Is the Middle East being redrawn without changing its borders? Not through new agreements that divide land, but through a fast-growing network of ports, trade corridors, railways, energy links, and data cables. The main question may no longer be who owns the location, but who can turn that location into economic value and make it more useful to pass through than to bypass.
This is where the idea of an “Economic Sykes–Picot” becomes useful. It is not a literal comparison with history, but a way to describe how influence is changing. The original Sykes–Picot was linked to dividing areas of influence in the Levant. Today, economic roles are being reshaped in a different way. Some countries want to become sea gateways, others land corridors, while others aim to become centers for energy, manufacturing, and data. If the first Sykes–Picot changed the value of borders, the new one may change the value of geography.
Recent regional disruptions have changed the way countries think about trade and influence. For many years, the shortest and cheapest route was usually considered the best. Today, a route must also remain safe and open during crises. Recent remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump about “control” of the Strait of Hormuz, including his suggestion that it be treated as U.S. territory, show how important strategic passages have again become. Countries are therefore looking not only for efficient routes, but also for safer and more reliable alternatives.
But having a corridor does not mean receiving most of its economic value. A modern corridor is much more than a road for trucks. It can include transport, energy, communications, storage, manufacturing, and services. Trade may pass through a country without creating much benefit for its economy. The real winner is the country that can turn transit into investment, jobs, exports, and lasting economic activity, while keeping a larger share of the value created along the route.
The same change is happening in energy and the digital economy. Having several energy routes and electricity links reduces dependence on one source or path. Data cables, data centers, and artificial intelligence are also making digital connections more valuable. In the future, the most important locations may be those where trade, energy, and information meet. Economic strength will increasingly depend on having different options and networks that give countries more freedom to act and make decisions.
Geography creates an opportunity, but it does not guarantee success. Trade corridors do not always follow the shortest route; they also look for efficiency, stability, and reliability. Fast border procedures, efficient customs, strong infrastructure, and a good investment environment have therefore become part of the value of location. Iraq is one example. In 2026, the World Bank approved $900 million for transport corridors, including a route linking Baghdad toward Syria and Jordan, as part of wider efforts to improve regional economic connections.
At the same time, major and regional powers, together with companies and investment funds, are helping shape this new map through ports, corridors, energy projects, and data networks, each according to its own interests. The important question is why the region should not also help shape it. Weak Arab economic integration and the focus on separate national priorities have made it harder to build shared economic interests. This map is not being drawn in secret; it is taking shape in front of us. Will the region help shape it, or simply adjust to it?
With the original Sykes–Picot, the fear was that the region would find its borders drawn without its participation. With the Economic Sykes–Picot, the risk may be that trade, energy, and data routes are built around it. Geography creates opportunity, but it does not create influence on its own. In the Middle East now taking shape, the advantage will go to those who turn transit into value, value into production, and production into economic influence. Geography matters, but what matters more is turning it into a position that the new map cannot easily bypass.
Is the Middle East being redrawn without changing its borders? Not through new agreements that divide land, but through a fast-growing network of ports, trade corridors, railways, energy links, and data cables. The main question may no longer be who owns the location, but who can turn that location into economic value and make it more useful to pass through than to bypass.
This is where the idea of an “Economic Sykes–Picot” becomes useful. It is not a literal comparison with history, but a way to describe how influence is changing. The original Sykes–Picot was linked to dividing areas of influence in the Levant. Today, economic roles are being reshaped in a different way. Some countries want to become sea gateways, others land corridors, while others aim to become centers for energy, manufacturing, and data. If the first Sykes–Picot changed the value of borders, the new one may change the value of geography.
Recent regional disruptions have changed the way countries think about trade and influence. For many years, the shortest and cheapest route was usually considered the best. Today, a route must also remain safe and open during crises. Recent remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump about “control” of the Strait of Hormuz, including his suggestion that it be treated as U.S. territory, show how important strategic passages have again become. Countries are therefore looking not only for efficient routes, but also for safer and more reliable alternatives.
But having a corridor does not mean receiving most of its economic value. A modern corridor is much more than a road for trucks. It can include transport, energy, communications, storage, manufacturing, and services. Trade may pass through a country without creating much benefit for its economy. The real winner is the country that can turn transit into investment, jobs, exports, and lasting economic activity, while keeping a larger share of the value created along the route.
