Mediterranean ports fuel great-power rivalry
Ports in the Mediterranean have become strategic sovereignty tools – deepwater hubs, investments and military presence reshape power, trade and alliances.
In a nutshell
In an environment strained by the proliferation of political crises in Ukraine, Palestine and Iran, coupled with economic shocks like volatile energy markets and inflation, ports have become core instruments of sovereignty. Far beyond symbolic flag-raising, they serve as concrete tools to attract trade flows, secure assets and project lasting influence.
The Mediterranean – with its two straits and the Suez Canal – remains a critical global trade corridor where physical presence equals political leverage. Europe remains partly constrained by its postcolonial legacy, seeking to rebuild the north-south relationship, still marked by distrust, into a more balanced one. China advances methodically via port investments and logistical corridors, while Russia operates through a post-Cold War geopolitical framework, using military power as leverage to secure its footholds in the Mediterranean.
These competing visions of port sovereignty – Russia’s military-strategic model, China’s economic-infrastructure drive and the European Union’s fragmented normative approach – have turned the Mediterranean into a live laboratory of great-power rivalry.
In a world where maritime trade accounts for more than 80 percent of global exchanges, controlling a port means possessing a powerful lever capable of shaping interstate relations. Despite the slowdown in global trade in early 2025, a UN Trade and Development report projects that global maritime trade volumes will continue to grow between 2026 and 2030 at an average rate of around 2 percent per year, with sustained growth in container shipping. Therefore, maintaining a presence remains critically important.
In pursuit of sovereignty
Over the past decade, modernized port infrastructure has transformed these sites into powerful symbols of national pride. Ports have become a way for states to demonstrate governing capacity, notably through taxation, regulation and the enforcement of standards. They assert authority over foreign operators or vessels through penalties for non-compliance. The use of customs barriers and the rejection of vessels flying dubious flags reveal a mindset of sovereign self-assertion that goes far beyond mere technical rules.
Morocco exemplifies this trend through the development of the Port of Tanger Med. The Moroccan government has developed a political narrative centered on control over logistical corridors and infrastructure development. Today, southern Mediterranean states vie for the titles of Africa’s leading port or strategic hub – not only to match their northern neighbors, but also to project “economic sovereignty,” as Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi has repeatedly emphasized.
Although port governance is formally a sovereign matter, free from overt colonial influence, the reality is more complex. The Suez Canal, through which about 12 percent of global trade passes, has attracted significant Chinese investment totaling $11.6 billion over four years. It is worth recalling that former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s nationalization of the canal in 1956 triggered a major geopolitical crisis, yet one that ultimately bolstered his domestic standing.
Given the intense political stakes in the global port sector, Algeria is determined to avoid strategic marginalization. The deepwater port project at El Hamdania, initially launched in collaboration with China’s state-owned construction giant CSCEC, had been on hold for several years due to disagreements over project governance, including equity distribution and financing arrangements. The project was resurrected in September 2025 with a revised budget of $4.7 billion, once again in partnership with China.
Ultimately, Algeria’s strategic ambitions overcame previous governance deadlocks. Algiers aims to turn El Hamdania into a transshipment hub capable of competing with Tanger Med and strengthening its trade links, in anticipation of postwar economic recovery following the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. Reviving the project has become a priority, even if it means accepting a form of managed dependence under the guidance of its Chinese counterparts.
Regional tensions
Ports serve as levers of geopolitical ambition. As Turkiye seeks to redraw maritime boundaries in the Aegean and around Cyprus, Ankara has sharply increased investment in the eastern Mediterranean, increasingly militarizing its logistical routes, putting Egypt on alert.
Cairo has adopted a subtler but equally calculated approach, using its ports for strategic hedging. Maritime agreements established with Greece and Cyprus provide Egypt with a strong legal basis to counter Turkiye’s claims. The development of port facilities like Damietta and Ain Sokhna boosts Egypt’s ability to export liquefied natural gas to Europe. This diversification not only lessens reliance on the Suez Canal but also expands Egypt’s strategic flexibility.
The inherent risk in these power dynamics is that a third country might try to exploit them. In 2022, Italy blocked a Chinese operator from managing a terminal in Trieste on national-security grounds. Rome feared that Chinese investment could translate into political leverage, turning today’s economic cooperation into tomorrow’s constraint.
If major powers are advancing their positions across the Mediterranean chessboard, it is because current geopolitical conditions allow them to do so. One fact stands out clearly: The Covid-19 crisis, followed by the war in Ukraine, exposed the vulnerability of maritime routes and, by extension, the vulnerability of states themselves.
