This article delves into two major historical events that significantly impacted the Middle East and Iran during and after World War I.
By Dr. Tim Orr
The period surrounding World War I was a pivotal time for the Middle East and Iran, marked by significant geopolitical maneuvers and internal struggles for democracy. The Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France redrew the borders of the Middle East, setting the stage for future conflicts. Simultaneously, Iran’s bold attempt to establish a democratic government faced fierce resistance from both internal and external forces. Understanding these historical events is crucial for comprehending the complex dynamics that continue to shape the region today. This article delves into two major historical events that significantly impacted the Middle East and Iran during and after World War I.
We begin with the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a secret deal between Britain and France to partition the Ottoman Empire, which created new borders in the Middle East and disregarded the region's ethnic and religious complexities. We then explore Iran's attempt at democracy in 1906 with the creation of the Majlis, or parliament, and the internal and external challenges that led to its initial failure. Despite the setbacks, the democratic aspirations planted during this period would continue to inspire future generations. By examining these events, we understand the historical roots of current tensions and the ongoing quest for stability and democracy in the Middle East.
During World War I, as battles raged across Europe, the British and French were already plotting the future of the Middle East. They secretly negotiated the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916, named after British diplomat Mark Sykes and French diplomat François Georges-Picot. This plan aimed to carve up the crumbling Ottoman Empire into areas controlled by Britain and France.
The agreement divided the Middle East with little regard for the people living there. Britain would control areas that would become Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine, while France would dominate Syria and Lebanon. These new borders ignored ethnic and religious groups, planting the seeds for future conflicts (Fromkin, 1989). The borders drawn by the Sykes-Picot Agreement did not consider the complex tapestry of ethnic, religious, and tribal affiliations that characterized the region, leading to long-term instability and conflict.
The background leading up to the Sykes-Picot Agreement is deeply rooted in the Ottoman Empire's decline and European powers' ambitions. The Ottoman Empire, often referred to as the "sick man of Europe," was losing its grip on its vast territories, making them ripe for foreign intervention. The British and French, eyeing the rich resources and strategic positions of the Middle Eastern lands, saw an opportunity to expand their influence (Fieldhouse, 2006).
The agreement’s primary motivation was to secure strategic advantages rather than to ensure the welfare of the region's inhabitants. Britain sought to protect its interests in the Persian Gulf and ensure access to India, its most prized colony. On the other hand, France aimed to expand its influence in the Levant, particularly in Syria and Lebanon (Mansfield, 2013).
The Sykes-Picot Agreement had profound implications. The arbitrary borders drawn without regard for ethnic and religious compositions led to current tensions and conflicts. For instance, the creation of Iraq combined three distinct provinces of the Ottoman Empire: Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra, each with its own distinct ethnic and religious communities, including Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shia Arabs. This amalgamation planted the seeds for future sectarian conflicts (Tripp, 2007).
The local populations were largely unaware of the secret agreement and its implications. When the details of the Sykes-Picot Agreement were made public after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it caused outrage among the Arab population, who had been promised independence by the British in exchange for their support against the Ottoman Empire during the Arab Revolt (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016).
Imagine a small village in what is now Syria, where families have lived together for generations. Suddenly, they find themselves under French control, with new laws and foreign officials. This abrupt change creates confusion and resentment, feelings that echo across the region (Mansfield, 2013). The imposition of foreign rule without regard for local governance structures led to resistance and uprisings, such as the Great Syrian Revolt of 1925-1927, which sought to expel French forces from Syria (Gelvin, 2011).
The legacy of the Sykes-Picot Agreement is seen in the continuing instability and conflict in the Middle East. The arbitrary borders and foreign interventions have contributed to numerous conflicts, including the Lebanese Civil War, the rise of ISIS, and ongoing Kurdish struggles for autonomy. The Sykes-Picot Agreement represents a clear example of how colonial ambitions and disregard for local dynamics can lead to long-term instability and conflict (Karsh, 2013).
Iran, though not directly divided by Sykes-Picot, felt the effects. The reshaping of its neighbors and the increasing presence of foreign powers created a tense environment, impacting Iran’s political and economic stability for years to come (Keddie, 2003).
