The strategic relationship between Greece, Cyprus, Israel, and the United States—known as the “3+1” format—stands as a beacon of stability in the tumultuous Eastern Mediterranean. What began as energy cooperation following natural gas discoveries has evolved into a comprehensive partnership that serves as a bulwark against regional threats. The time has come to formalize and make permanent this alliance.
The Eastern Mediterranean is no longer merely a transit zone but a strategic destination. As American forces address global responsibilities, allies who share our democratic values become invaluable. Greece provides critical infrastructure at Souda Bay and Alexandroupolis for projecting Western influence. Israel brings unmatched intelligence capabilities, technological innovation, and a battle-tested military that serves as the region’s most effective deterrent against shared threats. Cyprus has transformed itself into an indispensable security partner through initiatives like the Cyclops program—focusing on port security, counter-terrorism, and detection of chemical, biological, and radiological threats. The strategic calculation has changed: The West must recognize the Eastern Mediterranean as a unified theater where American interests align with these democratic allies.
A formalized 3+1 alliance will counter malign influences more effectively.
A formalized 3+1 alliance will counter malign influences more effectively. Turkey, under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has emerged as a disruptor, supporting extremist groups from Syria to Libya, threatening maritime boundaries, manipulating migration flows, and harboring Hamas leadership. The threat from Turkey will persist even after Erdoğan eventually departs. Russia continues to expand its regional footprint, while Iran projects power through proxies like Hezbollah. The 3+1 nations have already demonstrated effectiveness by intercepting terror plots and enhancing maritime security, but ad hoc cooperation proves insufficient against systemic challenges.
The economic dimension of this alliance remains vital. The proposed EastMed pipeline would transport natural gas from Israeli and Cypriot fields to European markets via Greece, reducing dependence on Russian energy. The Great Sea Interconnector would link electricity grids, ending the energy isolation of Cyprus and Israel. These projects face threats from Turkish naval incursions to cyber attacks. Only through a formalized alliance with American backing can these nations provide the security umbrella needed for private investment. American energy companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil hold significant interests in regional developments that require protection through institutional frameworks, rather than personal diplomacy.
Military cooperation through exercises like Noble Dina and Argonaut has yielded results. Israel’s air force, combined with Greece’s expanding naval capabilities and modern fighter jets, creates a formidable deterrent. Cyprus provides invaluable intelligence from its strategic position. Operating individually stretches these nations too thin. A permanent alliance enables coordination and burden-sharing that maximizes capabilities.
For the United States, formalizing the 3+1 alliance represents a strategic imperative. The proposed “American-Hellenic-Israeli Eastern Mediterranean Counterterrorism and Maritime Security Partnership Act of 2025” provides the legislative framework, but execution requires executive commitment. This alliance would provide reliable partners who can assume greater responsibility for regional security, allowing American forces to address challenges elsewhere. It would secure vital sea lanes, protect energy infrastructure, counter terrorism, and stabilize a region connecting three continents.
This alliance would provide reliable partners who can assume greater responsibility for regional security, allowing American forces to address challenges elsewhere.
The 3+1 framework represents the western edge of a broader strategic realignment across the Middle East. It complements the Abraham Accords and enhances connectivity with Gulf partners and Egypt. Recent terror attempts on Israeli and Jewish targets in Cyprus and Greece—thwarted through trilateral security cooperation—demonstrate the tangible benefits of this partnership. The Turkish-backed presence of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham in Damascus and Turkey’s emerging economic zone agreement with its client regime in Syria underscore the urgency of institutionalizing our counter-strategy before regional balances shift irreversibly against Western interests.
Critics may argue that formalizing the alliance risks escalating tensions with Turkey, a NATO member. This concern misreads the situation fundamentally. Turkey already views the 3+1 cooperation as threatening and acts accordingly. Only by creating institutional guardrails can the alliance stabilize relations and establish clear consequences for destabilizing actions. Erdoğan respects strength and boundaries, not ambiguity. The alliance will provide a framework for potential Turkish reintegration into regional security structures should Ankara return to democratic norms and abandon its neo-Ottoman ambitions.
The current foundation of American engagement in the region—based largely on personal relationships—creates vulnerability. Institutional frameworks must replace individual connections to secure long-term American interests.
Making the 3+1 alliance permanent requires formalizing defense agreements, establishing coordinating bodies, creating joint forces, integrating defense systems, and providing financial guarantees for critical infrastructure projects. Congressional legislation should establish funding mechanisms for security initiatives while mandating regular strategic dialogues.
The Eastern Mediterranean has emerged as a success story of regional integration among democracies with shared values. By making permanent the 3+1 alliance, this success will endure regardless of which administration holds power in Washington, Athens, Nicosia, or Jerusalem. The stakes demand decisive action.