The same change is happening in energy and the digital economy. Having several energy routes and electricity links reduces dependence on one source or path. Data cables, data centers, and artificial intelligence are also making digital connections more valuable. In the future, the most important locations may be those where trade, energy, and information meet. Economic strength will increasingly depend on having different options and networks that give countries more freedom to act and make decisions.
Geography creates an opportunity, but it does not guarantee success. Trade corridors do not always follow the shortest route; they also look for efficiency, stability, and reliability. Fast border procedures, efficient customs, strong infrastructure, and a good investment environment have therefore become part of the value of location. Iraq is one example. In 2026, the World Bank approved $900 million for transport corridors, including a route linking Baghdad toward Syria and Jordan, as part of wider efforts to improve regional economic connections.
At the same time, major and regional powers, together with companies and investment funds, are helping shape this new map through ports, corridors, energy projects, and data networks, each according to its own interests. The important question is why the region should not also help shape it. Weak Arab economic integration and the focus on separate national priorities have made it harder to build shared economic interests. This map is not being drawn in secret; it is taking shape in front of us. Will the region help shape it, or simply adjust to it?
With the original Sykes–Picot, the fear was that the region would find its borders drawn without its participation. With the Economic Sykes–Picot, the risk may be that trade, energy, and data routes are built around it. Geography creates opportunity, but it does not create influence on its own. In the Middle East now taking shape, the advantage will go to those who turn transit into value, value into production, and production into economic influence. Geography matters, but what matters more is turning it into a position that the new map cannot easily bypass.
Is the Middle East being redrawn without changing its borders? Not through new agreements that divide land, but through a fast-growing network of ports, trade corridors, railways, energy links, and data cables. The main question may no longer be who owns the location, but who can turn that location into economic value and make it more useful to pass through than to bypass.
This is where the idea of an “Economic Sykes–Picot” becomes useful. It is not a literal comparison with history, but a way to describe how influence is changing. The original Sykes–Picot was linked to dividing areas of influence in the Levant. Today, economic roles are being reshaped in a different way. Some countries want to become sea gateways, others land corridors, while others aim to become centers for energy, manufacturing, and data. If the first Sykes–Picot changed the value of borders, the new one may change the value of geography.
Recent regional disruptions have changed the way countries think about trade and influence. For many years, the shortest and cheapest route was usually considered the best. Today, a route must also remain safe and open during crises. Recent remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump about “control” of the Strait of Hormuz, including his suggestion that it be treated as U.S. territory, show how important strategic passages have again become. Countries are therefore looking not only for efficient routes, but also for safer and more reliable alternatives.
But having a corridor does not mean receiving most of its economic value. A modern corridor is much more than a road for trucks. It can include transport, energy, communications, storage, manufacturing, and services. Trade may pass through a country without creating much benefit for its economy. The real winner is the country that can turn transit into investment, jobs, exports, and lasting economic activity, while keeping a larger share of the value created along the route.
The same change is happening in energy and the digital economy. Having several energy routes and electricity links reduces dependence on one source or path. Data cables, data centers, and artificial intelligence are also making digital connections more valuable. In the future, the most important locations may be those where trade, energy, and information meet. Economic strength will increasingly depend on having different options and networks that give countries more freedom to act and make decisions.
Geography creates an opportunity, but it does not guarantee success. Trade corridors do not always follow the shortest route; they also look for efficiency, stability, and reliability. Fast border procedures, efficient customs, strong infrastructure, and a good investment environment have therefore become part of the value of location. Iraq is one example. In 2026, the World Bank approved $900 million for transport corridors, including a route linking Baghdad toward Syria and Jordan, as part of wider efforts to improve regional economic connections.
At the same time, major and regional powers, together with companies and investment funds, are helping shape this new map through ports, corridors, energy projects, and data networks, each according to its own interests. The important question is why the region should not also help shape it. Weak Arab economic integration and the focus on separate national priorities have made it harder to build shared economic interests. This map is not being drawn in secret; it is taking shape in front of us. Will the region help shape it, or simply adjust to it?
With the original Sykes–Picot, the fear was that the region would find its borders drawn without its participation. With the Economic Sykes–Picot, the risk may be that trade, energy, and data routes are built around it. Geography creates opportunity, but it does not create influence on its own. In the Middle East now taking shape, the advantage will go to those who turn transit into value, value into production, and production into economic influence. Geography matters, but what matters more is turning it into a position that the new map cannot easily bypass.
comments