>. The US had incredibly high involvement in the Turkish military as a result of NATO. This doesn't make it easier for them to project power there, they invest

>. The US had incredibly high involvement in the Turkish military as a result of NATO. This doesn't make it easier for them to project power there, they invested more into projecting power there. It's still far easier for a bordering state, and if Turkey had ever hinted at altering the strait agreement the USSR likely would have spent more projecting power there. Really, I have no idea what your point is anymore. Nothing you've said has suggested that Turkey, Syria, and Iraq would have been occupied for the past century if they had a canal. I only brought up NATO to demonstrate that the countries already held strategic importance.