While the British and French drew new lines on maps, Iran was experiencing its political upheaval. In 1906, the people of Iran pushed for a democracy, leading to the creation of the Majlis, or parliament. This was driven by frustration with the ruling Qajar dynasty, seen as corrupt and ineffective (Abrahamian, 1982).
Various factors, including economic hardship, corruption, and the influence of modernist ideas, fueled the Constitutional Revolution of 1906. The Qajar dynasty's inability to manage the country's finances and protect its sovereignty from foreign interference led to widespread discontent. The imposition of foreign control over Iran’s customs revenues by Russia and Britain was particularly humiliating and highlighted the Qajar government's weakness (Afary, 1996).
A diverse coalition spearheaded the revolution, including intellectuals, merchants, and clerics, who sought to limit the Shah’s power and introduce a constitution. Establishing the Majlis was a significant achievement, representing a shift towards modern governance and the rule of law. The new constitution included provisions for a parliamentary system, an independent judiciary, and the protection of civil liberties (Martin, 1989).
However, this effort faced strong opposition. Internally, the Shah and his supporters resisted, fearing loss of control. The traditional elites, including landowners and the clergy, who benefited from the status quo, also opposed the reforms. The clergy, in particular, were divided, with some supporting the constitutional movement and others fearing it would undermine Islamic law (Foran, 1993).
Externally, Russia and Britain, with significant interests in Iran, were against a democratic Iran that could disrupt their influence. Both powers had extensive economic and strategic interests in Iran and were determined to maintain their influence. The Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, which divided Iran into spheres of influence, directly threatened Iran's sovereignty and democratic aspirations (Keddie, 2003).
Picture a bustling bazaar in Tehran, where merchants discuss the exciting possibility of a parliament. There’s hope in the air but also fear. There's a sense of victory as the Majlis convenes and passes a constitution. But by 1911, Russian troops invaded northern Iran to support the Shah, and British pressure from the south crushed the democratic movement. The dream of democracy fades, but the idea persists, inspiring future generations (Martin, 1989).
Despite its initial failure, the Constitutional Revolution of 1906 left a lasting legacy. It marked the beginning of modern political thought in Iran and inspired future movements for democracy and reform. The revolution demonstrated the Iranian people's desire for self-governance and willingness to challenge authoritarian rule. This spirit of resistance and aspiration for democracy would resurface in later movements, including the oil nationalization movement led by Mohammad Mossadegh in the 1950s and the Islamic Revolution of 1979 (Abrahamian, 1982).
The revolution also highlighted the significant role of intellectuals and civil society in shaping political discourse in Iran. The debates and ideas that emerged during this period continued to influence Iranian politics and society, contributing to the ongoing struggle for democracy and human rights (Foran, 1993).
The period surrounding World War I was transformative for the Middle East and Iran. The Sykes-Picot Agreement, driven by British and French ambitions, reshaped the region with lasting consequences. Meanwhile, Iran's attempt at democracy in 1906, though ultimately suppressed, planted the seeds for future democratic aspirations. These stories show how early 20th-century decisions continue to influence the Middle East today, highlighting the importance of understanding our history to navigate the present and future.
Abrahamian, E. (1982). Iran between two revolutions. Princeton University Press.
Afary, J. (1996). The Iranian Constitutional Revolution, 1906-1911: Grassroots democracy, social democracy, & the origins of feminism. Columbia University Press.
Cleveland, W. L., & Bunton, M. (2016). A history of the modern Middle East (6th ed.). Westview Press.
Fieldhouse, D. K. (2006). Western imperialism in the Middle East 1914–1958. Oxford University Press.
Foran, J. (1993). Fragile resistance: Social transformation in Iran from 1500 to the revolution. Westview Press.
Fromkin, D. (1989). A peace to end all peace: The fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the modern Middle East. Holt Paperbacks.
Gelvin, J. L. (2011). The modern Middle East: A history (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Karsh, E. (2013). The tail wags the dog: International politics and the Middle East. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Keddie, N. R. (2003). Modern Iran: Roots and results of revolution. Yale University Press.
Mansfield, P. (2013). A history of the Middle East. Penguin Books.
Martin, V. (1989). Islam and modernism: The Iranian Revolution of 1906. I.B. Tauris.
Tripp, C. (2007). A history of Iraq (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press