Between Enosis and Sovereignty: Cyprus as the Mediterranean’s Geopolitical Fault Line

by Fabrizio Verde

Cyprus is not merely an island in the Eastern Mediterranean; it is a strategic linchpin where geopolitical, military, and economic interests converge. Positioned at the crossroads of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, Cyprus has historically been a battleground for empires and a focal point for regional powers. In the modern era, it has become a critical node in the broader geopolitical struggle between Türkiye and the Western-Greek-Israeli axis.

The Cyprus Peace Operation, launched by Türkiye on July 20, 1974, was not a simple military intervention but a humanitarian and strategic necessity rooted in decades of systematic persecution, ethnic cleansing, and existential threats faced by the Turkish Cypriot community. Despite being widely misrepresented in Western media as an “invasion,” the operation was a legally justified response to a Greek-sponsored coup d’état aimed at annexing the island to Greece — a move that would have resulted in the annihilation of Turkish Cypriots.

Historical Context: From Ottoman Rule to British Colonialism and the Rise of Enosis 

Cyprus was liberated from Venetian rule by the Ottoman Empire in 1571 and remained under Ottoman administration for over 300 years. During this period, both Muslim Turks and Orthodox Greeks coexisted under a system of religious tolerance and administrative autonomy. However, the British takeover in 1878 marked the beginning of a new era of strategic manipulation and demographic tension.

Following World War I, Britain unilaterally annexed Cyprus, despite international agreements. As the British prepared to withdraw from their colonies after World War II, Greece began pushing for Enosis — the union of Cyprus with Greece  — a policy that directly threatened the rights and existence of Turkish Cypriots.

The Zurich-London Agreements of 1959 established the Republic of Cyprus as a bi-communal state with equal rights for both Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Yet, the Greek Cypriot leadership under Archbishop Makarios immediately began undermining the constitutional guarantees of the Turkish Cypriot community. The result was a campaign of terror and ethnic cleansing carried out by EOKA and later EOKA-B, Greek nationalist paramilitary groups, which targeted Turkish Cypriots with massacres, forced displacement, and systematic violence.

By the early 1970s, Greek Cypriot forces, backed by the Greek military junta, were preparing to eliminate the Turkish Cypriot population and achieve Enosis. The July 15, 1974 coup, which deposed Makarios and installed Nikos Sampson, a known EOKA-B leader, was the final trigger that led Türkiye to invoke its guarantor rights and launch the Cyprus Peace Operation.

The 1974 Cyprus Peace Operation

Türkiye’s intervention was not an act of aggression but a defensive operation carried out under the international legal framework established by the Zurich-London Agreements and UN Security Council Resolution 353, which called for the restoration of peace and constitutional order in Cyprus.

The operation prevented the annihilation of Turkish Cypriots, who were facing systematic extermination. As Nikos Sampson himself admitted in 1981: “If Turkey had not intervened, not only would I have proclaimed Enosis, I would have also annihilated the Turks in Cyprus”. 

During the operation, Türkiye lost 498 soldiers and 786 Turkish Cypriot fighters, many of whom were members of the Turkish Resistance Organization (TMT). The operation ultimately led to the establishment of the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus in 1975, which later declared independence as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) in 1983.

Western Misrepresentation and the Two-State Reality 

Despite the clear historical and legal justification for the operation, Western media and institutions have consistently framed it as an “invasion” or “occupation”. This narrative ignores the systematic persecution of Turkish Cypriots, the Greek coup, and the failure of the international community to protect the Turkish Cypriot population.

The TRNC, proclaimed in 1983, remains recognized only by Türkiye, while the Greek Cypriot administration enjoys diplomatic legitimacy and EU membership. Yet, the two-state reality is not a recent development — it is the result of decades of failed negotiations and Greek Cypriot intransigence.

As Turkish Cypriot President Ersin Tatar has stated: “There are two states on the island. A solution must be based on the sovereignty of both peoples”. 

