Turkey has made public its national Maritime Spatial Plan for the first time—a move that carries clear strategic implications in the ongoing contest over maritime boundaries in the Eastern Mediterranean. The plan sets out Ankara’s intended uses of large sections of surrounding waters, including areas in the Aegean Sea that belong to Greece. More than a technical planning document, the publication reflects Turkey’s broader effort to formalize and internationalize its maritime claims. Prepared by Turkish authorities and submitted for registration to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the plan now appears on the organization’s international marine planning platform, giving it global visibility.
The plan sets out Ankara’s intended uses of large sections of surrounding waters, including areas in the Aegean Sea that belong to Greece.
In its official statement, Turkey presented the plan as a step toward sustainable marine and coastal management. However, the inclusion of disputed areas gives the initiative a strategic character. Although framed as a domestic policy measure, the international submission of the plan serves to promote Turkey’s maritime claims and reflects a broader effort to advance its revisionist positions in the Eastern Mediterranean, consistent with the principles of the so-called “Blue Homeland” doctrine, which seeks to expand Turkish jurisdiction over large parts of the surrounding seas at the expense of established maritime norms.
This move followed a report in a newspaper aligned with the Turkish government, which had revealed Ankara’s intention to publish its maps before Greece could release its own planning framework. Regional analysts saw the timing as an effort to shape the international narrative and pre-empt Greek diplomatic momentum.
Tensions already had begun to rise in April 2025, when Turkish authorities objected to Greece’s National Strategy for the Marine Space, describing it as a violation of Turkey’s maritime jurisdiction. Greece’s plan, which for the first time defined detailed uses of its maritime zones, was introduced in line with European Union law and international legal principles. Turkish officials, however, rejected the measure as an overreach into contested areas.
The map included in Turkey’s plan challenges the full maritime effect of Greek islands in the Aegean. It emphasizes the median line between the two countries’ continental coasts, in line with Turkey’s long-standing view that islands—particularly those near its shores—should not generate full maritime zones. This interpretation is consistent with a broader revisionist framework promoted by Turkish strategic circles, which seeks to expand national jurisdiction and reshape maritime boundaries in ways that depart from established legal norms.
The Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded firmly, stating that the Turkish plan has no foundation in international law and does not produce any legal consequence. The Ministry also announced that Greece would raise the matter in all appropriate international forums.
These developments come as several European governments seek to strengthen cooperation on maritime affairs. The parallel release of spatial plans by Turkey and Greece illustrates the difficulty of separating technical planning from regional geopolitics. What may appear administrative in form can carry significant political and strategic implications—especially where boundaries remain contested.
Looking ahead, stability in the Eastern Mediterranean will depend on more than the publication of maps.
The timing of Turkey’s plan also coincided with heightened tensions between Israel and Iran. While these events are unrelated in substance, they reflect a broader regional environment in which legal, political, and military developments increasingly intersect. The Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East are no longer distinct strategic theaters; national actions in one area now shape perceptions and influence behavior across the region.
Looking ahead, stability in the Eastern Mediterranean will depend on more than the publication of maps. It will require consistent diplomacy, legal clarity, and a shared commitment to managing disputes without escalation. Where technical processes carry political weight, quiet diplomacy remains essential.
For the United States, Turkey’s maritime actions are part of a wider pattern that undermines regional stability. Although both Greece and Turkey are members of the transatlantic alliance, Ankara’s deliberate inclusion of contested areas in its official maritime planning erodes trust and increases tensions. This behavior complicates cooperation and challenges the rules-based order that Washington has long supported.
The United States should not treat this as a neutral matter. It must make clear that unilateral actions in disputed maritime areas are incompatible with regional stability. Washington should engage both governments, uphold international legal principles, and make clear that Turkey’s continued revisionism in contested maritime zones will carry diplomatic and perhaps economic consequences. Ensuring freedom of navigation, preserving legal clarity, and preventing escalation remain core American interests in the Eastern Mediterranean.
