The Start of Another Decade of Conflict and Denial in the Middle East?
By: Ben Shares
Tags: Syria, Middle East, Iran

A man carries his baby through a rubble covered street in war-torn Syria

Whilst I left primary school, left London for Devon, sat my GCSEs, left sixth form and got a job, what had started as civil unrest in Syria evolved into a multifaceted struggle for control of the Middle East. A struggle that has and continues to tare families and nations apart. This struggle has raged for thousands of years and always the people of the Middle East suffer. If it was not Persia, it was Macedonia. If not Macedonia, the Mongols. England played its ‘divine’ part in the crusades of course. Until promises made to the Arab people, in exchange for their combative efforts against the Ottoman Empire, were broken as part of the partition and abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate by non-other than the French, British, Italians and Russians (although emphasis should be primarily placed on Britain and France). Despite Lawrence’s efforts to represent Arab interests, the Sykes-Picot agreement carved away thousands of years of history, with a single stroke of a pencil and ruler. Thus, indeed, the Middle East changed forever.

The map of the Middle East after the Sykes-Picot agreement, which resulted in the carving up of the region

You would be forgiven for thinking that the division, of one of the most historically and culturally significant regions in the world, would require careful consideration. It would be no falsehood to say that this was not the case. Sykes had only visited, the regions he would divide, as a tourist and spoke no Arabic. It is fair to say that he was not an expert on the matters that he advised Churchill on. In fact, the first draft of the borders you see above were ad-libbed: invented by Sykes off-the-cuff, as it were. There were no clear cut cultural, lingual, religious or other kind of distinctions between the areas he split. To summarise, he just decided that they looked like good places for lines. One begins to understand the character of Sykes when they read minutes from the cabinet meetings. When asked of the nature of his plans in the Middle East, he replied, “I should like to draw a line from the ‘e’ in Acre to the last ‘k’ in Kirkuk”. Of course, it is true, that significant negotiations were still required with Faisal, the Arab people’s representative at the negotiations of 1916, 1918 and Versailles in 1920, as well as with (Super Mario himself) Georges Clémenceau.

Georges Clémenceau

However, it is not an exaggeration to say that the Middle East was changed forever by the graphite of one man’s HB pencil. Which makes it all the more difficult for me, as I am decedent of the Sykes family of Sledmere in Yorkshire and find myself a relative of a man that I struggle to do anything but hate. Then again, I also find myself a relative of Richard III. A king who undoubtedly takes a close second place, behind King Herod, as one of history’s most hated figures, if not most hated king, so there’s that.

The modern generation are so used to seeing the Middle East in ruin and it’s people held at gun point. We forget it’s significance. Agriculture and the keeping of cattle first appeared in Iraq. The first record of a trading and financial transaction was found in Syria from 2300 BCE. The first library of all the world — that would be Nineveh in Iraq in the 7th Century.

It is the site of the Garden of Eden.

The Middle East is steeped in history. It is no wonder that religions covet it to be their holy land. Furthermore, it is clear that appreciation of the Middle East did not run high amongst the Conservative government’s conscience as they took it for themselves. The map above may appear meaningless to you. Not everyone can be expected to take an impassioned interest in the Middle East. In fact, in 2015 of 37% of young Americans could find Iraq on a map. If you would like to see how familiar you are with the Middle East try and label a blank map before you look at the map below. However, I warn you, you may shock yourself.

A modern, fully labelled map of the Middle East

Another one hundred years of disputes of influence between the world’s largest powers and minor factions’ territorial disputes has changed the lay of the land, but not beyond recognition for Sykes and his colleagues. However, what has not changed is the deep set resentment of colonial and foreign interference. Who can blame them? It is no different from (the hypothetical situation of) Haiti redefining England’s border with Scotland. It seems absurd when flipped the other way around. However, it is all too easy for Western powers, especially those with significant colonial pasts, to see representation of their interests in foreign powers as a rite of passage or as a duty. The lines blur here and it becomes more of a ideological argument about colonialism — something that I’d like to avoid as it gets heated quickly. Adversely, I think it is fair to say that the management of imperialism in the Middle East is not one of Colonialism’s strong points. You don’t have to be a Marxist to see that. However, I wouldn’t land everything at colonialism’s door step for the Middle East, but is nonetheless important to remember that the borders of these Middle Eastern nations were drawn in the same room that Boris Johnson now sits in, again, making decisions that will influence the Middle East’s future.

The 2010’s were a decade not unlike the others that had come before it: Middle Eastern plight grew (unchecked). Leaders of Western powers came and went, while their legacies in the Middle East did not diminish. Obama’s attempt to neutralise the growing threat of Iran was seen by his critics as nothing more than appeasement. The Iranian Nuclear Deal saw vast cash-flows into the hands of those that backed the terrorist organisations that the United States and its allies were united in fighting against. Despite a change of government the United States and United Kingdom were coming from a rocky foundation. The illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not favorable back at home. Bush and Blair’s ‘War on Terror’ was considered by many ‘The War for Oil’.

