. Consolidation High Transit Country Loss of autonomy

2. Reshaping Medium Central Power Pressure

3. Breakdown Low Crisis Actor Chaos

4. Multipolar Dispersed Balancing power Uncertainty

The Most Realistic Roadmap (Cool-headed Analysis)

2025–2030: Struggle between Scenarios 1 and 2

2030–2035: Scenario 2 or 4 gaining the upper hand

Critical threshold for Turkey:

What it does in Syria,

What it permits in the Black Sea,

Whether it maintains its indispensability in the energy transition.

Clear Conclusion

The Five Seas Strategy is not inevitable.

But if Turkey remains passive, someone else’s plan will prevail.

At this point, Azerbaijan’s alliance with the US is the most crucial element within the Five Seas Strategy. The Trump Corridor, opening up to Turan via Zengezur, will also open up to Turkmenistan and Central Asia. Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan’s recognition of the Republic of Cyprus signifies their alignment with the American line. The other end of the equation lies in the Arab-Israeli Abraham Accords. These two areas are being integrated into the new American strategy. Iran, caught in the middle, lies outside the sphere of interest. Iran can only be included by being divided.

CONCLUSION:

Tom Barrack, the US Ambassador to Ankara and Special Representative for Syria, spoke at a conference organised by the Atlantic Council and the Syria-US Business Council in Washington on 26 March 2026. US Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack stated that the historic meeting between US President Donald Trump and Syrian leader Ahmed Shara in Riyadh had changed the future of the region. Highlighting that energy policies in the region had shifted from “distribution” to “security”, Barrack said that due to the crises in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea, the world needed a secure “back door”.

Noting that Syria is the only country capable of offering this alternative solution due to its geopolitical position, Barrack remarked, “If someone had said 15 months ago that Syria would become the most stable country in the region, no one would have believed it.”

Referring also to the “Four Seas” project, which could not be implemented during the Assad era, Barrack explained that this project, once updated, would link the Gulf, the Caspian Sea, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. The Ambassador predicted that “Turkey and Syria will become the main energy distribution hub for the whole world.”

Accordingly, he highlighted the key questions regarding what is required for investments worth hundreds of millions of dollars in Syria, what the risks and returns entail, how these risks can be hedged (Hedging, a concept frequently encountered in financial markets, refers to risk mitigation or protection against risk. Investors and companies implement hedging strategies to protect themselves from future uncertainties and potential losses.), and where the investment could be made. Within this framework, the representative also raised the issue of what he termed the “Syrian sponsorship programme”, a framework rarely addressed in investment presentations.

Barrack categorised threat assessments into two groups: internal and external risks:

Internal risks

• The system is still in the formative stage
• The need for a clear and transparent legal framework
• Petroleum revenue-sharing mechanisms
• Lack of standards and indicators

External risks

• Risks stemming from Iran
• The Russia factor
• Separate challenges arising from neighbouring countries such as Iraq and Turkey
• Barrack said, “What will happen to Iran? What will happen to Russia? What will happen to neighbours like Iraq and Turkey? Each has its own challenges.”

In the war that began with the US and Israeli attack on Iran on 28 February, the economic repercussions of these developments have inevitably taken centre stage globally. Although Iran and militias affiliated with Tehran are carrying out attacks on military targets in countries hosting American bases, Turkey appears to be spared from direct military risk, both due to its status as a NATO ally and the relatively balanced relations between Ankara and Tehran.

It is, of course, crucial that the war does not physically spill over into Turkey. However, the spread of its economic effects through global channels is almost inevitable. To fully predict the economic consequences of the war, one must first know how long it will last and what outcomes it might produce for other countries and their populations – yet there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding this.

Given the critical role of the Strait of Hormuz in global oil trade, particularly for Asian countries, China and India, and considering Iran’s influence in this region, the search for alternative energy corridors has intensified. With the EastMed pipeline planned for the Eastern Mediterranean now shelved, it is clear that Turkey offers the most economical route for transporting Israeli gas to Europe via Cyprus. Another alternative is via Syria to Turkey. Should Syria be transformed into an energy corridor under international supervision, it is conceivable that Israeli gas could be transported via Syria to Turkey and from there to Europe.

The Five Seas Project constitutes a multi-layered geopolitical move that will reshape regional power balances, military strategies and global capital flows.

