When you say "that access is one of the reasons that Iraq and Iran have been foes for so long", are you talking about the Mediterranean that neither country has any access at all to? Nor do I see why they should need that access, either.

It would be hard to overstate the importance of the issue of access to the Mediterranean in the 19th century, or the several centuries before that, but that was mostly about the Britons on the one hand, who had India in mind, and the Russians on the other who needed access to the oceans from their southern ports that didn't risk freezing shut. In the 20th and 21st century, the Med is important as a key part of the trade lane from East-Asia to Europe over which vast amounts of all kinds of goods are transported, and of course military vessels can take the same route, but I'm really not sure what either Iraq or Iran would be supposed to do with Syrian seaports on the Mediterranean. Block that lane? They can do that far easier if so inclined on the Bab al-Mandab, the strait at the south end of the Red Sea. Though the only strait they'd ever have any realistic chance of blocking is the Strait of Hormuz, and while that certainly would screw over the rest of the world by cutting off much of its oil supply, it would also cut heavily into their own income.

And Iran and Iraq have access to much of the Middle East and certainly all of East-Africa through the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz - having to go through the Med would be a detour to say the least, and involve the choke point of the Suez Canal.

I really have to ask: what do you think Iran needs a Mediterranean port for, either on commercial or on military grounds?