The much disputed evidence for Weapons of Mass Destruction and the possible murder of those investigating the existence of WMDs made the United States and Kingdom look less than innocent (whether they were guilty or not). The name David Christopher Kelly might not ring thousands of bells but I will refill your memory. Kelly was employed by the MoD, here in Britain, having formerly been a weapons inspector with the United Nations. The same United Nations that said that invasion of Iraq was unlawful. Kelly spoke to the Observer :

“ They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were — facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.”

However, Kelly was happy with the majority of the dossier claiming that Hussein possessed WMDs at the time of invasion. Nonetheless his body was discovered in his house in Oxfordshire — wrists slit and coproxamol ingested. The controversy of the invasion reached an all time high. The campaign continued. Countries that considered themselves keepers of the peace received condemnation and their failing military operations fell into disrepute. Desperate to disassociate themselves from the failings of previous administrations, Osama Bin Laden was executed in 2011 and US and UK troops withdrawn. Tensions with Iran never diminished. Russia, who like the UK and US, had had a stake in the Middle East since Sykes border redefinition in 1916, allied themselves with Iran. Thus creating a new Cold War. Despite this second sentiment of a cold war, Syria was piping hot and in 2011 minor unrest exploded into one of the most devastating, destructive and complex wars in history.

A traditional war, best summarised by looking to the World Wars, is relatively simple and relies upon there being two sides. The Syrian Civil War (yes civil) has several sides all fighting one another and fighting for different things. War is not as simple as it was, when Britain and France divided the Middle East among themselves some one hundred and four years ago, hence why wars in the Middle East can be primarily deemed unsuccessful: there are unforeseen consequences, such as power vacuums and alike, that only cause space for terrorist organisations to spring back.

What’s more in 2014, the United States extended it’s operations in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan continued to rage, with the taliban imposing horrific living conditions on those caught in their territories (especially women), and in 2015 the Yemen war erupted — thrusting the country into humanitarian crisis. The ‘Yemen: 2019 Humanitarian Needs Overview’ revealed that 24 million people require humanitarian aid or protection with 14.3 million people’s needs being ‘acute’. Yemen was unstable economically, which inevitably led to the removal of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, the pro Saudi-Arabia ‘President’ of Yemen, by the Houthi Movement. Saudi Arabia continues to lead intensive, gruelling military action in Yemen which has directly resulted in 4,800 civilian casualties by Saudi-Arabian airstrikes alone, with 7,000 being killed directly by military action since 2016. Yes, those are airstrikes using British manufactured missiles. These missiles made their way to the Saudi-Arabians as a continuation of Britain’s long arms related agreements with the Saudis, partially as a consequence of the controversial £42bn Al-Yamamah arms deal that Margaret Thatcher signed, as well as the use of the influence of Mark Thatcher (whose construction projects in Saudi-Arabia were quickly approved). The crisis in Yemen worsens as two-thirds of the country, 20 million, are in ‘famine’. Two million children under five desperately require means to prevent death by malnutrition. Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan are in crisis.

I had written this far in the article when I woke up to the news that Iran’s most taxing General, Qasem Soleimani, had been assassinated by a US airstrike. In some regards, this was some of the most shocking news of direct action to emerge from the Middle East, especially from Iran, in recent years — most certainly since the nuclear deal. Soleimani was a genius at fighting war with the Americans and British through proxy. He funded militias and terrorist groups so that Iran never had to take direct responsibility for those attacks on tankers or those attacks on Saudi-Arabian oil facilities or the proxy conflict with Israel. In some ways it seems fitting for him to assassinated by the Americans in a divert attack. Furthermore, a more than apparent attack that took place in Iraq and also killed Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis (something that has not been as widely reported as The Honest Times would like). The dispelling of US troops from Iraq would mean major set backs to the US campaign there.

The argument for complete withdrawal from the Middle East is a compelling one — that way the West could not be seen to be the evil ones by the thousands that have taken to the streets in protest and mourning for Soleimani’s funeral. This argument doesn’t always fall flat like some like to believe. The Middle East is a Jenga tower, with the West and Iran or Russia as the players of the game. The West removed the first block in 1916. They initiated the current course of events. What has happened is that the West and Russia have gotten deeper and deeper, removing more and more blocks — all that remains now is for the tower to collapse completely. With this in mind one could say that the West should never have got involved in the Middle East in the first place and they should withdraw immediately. If only it were that simple. The counter to this of course is one of conscience. Millions live in persecution by extremist states (such as Iran that execute those who are homosexual) and militant terrorist organisations that brutally abuse women and children and oppress their human rights based upon gender in the most horrific ways (such as the taliban and ISSIS). Is it not right that as those that started this mess and those with the means to stop this that we should try? Again it is not that simple. One could argue that the West colonised them until imperialism was frowned upon and then they thrust democracy or a puppet dictator in power, neither of which these nations were ready for. These nations, like Iran, persecute homosexuality just like the British and English governments and religion did for hundreds of years — the Middle East will modernise best on its own, without foreign interference. And the counter arguments go on and on. It’s clear there is no simple solution.

It is apparent that political leaders of the West must question their presence in the Middle East, especially as the now waits for Iran’s ‘revenge’.

The crisis deepens.