Whilst energy supply security linked to oil and natural gas in the Gulf and the Middle East is seeking a new order today; initiatives such as the Abraham Accords, the Leviathan Gas Field, the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, and the Dry Canal Project are the cornerstones of this transformation.

The trade wars unfolding between the US and the EU on one side and the Russia-China axis on the other, alongside the Silk Road and military interactions, coupled with the threat posed by the Houthis in the Red Sea and the conflict between the US-Israel and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, have rendered the existing maritime trade routes security-wise contentious. This situation has paved the way for major asset management firms, such as BlackRock, which steer global capital, to reshape their investments in the Middle East and Turkey.

According to the latest developments, the Azerbaijan-Turkey, Iraq-Turkey, Qatar-Turkey and Syria-Turkey routes are once again coming to the fore as the most stable routes for energy transport compared to the old world order and are considered the most reliable routes.

The extensive destruction of Syria’s infrastructure following the civil war and the shifting balance of power in the region, coupled with the growing threat of war between Israel and Lebanon, have put the Israel-Syria-Turkey route at risk.

As can be understood from the article titled “What is known about the new NATO headquarters to be established in Turkey?”, published by the BBC, the multinational headquarters NATO is to establish in Adana aims to enhance the alliance’s deterrence and defence capabilities against threats originating from the Middle East, the Caucasus, the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa. It is understood that the naval command to be established in Istanbul will also play a significant role in ensuring the security of the Black Sea following the Ukraine-Russia war, within the framework of the Ukraine Volunteers Coalition.

However, when viewed from a broader perspective, it may be more accurate to consider these headquarters—or NATO structures established under the Five Seas Project in the Mediterranean, Middle East, Black Sea and Caspian Sea regions—as mechanisms designed to ensure energy security.

Given that the conflict developing between the US, Israel and Iran in the context of the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, the Red Sea and the Suez Canal is assessed as having strategic implications for other nations of the world, it is clear that its resolution will be difficult and time-consuming, and that it will reshape the world’s economic and political structure.

The planned deployment of NATO naval forces in the Bosphorus Strait and the plans for a NATO headquarters in Adana-Incirlik must not be considered in isolation from the energy and capital equation. This situation should also be assessed as potentially challenging Turkey’s balance of power policies in the Black Sea, as maintained under the Montreux Convention, particularly in relation to Russia and China. Whilst some may claim that ‘NATO is on its last legs’, the changes in the name and structure of the NATO framework, of which Turkey is a part, can be assessed as either fundamentally preserving or altering the structures to which Turkey is bound.

In particular, Cyprus has become far more strategic for the transfer of Israeli natural gas to Europe. For Turkey, the geopolitical importance of Cyprus and Turkey’s presence there have now become as significant and valuable as the Straits of Istanbul and the Dardanelles.

Given that Turkey is intended to be governed by chaos within the scope of the Five Seas Project, the issues of Turkey developing peaceful and friendly relations with neighbouring countries to avoid falling into a chaotic environment, and the impact of the proposed Turkey-Saudi Arabia-Pakistan alliance on the Five Seas Project, must be examined and assessed separately within this context.

In particular, the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates and their impact on regional countries will become far more significant in the future.

The future of the Five Seas Project, however, will be shaped by the commitment of the countries in the region to democracy, the wishes of their peoples, economic and political stability, religious beliefs, global warming, the need for drinking water, infrastructure investments and the course of competition between major powers.

As Turkey, when we wish to make an important reminder regarding the developments that the Five Seas Project will bring, the following example will always provide a correct perspective.

In 1964, during the tensions with the US over the Cyprus issue, Prime Minister İsmet İnönü, in his reply to President Johnson, who had sent him a letter filled with insolent remarks, stated: “A new world will be established, and Turkey will find its place in this world.”

SOURCES USED:

1. https://thecradle.com/articles/assad-syria-and-chinas-new-silk-road
2. https://hvodinali.wordpress.com/2021/12/20/esadin-bes-deniz-projesi-hala-yasiyor/
3. https://21yyte.org/milli-guvenlik-ve-dis-politika-arastirmalari-merkezi/yeni-ortadogu-ve-turkiye/30653
4. Şahin, M. (2006). Turkish-American Relations in the Context of Iraq, Turkey in the Five Seas Basin (eds.) M. Aydın-Ç. Erhan, Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi, pp. 271–274.
5. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/d%C3%B6rt-deniz-projesi-tdt-kktc-gen%C3%A7li%CC%87k-te%C5%9Fki%CC%87lati-t2xsf/