At this stage of the development of events surrounding the US/Israeli war against Iran, hardly anyone remembers that years ago Assad from Damascus developed a project called “The Five Seas and Five Countries”, also presented to Turkey, which, they say, is the basis for the launch of the Arab Spring, called “the Bloody Spring”. It began under the guise of democracy, justice and freedom. The “The Five Seas and Five Countries” project included the Egypt-Jordan-Syria-Turkey-Lebanon gas pipeline and the Qatar-Iraq-Iran-Syria-Turkey gas pipeline, but it has definitely become an obstacle to other projects in this regard. As well as the “Development Road” canal being prepared by Turkey and Iraq, called the “Dry Canal”. It, in turn, is not an idea of the US and Israel, but has presented itself as a regional initiative that competes with the global logistics vision developed by Washington and Tel Aviv for the Middle East. Their vision is directly related to the IMEC project, the India-Middle East-Europe corridor, announced at the G-20 meeting. IMEC bypasses Turkey and Iraq, but from India it passes through the UAE and Saudi Arabia by land and reaches Haifa in Israel on the Mediterranean Sea, and from there to Europe. Is this at the bottom of the conundrums in the Middle East and the series of wars there? Very likely, and with the smell of oil and gas. And a civil war in Syria, which led to the overthrow of Assad with the help of the known players in the region. Ankara is convinced that their “Development Road” has the support of the Gulf countries and has the potential to fundamentally change world trade routes. But it cannot help but become an arena for a multidimensional power struggle in the triangle between the US, Israel, Iran. To implement a project in this region without the US and Israel? Forget it. The IMEC corridor is imposed, but without striking at the “Development Path” of Turkey and Iraq. A distanced and obstructive approach is simply being applied. Because the goal is to break China’s influence and bypass Turkey by creating difficulties in terms of financing and security through Baghdad. The US has de facto control over Iraqi finances and trade because it manages Iraq’s oil revenues through the Washington Federal Reserve. They strictly control the flow of dollars into the country. Therefore, the door to the Turkey-Iraq project is not completely closed, but rather control is sought over it. An old US tactic. And Baghdad is distanced from Tehran. Moreover, in this way Baghdad can also be freed from its dependence on Iranian electricity/gas. In this way, the country can be integrated into the West and the Gulf countries. Simply strategic interests of the US for the region. Well, this can also increase the economic weight of Turkey, an ally of Washington in the region, but an acceptable element of the so-called regional balance for the US is achieved. The goal of which is to stop the aspirations of Russia and China for influence in the Middle East. More rabbits with one bullet. Billions of dollars invested in such projects in any case open new doors for the American financial system and American companies that participate in the projects. Like Alstom, for example.
In fact, the risk of closing Hormuz or excluding the influence of the US on this strait is pushing the countries of the region to urgently seek alternative land corridors. These corridors are even skipped because the players are more than the possibilities of controlling them. “The path of development” and the corridor to the Mediterranean Sea through Syria are at this stage considered to be possible for quick implementation. But it is difficult to say that the US unconditionally supports the Turkish project. Rather, it acts pragmatically and with conditionality.
Iran is facing a strategic dilemma. It cannot allow itself to be excluded. Tehran also has its own projects for canals. There is also the possibility of pressure on Iraq through allied elements from the Hashd al-Shaabi, i.e. the Iraqi Shiite militias, to implement the Shalamcheh-Basra line, which will connect Iraq with the railway network of Iran. Competing projects can also strategically isolate Tehran, which requires negotiations to be held for participation in other corridor projects, especially in the “Development Road “ with Turkey. It is assumed that its implementation will be a massive land and railway alternative to Bab-al-Mandeb, Hormuz and the Suez Canal. Thus, Qatar and the UAE will be able to transport their goods directly to the port of Faw in Basra by sea. While China and India will have to use Hormuz to pass to the port of Faw.
For its part, Israel fears that it will be out of the game if the “Development Route” is implemented and therefore seeks to thwart this project and keep the conflicts in the Middle East alive. This makes the region an unsafe haven and will repel investors and capital from the Persian Gulf. Dividends for Israel. While Iran has chosen to move to a strategy of benefiting from these projects by integrating from within. Tactics that can serve as an example of a successful strategy. Iran will definitely get the opportunity to connect its railway lines with Basra and transport its goods to Turkey and Europe. A war is being waged, but strategies are being developed for after the end of hostilities. In Ankara, they say that Tehran is using the security of the lines as a bargaining chip to extract political and economic concessions from Baghdad and Ankara. To have a say in the operation of the line. Iran is also China's largest partner in the Middle East. This ensures that the “development route” will be in line with the Chinese initiative “One Belt, One Road”. Israel, of course, sabotages the project by increasing security risks. While Ankara seeks to support and encourage Iran's participation in the development project. The question is what Washington will ultimately decide. Because the priority at the moment is organizing negotiations with Tehran to end the war against Iran. The time until November 3 and the midterm elections in the US is decreasing. Then it will be the turn of the canal projects, because trade and oil supplies must continue. Along with Hormuz.
The question is who will control. Because isolating Russia and China from influence in the Middle East, at least as of today, is not realistic as a strategy. Look at Syria and you will see for yourself.