DOC The Roots of the Conflict in the Middle East: The Power Map Drawn in the Sand by European Interests

The conflict in the Middle East has no single cause, but one of its central roots lies in the way European powers reorganized the territories of the former Ottoman Empire after the First World War. The 1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement and the mandates of the League of Nations created states whose borders were drawn largely according to British and French interests, rather than the ethnic or religious composition of their populations.

The End of the Ottoman Empire
The Ottoman Empire, which had controlled the Levant, Mesopotamia and much of the Arabian Peninsula for centuries, entered the First World War on the side of the Central Powers and was defeated in 1918. The end of Ottoman rule left behind a vast space populated by Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Armenians, Jews, Christians, Sunnis and Shiites, which London and Paris attempted to transform into a system of states allied with their interests.

Before the Ottomans’ final defeat, the British had made competing promises: support for an Arab revolt against the Empire, through the Hussein–McMahon Correspondence, and backing for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, through the Balfour Declaration of 1917. In practice, these commitments were difficult to reconcile with one another and with the secret Anglo-French Sykes–Picot Agreement.

Sykes–Picot: The Division of Spheres of Influence
The Sykes–Picot Agreement, concluded secretly in May 1916 by British diplomat Mark Sykes and Frenchman François Georges-Picot, did not draw the final borders of modern states, but divided Ottoman territories into zones of control and influence. It was negotiated with Russia’s agreement; Russia subsequently withdrew following the Russian Revolution.
Table 1
The agreement also provided nominally for “independent Arab states,” but under Arab suzerainty and European economic, political and administrative influence. In other words, independence was limited: France or Great Britain would control the advisers, financing and officials in their respective zones.

What Criteria Were Used for the Division?
The main criterion was not the self-determination of the populations, but the strategic and economic interests of the victorious powers. The British sought to protect the route to India, control ports in the eastern Mediterranean, secure the oil fields of Mesopotamia and establish a dominant position in the Persian Gulf. France sought influence in the Levant, particularly in Syria and Lebanon, areas historically considered connected to French cultural, commercial and political interests.

The borders partly took Ottoman geographical and administrative realities into account, but they often ignored the continuity of communities. For example, Iraqis were united in a state that brought together Shiite Arabs in the south, Sunni Arabs in the center and Kurds in the north; this combination did not result from a pre-existing national identity, but from postwar decisions.

One essential point: Sykes–Picot did not, by itself, create today’s borders. The Treaties of Sèvres in 1920 and Lausanne in 1923, together with the decisions of the San Remo Conference, largely established the current state architecture.

Western Geopolitical Aims
For Western powers, the Middle East was a central piece of the global balance of power.

Control of communication routes: The British wanted to protect the route to India and control key ports such as Haifa and Acre.

Oil and infrastructure: Mesopotamia was seen as a strategic area for resources and transport routes.

Limiting the influence of other powers: The agreement was also intended to prevent Russian expansion and, later, to manage relations with the new Turkey.

Establishing friendly regimes: The mandates allowed London and Paris to control armies, finances, foreign policy and administration, even though they formally promised to prepare the territories for independence.

Managing contradictory promises: The British attempted to combine support for the Arabs of the Hashemite revolt, the Zionist cause and their own colonial advantages—an equation that generated lasting tensions.

The Leaders of the Newly Formed States
The British often preferred Arab leaders from the Hashemite dynasty, descendants of Hussein bin Ali, the Sharif of Mecca, who had led the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans. This choice offered a dual advantage: it provided Arab legitimacy and allowed London to control the new states through allies dependent on British support.
Table 2
Ethnic and Religious Composition
The states created were, in many cases, multinational and multi-confessional.

Iraq: predominantly Arab, but deeply divided between Shiites, concentrated in the south, Sunnis in the center and Kurds in the north; there were also Jewish, Assyrian and other minority communities. Sunnis, although a minority, were politically favored by the British administration and King Faisal.

Jordan / Transjordan: predominantly Arab and Muslim, with important Bedouin tribes; the Hashemite monarchy became the central element of state identity.

Syria: predominantly Arab and Muslim, with Alawite, Druze, Christian and Kurdish minorities; diversity was amplified by French administration.

Lebanon: historically structured around a balance between Maronite Christians, Sunnis, Shiites and Druze; France particularly favored the Maronite community.

Saudi Arabia: predominantly Arab and Sunni Muslim, with an identity strongly linked to the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam and the House of Saud.

Palestine: at the beginning of the British Mandate, the population was overwhelmingly Arab, predominantly Muslim, with a Christian minority and a Jewish community growing through immigration.

How the State of Israel Emerged
The State of Israel did not emerge solely from a British decision, but from the interplay of several factors: Zionism, British strategic interests, the League of Nations mandate, Jewish immigration, the Holocaust and the international context after the Second World War.

The Balfour Declaration
On November 2, 1917, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent Lionel Walter Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, a letter in which the British government supported “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” The declaration was subsequently incorporated into the British Mandate for Palestine, approved by the League of Nations in 1922.

Its promoters included Zionist leaders such as Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow, who actively lobbied in Britain. British motivations included political sympathies for Zionism, strategic calculations during the war and the hope of gaining Jewish support in the states involved in the conflict.

The British Mandate and Immigration
Under the British Mandate, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased significantly. This strengthened Jewish institutions—settlements, trade unions, schools and self-defense organizations—but also fueled Palestinian Arab fears of losing their land and political prospects. Britannica notes that this influx caused tensions and violence between Jews and Palestinian Arabs.

The Holocaust and International Pressure
After the Holocaust, international support for a Jewish national home or a Jewish state increased. Millions of survivors of Nazi persecution were left without homes or stable citizenship, and the Zionist movement argued that Jewish security required political sovereignty.

The UN Plan and the Declaration of Independence
In 1947, the United Nations adopted a plan to divide Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state and an international regime for Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by the Zionist leadership but rejected by Palestinian Arab leaders and the Arab states.

On May 14, 1948, as the British Mandate ended, the Jewish leadership in Palestine proclaimed the State of Israel. The 1948–1949 war between Israel and neighboring Arab states confirmed the existence of the new state, but left the Palestinian issue unresolved and transformed the conflict into one of the central crises of the Middle East.

Why the Conflict Remained Alive
The legacy of the period from 1916 to 1948 is an overlap of unfulfilled promises: Arabs were promised independence, Jews a national home, and local populations a stable future under European mandate. In reality, borders, elites and institutions were constructed in a way that favored external control and left unresolved tensions between Arabs and Jews, between Sunnis and Shiites, between Kurds and the states in which they lived, as well as between the new monarchies and their societies.

Not all current conflicts can be explained by Sykes–Picot, and some modern borders do not strictly coincide with the 1916 line. But the agreement, the mandates and the Balfour Declaration created the political framework in which identities, territorial claims and the competition for power have evolved to this day.