Lebanon is being pulled into a widening geopolitical realignment in the Eastern Mediterranean as Israel deepens cooperation with Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration, a shift that risks entangling Beirut in a broader confrontation involving Türkiye, analysts say.
Israel has in recent years expanded its unilateral actions beyond land-based theatres in the Levant to maritime domains, increasingly synchronising policy with Athens and Nicosia. That alignment was underscored by the latest Greece–Greek Cypriot–Israel trilateral summit in Tel Aviv, where leaders signalled closer coordination on energy, security and regional strategy.
At the core of the partnership is a shared objective to counter Türkiye’s growing influence across the Eastern Mediterranean, particularly in energy exploration, maritime jurisdiction and regional politics. Although the EastMed gas pipeline project has stalled, cooperation among Israel, Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration has continued, aimed at shaping future hydrocarbon development and transport routes in ways that exclude Ankara and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC).
Lebanon’s shifting position
Lebanon has now become a focal point of this evolving alignment following the activation of a long-dormant maritime delimitation agreement with the Greek Cypriot administration, originally signed in 2007. The deal was jointly announced by Beirut and Nicosia in November, prompting sharp objections from Türkiye, which said the agreement violated the rights of Turkish Cypriots and ignored existing Türkiye–TRNC maritime arrangements.
For years, Lebanon had refrained from ratifying the accord, wary of regional sensitivities and unresolved maritime boundaries involving Syria and Israel. In 2022, Beirut instead prioritised settling its maritime dispute with Israel through U.S.-mediated talks, paving the way for offshore energy exploration.
Analysts say the decision to move forward with the Cyprus deal reflects Lebanon’s altered internal and external calculations after months of political paralysis, economic collapse and shifting power balances in the Levant following the war in Gaza and the fall of Syria’s Assad government.
The new administration under President Joseph Aoun appears to view closer alignment with Western-backed initiatives as a way to stabilise ties with the United States and France, while containing Israeli military pressure along its southern border. But the move risks complicating Lebanon’s relations with Türkiye and potentially with Syria, which has yet to delimit its own maritime borders.
Regional repercussions
Türkiye argues that the Lebanon–Greek Cypriot deal overlaps with maritime zones claimed by the TRNC and contradicts agreements Ankara has concluded with Turkish Cypriots. Turkish officials have warned that any attempt to marginalise the TRNC would be challenged politically and, if necessary, through countervailing maritime agreements, including potential understandings with Syria.
The dispute highlights Lebanon’s strategic importance in the Eastern Mediterranean, where it sits at the intersection of maritime boundaries involving Israel, Syria and Cyprus. Like Libya in the central Mediterranean, Lebanon occupies a pivotal geographic position that can influence energy corridors, naval access and regional power balances.
Israeli analysts, meanwhile, see Lebanon’s move as part of a broader effort to consolidate a bloc stretching from Israel to Greece and Cyprus, implicitly backed by Western partners, to counter both Türkiye and Iran. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which have supported efforts to weaken Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon, have so far taken a cautious stance, avoiding overt involvement in the maritime dispute.
High stakes, uncertain path
Critics warn that by aligning itself with the Israel–Greece–Cyprus axis, Lebanon risks being drawn into a new regional polarisation just as it seeks to emerge from older ones. They argue the move underestimates Türkiye’s capacity to respond and overstates the benefits of an EastMed-style framework that has already struggled to deliver economically viable projects.
Supporters counter that Lebanon has limited options and must anchor itself to partners capable of offering diplomatic backing and investment at a time of acute national crisis.
What is clear, analysts say, is that Lebanon’s maritime decision has implications far beyond technical boundary lines. It underscores how the contest for influence in the Eastern Mediterranean is increasingly intersecting with the fragile politics of Levantine states, turning legal agreements into instruments of strategic competition.
As rival blocs harden their positions, Lebanon may find that its attempt to secure stability at sea instead exposes it to fresh geopolitical crosscurrents onshore. (BV)