The Palestinian Parallel: A Warning Ignored 

The plight of Turkish Cypriots bears a striking resemblance to that of Palestinians — both were subjected to colonial manipulation, ethnic cleansing, and marginalization by nationalist movements backed by external powers. Just as Zionism sought to erase the Palestinian presence in historic Palestine, Enosis aimed to eliminate the Turkish Cypriot identity from Cyprus.

Had Türkiye not intervened in 1974, Turkish Cypriots might have faced a fate similar to that of Palestinians: displacement, occupation, and statelessness. Instead, the Peace Operation ensured their survival and laid the foundation for the TRNC — a sovereign state in all but name.

Cyprus: The Eastern Mediterranean’s Geopolitical Battleground

There is a rule in international politics: those who believe the Middle East is the epicenter of unrest have not yet grasped the geopolitical reality of Cyprus. The island, often romanticized as a cultural crossroads, has long since transformed into a strategic chess piece, moved at will by external powers. While global headlines remain fixated on Gaza, an equally concerning dynamic is unfolding in Cyprus—one that echoes historical developments in Palestine and carries profound implications for Türkiye and Turkish Cypriots.

As geopolitical alignments in the Eastern Mediterranean solidify, the deepening cooperation between Greece, the Greek Cypriot administration, and Israel is no longer a secret. Joint military exercises, energy collaborations, and the expansion of strategic bases illustrate a partnership that extends beyond security, forming a geopolitical bulwark against Türkiye. This strategy is further reinforced by Western states and institutions seeking to curtail Türkiye’s regional influence, confining it to its coastal waters and limiting its geopolitical and economic reach.

In this broader framework, Cyprus has become a critical hub for Western military operations. The United Kingdom—maintaining two sovereign military bases on the island since Cyprus’ independence—has long provided the U.S. with strategic access, and more recently, Israel as well. The Greek Cypriot administration has also allowed Israel to use its bases for military operations in Gaza, embedding itself deeper within a hegemonic military strategy. The expansion of the Andreas Papandreou Air Base in Paphos to NATO standards with U.S. funding serves as the clearest signal yet: Cyprus has transitioned from a passive actor to a forward operating base for Western power projection.

Israeli intelligence agencies have also intensified their presence in southern Cyprus, particularly around airports and security infrastructure under the pretext of counterterrorism. However, history shows that such operations rarely remain confined to their stated missions. Surveillance, economic espionage, and military coordination are likely components of a broader strategy integrating Cyprus into Israel’s regional defense calculus.

The U.S. is deepening its entrenchment in the Eastern Mediterranean following a familiar pattern of military expansion under the guise of “strategic stability.” US bases in Greece have multiplied, making Cyprus the next logical steppingstone. Recent military agreements have granted U.S. forces expanded access to both Greek and Cypriot facilities, effectively transforming them into platforms for Middle Eastern power projection.

This pattern mirrors U.S. interventions elsewhere: first establishing footholds under the pretense of regional security, followed by long-term deployments that turn host nations into military satellites. From Iraq to Afghanistan, Libya to Syria, U.S. interventions—ostensibly aimed at stability—have often resulted in economic devastation and geopolitical chaos.

Now, Washington envisions transforming Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East”—a luxury destination under U.S. control, serving both economic and strategic goals. Given America’s history, it is reasonable to predict that Gaza will either be annexed by Israel or remain under permanent U.S. economic and security management. The forced displacement of Palestinians appears to be part of this strategy, alongside U.S. interest in Gaza’s offshore gas fields.

A similar strategy is unfolding in Cyprus. Western investors are rapidly acquiring prime coastal real estate, shaping the island into both an economic and military stronghold—prioritizing Western-Israeli interests over Turkish Cypriot rights and regional stability.

The discovery of vast gas reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean has intensified geopolitical tensions. While Israel, Greece, and the Greek Cypriots—under Western patronage—advance the EastMed pipeline project, Türkiye has been systematically excluded. However, this costly project has become legally unfeasible since the 2019 Türkiye-Libya Maritime Agreement, which mandates that such an endeavor requires consent from at least one of these two nations. This legal reality underscores the broader geopolitical contest in the region.

