They have "ready access" to India, China, the Middle East, Turkey, South-East Asia and East-Africa - a lot of the markets of the future. I'm not including Russia in that list as you did, because their access to Russia isn't better than their access to Europe as far as I can see - while train transport in Central Asia is admittedly gaining in importance and possibilities, the main method of transport remains shipping, and then getting to European Russia still requires going through the Med.

But yeah, I really don't see how controlling Syrian seaports would help their access to Europe (and more distantly the Americas, although for those it might actually be more interesting to go either around the Cape of Good Hope or across the Pacific, depending on your destination in the Americas). Even if you assume transport through Iraq is easy as pie - and that's a big assumption - you're still talking about long land transport that's just not competitive compared to the sea route through the Strait of Hormuz and Suez Channel (especially if you then have to put things on a ship in the Syrian port anyhow, as each change of transportation method will create a good bit of extra costs). I work with commercial shipping on a daily basis, so I know what I'm talking about here.

King Hussain of Jordan? What does he have to do with it now? And I quite agree that there's an ugly history between Arabs and Persians - which makes it all the more mystifying why you're claiming Iran should consider it a priority to cultivate good ties with Iraq and Syria both just so it can get access to Syrian ports it doesn't need.

Of course, if facing the full armed force of NATO plus the Arab states. Then all they can do is raise the cost of the war by attacking Israel and mobilizing its handful of allies in the region.