The “Development Road” agreement signed between Iraq and Turkey, along with the “Four Seas Plan” once again being debated along the Syria-Turkey axis, have emerged as key projects in these discussions. What these projects share in common is that they all pass through Kurdistan.
The ‘Four Seas’ plan returns to the agenda
“Syria’s Four Seas Plan” was a strategic vision introduced during the era of Bashar al-Assad, aiming to transform the country into a regional hub for energy and trade. The plan envisioned Syria becoming a “connection point” between four different maritime basins.
However, the international sanctions and political isolation that followed the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, along with Turkey’s occupation of parts of Syria and Rojava, its logistical support for opposition forces, and ongoing infrastructure and security problems, left the project confined largely to theory.
The “Four Seas Plan” proposes an integrated transportation and energy network linking the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean, the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea. Through this project, the goal is to establish Syria as an energy corridor by enabling oil and natural gas pipelines to pass through the country, while also creating a regional logistics network through highways and railways in order to turn the region into a center of trade. Another aim is to increase the geopolitical influence of Syria and Turkey by positioning them as central hubs for regional trade and energy flows.
A new phase
The plan returned to the agenda following the collapse of the Assad administration at the end of 2024 and the rise of the new government led by Ahmed al-Sharaa (al-Jolani).
Speaking at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum in Turkey on 17 April and at the European Union summit in Cyprus on 24 April, Syrian Transitional President Ahmed al-Sharaa highlighted efforts to turn his country’s strategic position into an alternative route for energy and goods transportation. In his remarks, al-Sharaa said he hoped Syria could be used as a secure access corridor to the Mediterranean by linking the Persian Gulf to Turkey.
Following al-Sharaa’s statements, Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani described the project during his visit to Ankara as the beginning of a new phase in bilateral strategic cooperation.
Economic circles interpreted the renewed discussion of the project as an attempt by Turkey to restore its weakening strategic position in the region after being excluded from the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) project. IMEC had been viewed by Ankara as a serious geopolitical loss.
Where does the US stand in this plan?
A document published by the Saudi-owned Arabic-language media outlet Al Majalla and attributed to US Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack outlines a proposal to transform Syria into a major hub for global energy transit. According to the report, rebuilding the Kirkuk-Baniyas oil pipeline would cost approximately $4.5 billion, while Syria aims to generate nearly $200 million annually through transit revenues.
The report also highlights plans to extend the Arab Gas Pipeline from Egypt through Syria to Turkey, as well as the Qatar-Turkey natural gas route, which would transport Qatari gas through Jordan and Syria into Turkey and from there to Europe.
According to the magazine, the plan focuses on rehabilitating and expanding the existing and proposed pipeline network linking oil fields in the Persian Gulf and Iraq to Europe through Mediterranean ports.
In essence, the “Four Seas Plan” is emerging once again as a geo-economic project reshaped by Turkey’s reaction to being excluded from the IMEC project, Syria’s search for reconstruction while struggling with economic crisis, and the global energy security crisis triggered by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz following the Iran-Israel-US conflict.
A new bloc against IMEC?
The “Four Seas Plan” and the “Development Road” project are also being discussed as alternatives to the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC).
Announced in 2023, IMEC emerged as a large-scale infrastructure initiative aimed at establishing a new trade and energy route between India and Europe. India, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, Greece and European Union countries are among the main actors in the project.
Seen as an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, IMEC aims to accelerate logistics and energy transportation through a route crossing the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel and Greece.
Backed by the United States, the project increases the role of Israel and Gulf countries in regional logistics and energy trade while excluding Turkey from the corridor.
The ‘Development Road’ project from Basra to Europe
The IMEC route effectively bypasses Turkey. For this reason, Ankara is seeking to regain the strategic importance it believes it lost through IMEC by promoting alternative projects such as the “Development Road” agreement with Iraq and the “Four Seas Plan” developed alongside Syria.
The agreement related to the Development Road Project was signed in Baghdad on 23 April 2024 between Turkey, Iraq, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. The project aims to establish a major trade and transportation corridor stretching from Basra to Europe. Although Turkey and Iraq are the principal parties, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are also backing the initiative.
The project includes the construction of a 1,200-kilometer railway and highway network intended to connect the Persian Gulf to Europe through Turkey. Within this framework, new routes are planned between Xabur (Habur), Zaxo (Zakho), Duhok, Mosul, Kirkuk and Baghdad, while existing lines are also expected to be modernized.
Although the economic dimension of the project centers on creating a fast transportation corridor linking the Persian Gulf, Iraq, Turkey and Europe, its security dimension involves the expansion of occupation zones in Southern Kurdistan (Başur).
Possible security risks created by mega projects
The political, economic and military developments that followed the Israel-Hamas war once again brought the issue of “corridor equals security” to the forefront through mega projects such as the “Four Seas Plan,” the Development Road, the Belt and Road Initiative and IMEC. Such projects inherently carry risks including increased military presence, stricter control policies in border regions and the narrowing of local actors’ room for movement.
In an article published in Yeni Özgür Politika on 24 April 2024, Selahattin Erdem drew attention to this reality and wrote: “As envisioned, the Development Road Project encircles Southern Kurdistan. It appears that the Tayyip Erdoğan administration, which failed to surround the Medya Defense Zones from the south through the ‘Joint Force,’ now seeks to compensate for this failure by encircling all of Southern Kurdistan from the south through the ‘Development Road Project.’ Moreover, the route intended for the project passes through what the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) calls the ‘Central Region,’ an area where Kurds and many other peoples live intertwined.”
The invisible center of the corridors: Kurdistan
Perhaps the most critical yet least openly discussed dimension of these economic projects is that they all pass through Kurdistan.
As energy and trade corridors in the Middle East are being reshaped, the “Four Seas Plan” promoted by Ahmed al-Sharaa and the “Development Road” project signed between Iraq and Turkey are not merely interstate infrastructure initiatives. They are also geopolitical turning points that will directly shape the future of Kurdistan. Kurdistan forms an uninterrupted geopolitical line stretching across Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria.
The fact that nearly all planned energy and economic routes pass through Rojava, Southern Kurdistan and Northern Kurdistan positions Kurdistan as the geography where these corridors intersect. In other words, oil reserves in Southern Kurdistan and Rojava, along with possible Iran-Mediterranean and Iraq-Turkey routes, make Kurdistan not only a transit zone, but also a center of energy production and distribution.
Kurdistan also lies at the center of multilayered power struggles, including US-Iran rivalry, Turkey-Iran competition and Russia’s strategy in Syria.
All of these dynamics indicate that such economic and energy corridors cannot geographically be established without Kurdistan. At the same time, they show that as long as instability in Kurdistan remains unresolved, projects of this kind cannot be sustainably implemented or fully realized.
Source: ROJNEWS