The EU’s support for an arrangement that deliberately sidelines Türkiye—despite its position as the most logical transit route for gas to Europe—exposes Western double standards in energy politics. Meanwhile, U.S. military bases in Greece and Cyprus reinforce that the region is both an energy battlefield and a military instrument wielded against Ankara.

Additionally, the U.S. presence serves to counterbalance Russia, which lost significant Mediterranean access after Syria war. The Mediterranean is thus becoming an increasingly contested space between superpowers, with Cyprus at its center.

EU Hypocrisy and the Betrayal of Turkish Cypriots

Before accusing others of imperialism, the European Union must scrutinize its own actions. While some European politicians denounce Türkiye’s presence in Cyprus as “neo-Ottomanism,” they endorse an imperialist strategy reinforcing Western hegemony. The EU’s 2004 acceptance of the Greek Cypriot administration—despite its violation of the 1960 treaties—was driven by ideological and religious biases rather than legal principles.

At the same time, the EU labels Türkiye’s presence as an “occupation,” ignoring the legal framework affirmed by international agreements, the Council of Europe, and even the Greek Supreme Court. The Greek Cypriot leadership’s open coordination with Israel and NATO dismantles any pretense of neutrality. While calling for peace, Greek Cypriot policies exacerbate division and invite foreign militarization—placing Cyprus on the brink of escalation.

Cyprus in the Multipolar Mediterranean: Breaking Western Hegemony

The Cyprus question is no longer just a regional dispute but a critical front in the global shift toward multipolarity. While the U.S. and NATO seek to maintain the island as a militarized outpost—anchoring their control over the Eastern Mediterranean’s energy routes and countering Turkish influence—alternative power centers are emerging that challenge this Atlanticist dominance. Russia, China, and regional players like Türkiye are reshaping the geopolitical landscape, offering the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) new avenues for recognition and economic integration outside Western frameworks.

The U.S. strategy relies on turning Cyprus into a NATO-Israeli forward base, deepening military cooperation with Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration while excluding Türkiye from energy projects like the EastMed pipeline. Yet this vision clashes with reality: the Türkiye-Libya maritime agreement has legally undermined the EastMed project, while Ankara’s growing defense autonomy and partnerships with Moscow and Beijing threaten to disrupt NATO’s Mediterranean calculus. Russia, in particular, has taken concrete steps toward legitimizing the TRNC by relocating consular services there and exploring direct flights to Ercan Airport—a subtle but significant challenge to the West’s diplomatic blockade.

Meanwhile, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) looms as a potential game-changer. Should Beijing extend infrastructure investments to Northern Cyprus, it could integrate the TRNC into Eurasian trade networks, bypassing EU and U.S. sanctions. Already, Türkiye’s deepening ties with BRICS+ nations and defense cooperation with Russia signal a broader rejection of Western unilateralism. The Mediterranean, once an American-dominated lake, is becoming a contested space where Turkish drones, Russian diplomacy, and Chinese economic clout erode U.S. primacy.

For the TRNC, multipolarity offers a path to survival and eventual recognition. Rather than relying on stagnant UN negotiations, Northern Cyprus can leverage Türkiye’s strategic partnerships—from Azerbaijan’s political backing to potential Qatari and Pakistani support—to break its isolation. The more Washington pushes militarization in Southern Cyprus, the more it accelerates anti-Western alignment across the region. The emerging axis of Türkiye, Russia, and China does not just defend the TRNC’s sovereignty; it undermines the very logic of a U.S.-controlled Mediterranean, paving the way for a truly multipolar order where small states are no longer forced to submit to Atlanticist diktats.

The future of Cyprus will be decided not in Brussels or Washington, but in the unfolding contest between unipolar coercion and multipolar sovereignty. As Western hegemony frays, the TRNC’s best hope lies in anchoring itself to this new Eurasian reality—one where Mediterranean security is negotiated among equals, not imposed by distant powers.

Main graph by Sabah Newspaper