Spain offers a telling example. It has injected 4.5 billion euros into its national port strategy through 2030, guided by a logic of securing critical infrastructure. Italy has pursued a similar approach with the port of Gioia Tauro, turning it into a key node for enhanced customs control as part of efforts to combat criminal flows.
Naval bases, such as the French facilities in Toulon, the Turkish installations in Aksaz, and the Egyptian waterfront infrastructure in Port Said, exemplify a broader trend in which ports transcend their traditional role as mere points of exchange. Instead, they become vital lines of economic and political defense. In essence, these locations serve as centers of authority.
Even a secondary port can draw the attention of major global powers, underscoring that today, no infrastructure can be considered wholly insignificant.
Bizerte in Tunisia may appear to be an ordinary port at first glance, but appearances can be deceiving. It hosts a critical node in the network of submarine fiber-optic cables that connect Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Though visually unimpressive and rarely discussed, such infrastructure can serve as a potential chokepoint for intercepting strategic communications. This is likely why the administration of President Donald Trump raised concerns over a potential Chinese presence there. The data accessed through this port is highly sensitive. On Tunisia’s part, the approach has been one of discretion. No official information has been released regarding the financial arrangements underpinning the port’s upgrading.
One point, however, is clear. Any actor that reaches an agreement with Tunis and successfully invests in this project will be positioned near communication channels that are crucial to the EU.
Deepwater ports as strategic assets
The proliferation of deepwater ports further demonstrates how states are using port infrastructure as levers of power. Capable of handling heavy-tonnage vessels, including ultra-large container ships and military vessels, these ports act as strategic anchor points for extending influence.
The emblematic case is Russia’s presence in Tartus, Syria. As the only deep-water port under Moscow’s control in the Mediterranean, it was one of the first issues to be discussed between Moscow and the new authorities in Damascus. Whether Russia will be authorized to retain access to the port under the new regime remains an open question. The validity of previously signed agreements is also under review. Negotiations are in progress, and this issue is expected to be resolved in 2026.
Read more by Middle East and Arab affairs expert Pierre Boussel
- Morocco’s AI challenge
- The resurgence of Egyptian diplomacy
- Why the Abraham Accords endure despite the Gaza war
Turkiye is pursuing a comparable trajectory in Libya. In Misrata and potentially in Khoms, Ankara seeks to secure deepwater ports capable of supporting both its economic interests and its military projection in the central Mediterranean. Turkiye’s “Blue Homeland” doctrine views the sea and associated infrastructure as integral parts of national territory.
This approach has had a spillover effect, prompting Egypt to invest substantially in deepwater ports like Port Said and Ain Sokhna. Cairo’s objective in these investments is to secure the strategic Suez Canal and strengthen Egypt’s status as a central logistical hub.
Ports are no longer peripheral parts of national territory. They have become forward outposts where sovereignty, security and influence converge in an increasingly contested Mediterranean.
Scenarios
Most likely: Ports become the quiet nerve centers of Mediterranean power
Tensions remain contained. Mediterranean littoral states, alongside external powers seeking to project influence in the region, adopt a posture of strategic caution. Since no actor can credibly impose a comprehensive settlement, an implicit convergence emerges around preserving existing positions without provoking rupture.
Highly visible military posturing is deliberately constrained to address the period’s central challenge: preparing for a hypothetical postwar reorganization following a cessation of hostilities in Ukraine and the Gulf. Arab states, in particular, move to anticipate the reshaping of maritime routes that accompanies the return of Russian energy exports, the resumption of Ukrainian grain exports to global markets, and energy transit from the Gulf to Europe.
In this scenario, ports confirm their roles as critical nerve centers of governmental action, a lever through which states absorb the shockwaves generated by regional crises. Sovereignty is asserted through calibrated control rather than overt confrontation, without abandoning alliances or destabilizing the balance of power within the Mediterranean system.
Less likely: Ports as instruments of power and exclusion
Ports emerge as focal points of geopolitical tension across the Mediterranean. When the prospect of a truce in Ukraine and the Middle East materializes, the strategic climate does not ease. On the contrary, it hardens further. Maritime routes, port hubs and logistical chains increasingly confirm their role as instruments of sovereign authority. Controls are tightened, while customs barriers rise accordingly.
The exclusion of certain flags becomes more frequent. Deepwater ports progressively assume a quasi-militarized function. This post-conflict period does not constitute a return to the prewar order. Instead, it drives a profound reconfiguration of port hierarchies throughout the basin. Maritime boundaries, already contested, evolve into zones of persistent friction. In this strategic environment, ports cease to operate primarily as facilitators of exchange and instead function as mechanisms for filtering, regulating and constraining flows in line with national strategic priorities.
Contact us today for tailored geopolitical insights and industry-specific advisory services.
Sign up for our newsletter
Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.
