Hmm I am getting the impression that you believe Enver's ambitions in Europe were more than I think they were.
Erickson, Ordered to Die p 27discusses a letter from Sait Halim to Ambassador Wangeheim which Erickson regards these as being the closest we get to written war aims Six points
1] Germany promises to help in the abolition of the capitulations
2] Germany agrees to lend its support with Rumania & Bulgaria and it will see to it that Turkey secures a fair agreement with Bulgaria with reference to possible spoils of war
3] Germany will not conclude peace unless (all) Turkish territories which may be occupied by its enemies in the course of the war, are evacuated
4] Should Greece enter the war and be defeated by Turkey Germany will see to it that the (Aegean) islands are returned (to Turkey)
5] Germany will secure for Turkey a small correction her eastern border which shall place Turkey in direct contact with the Muslims of Russia
6] Germany will see to it that Turkey receives an appropriate war indemnity
A few sentences later Erickson says "It is important to note that there was no mention of the recovery of any part of the Balkans lost in 1912 and 1913 or of the Armenian vilayets lost in 1877. It is also important to note that Turkey was not hostile to either Bulgaria or Rumania."
Do you have the date on these six points? I looks like a later in the war type set of point. ITTL, the Ottomans have given up on the Balkans outside of Greece. It was a major point of the treaty. I can't exactly speak to what the Italian leaders want with Greece, but to the Ottomans the Greece sphere of influence is to counter either the UK or the AH/Bulgarian influence. Sure the Ottomans would like to regain parts of Greece, but really the Ottomans don't want to see an AH or British or Bulgarian naval base in Athens or Salonika. In fact, the Ottomans offered Italy a larger portion of Greece as its sphere of influence but Italy declined. The original offer was basically everything the Venetians had ever owned less lands already controlled by Ottomans, Salonika, and Cyprus and a few small islands. At this point, I was asking the Italians to send supply ships directly to Haifa.
I could easily be misreading Enver's ambition. It is always difficult to project someone's actions when you remove major life changing events (loss against Russia in 1914, setbacks in Iraq, not keeping gains in Persia). Think of the Reverse, "What would TR personality be like if the Rough Riders was the most famous military fiasco of the USA in his era?" So here is what I see him doing that leads me to think he will take huge risks at some point for great gains.
1) A couple of sources have mention he was working on plans to invade India. One says he saw himself as an "Alexander the Great" type leader. OTL he sent an small group of envoys to the Afghan leader.
2) He was very aggressive OTL against Russia. Greatly overestimated what his forces could do. Same for Sinai operation.
3) He took a big risk pulling units out of Iraq. This came back to haunt the Ottomans.
So from this I see an aggressive military leader with poor grasp of logistics. He has at least asperations to grandness. He had huge success in Persia and against Russia, at least from his perspective. Minor setback in Basra, but it is contained. Now the next is less clear but in TL I have to make call. He had a naval victory against the British with 6 warships sunk and 3 damaged (yes he takes credit for U-21). He held the British attack to small pocket. He has major diplomatic win with Italy. So as a leader feeling more confident, he feels he can hold Gallipoli. While it has not shown up, the supply situation is better than OTL and will rapidly gain strength as Italian supplies leak in. So he is confident enough to go on the defensive to build up supplies of ammunition for a major attack. He thinks between Italy and Ottomans with AH help, they can keep Greece neutral. This will allow the supply situation to remain manageable.
Now to longer term plans. He knows he can't do them all at the same time.
1) He has taken some of Russian Armenia, but after initial success, he has been trickling forces into Persia. In this area, Baku looks like where to attack towards. Sure, he likely keeps gained Armenian land or trades it for something.
2) Persia/Afghanistan - This is a tough one to call. Sure big gains into Afghanistan looks tempting. But so does taking Persian oil fields and regaining Basra. The issue is that the UK can supply much easier than Ottomans.
3) Sinai/Suez - Tempting option. Lot of what is driving treaty because Ottomans hope to get enough through blockade to allow to build an Railroad across the central Sinai. Basically reverse of what UK did IOTL.
4) Retake Basra. Again, need to build roads and railroads.
Thanks for the feedback. It is easy to misread historical figures.