Geopolitical struggle for global corridors Trade routes as tools of influence

Nowadays, it is perhaps safe to say that while the old adage "Cherchez la femme", meaning "Look for the woman", was once a fitting phrase to describe the root cause of many problems (or even positive developments), the final word in this famous saying is increasingly being replaced with "routes". Trade routes, to be precise.

According to several serious analysts, this very framework is one of the key paradigms behind the persistent inability to establish a clearly peaceful agenda in regions such as the Middle East.

In support of this thesis, some experts point to the fact that in 2000, British Gas discovered the Gaza Marine gas field, located 30 kilometres off the coast of Gaza. The field is estimated to contain around 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas. In 2021, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Egypt signed an agreement for the joint development of the field. In the summer of 2023, Israel itself approved the development of Gaza Marine.

In this context, it was noted that in 2025, Gaza was expected to be granted the right to explore and extract resources, with the ability to transfer these rights to a third party at its discretion. This was particularly significant, as reports indicated that British rights to the field were set to expire in 2024. A key detail is that the field is located within Gaza’s exclusive economic maritime zone.

Parallel to this, some analysts increasingly recall the proposed Ben-Gurion Canal project, which would stretch from Ashkelon through the Negev Desert to Eilat on the Red Sea. Notably, the concept of "comprehensive cooperation" between Israel and Jordan—including the construction of a joint Jordanian-Israeli canal linking the Red Sea and the Dead Sea—was discussed as early as the first half of the 1990s in the book The New Middle East by former Israeli President and twice-serving Prime Minister Shimon Peres.

Peres identified the primary objective as achieving comprehensive regional cooperation within a stable community of nations responsible for shared infrastructure. He envisioned an ideal scenario where tourists from Europe could travel from Türkiye to Africa via Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Egypt, or through Syria, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Persian Gulf. In this context, roads would serve the ports of various countries on the Mediterranean and Red Seas, as well as trade hubs and leisure centres that could be developed in the Gaza Strip and along the proposed Red Sea–Dead Sea canal.

Does this not resemble a precursor to the very Middle Eastern Riviera concept recently mentioned by former U.S. President Donald Trump?

The key nuance here, however, is that, as noted by several experts, the Ben-Gurion Canal was originally envisioned as a competitor to the Suez Canal, the Strait of Hormuz, and China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

In this context, it is worth noting that as early as 2015, China and Egypt identified port cooperation as a primary priority, as both countries worked together to advance the Belt and Road Initiative and the Suez Canal Economic Corridor project. Notably, the "harbours at both ends" of the Suez Canal were regarded as crucial for the Middle East, Africa, and the world at large, both in terms of geopolitics and global trade.

By the end of 2023, the Suez Canal Economic Zone (SCZONE) signed agreements with China worth $15.6 billion.

Against this backdrop, experts are also focusing on an alternative to the Suez Canal, emerging in the form of a project that begins in India and ends in Europe. This refers to the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), a transport route formalised in a memorandum signed during the 2023 G20 Summit in New Delhi. The agreement includes the European Union, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Israel, Jordan, and India, with some analysts viewing the Ben-Gurion Canal as an integral part of this initiative.

In this context, analysts are paying particular attention to reports that, during a meeting on 13 February between Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the two leaders allegedly agreed to launch a trade route that would span both water and land through Israel and Italy. According to Trump, "We agreed to work together to help build one of the greatest trade routes in all of history. It will run from India to Israel to Italy and onward to the United States."

The real question, however, is how feasible these ambitious trade routes will be in practice. The idea of enveloping the Middle East with transport corridors has been discussed for decades. As early as 1934, Britain succeeded in launching the Mosul–Tripoli oil pipeline. The following year, the Kirkuk–Tripoli–Haifa pipeline route was put into operation.

It is worth noting that these same geographic names remain relevant today—albeit more often in the context of ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, underscoring the challenges of implementing large-scale transport projects in the region.

Moreover, considering that the trade and logistics concepts discussed above are ultimately aimed at establishing a route to India, the historical parallels are unmistakable. As early as the mid-1930s, there were plans to extend the proposed pipeline from Haifa to Tabriz (Iran), which, when combined with the railway line from Tabriz to Julfa (Azerbaijan), would have created the most direct and cost-effective overland (!) route connecting the Mediterranean, Caspian, and Black Seas.

Thus, whether one agrees or not, trade and logistics routes remain crucial elements of today's geopolitical struggles. In this context, particular attention is drawn to the Panama aspect of Donald Trump’s foreign policy doctrine: "China is operating the Panama Canal and we didn't give it to China. We gave it to Panama and we're taking it back."

As a result of intense geopolitical pressure from Washington, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino announced in early February—following a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio—that Panama would no longer participate in China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Against this backdrop, it is only natural to view developments in the Middle East as part of a broader struggle over trade routes—one that has become a major driving force behind the region’s ongoing conflicts.