Why the Middle East Remains a Battlefield: From Ottoman Collapse to Endless Wars

Why the Middle East Remains a Battlefield: From Ottoman Collapse to Endless Wars

KAKALI DAS

At the start of the twentieth century the Middle East stood at a turning point. The great Ottoman Empire that had long ruled much of the region was nearing collapse, and the world’s emerging powers, especially Britain and France, waited in the wings.

What followed was a vicious game of drawing borders and making promises, and in the end the people of the Middle East found themselves caught between long-held dreams of freedom and powerful outside interests. The oil beneath the sands, the religious and cultural diversity above them, and the artificial lines drawn on maps all combined to create a lasting battlefield.

Britain and France, as the Allied powers of World War I, looked at the map of the Middle East and saw opportunity. On one hand they told the Arab peoples that independence from the Ottomans was coming; on the other they promised a homeland for the Jews, who had long endured antisemitism and displacement in Europe. The Arabs were shown a vision of liberation, while Jews were shown a promise of nationhood.

But when the war ended in 1918 the reality was harsh and the promises were broken. The Ottoman Empire collapsed, yet the Arab lands did not become a united independent Arab nation. Instead, Britain and France carved the region into spheres of influence, mandates and colonies. The people of the Middle East had their hopes raised, only to see them dashed.

Those colonial-era divisions mattered. The new borders ignored ethnic lines, ignored sectarian identities, ignored tribal loyalties, and ignored long-standing communities. A land where people of different faiths and languages had often lived side by side was suddenly divided into new states under foreign control. The British and French sought strategic advantage and control of oil, and they drew lines that turned neighbours into adversaries, communities into rivals, and religions into political fault-lines. The legacy of that drawing of the map still affects the region today.

During the Ottoman period the Middle East was organised under a single umbrella. Between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the Ottoman Empire was at its peak, expanding across south-eastern Europe, North Africa and large parts of the Middle East, including what is now Iraq, Syria, Israel, and Egypt. In this era the provinces did not correspond to modern national borders. The people under Ottoman rule, despite many languages, religions and cultures, lived in one political and administrative structure. That empire might not have been peaceful in every part, but the idea of unified rule at least existed.

At the same time, Britain and France had their empires rising. After Britain conquered India it turned its attention west towards the Middle East. One of its major strategic goals was to link its Asian and African colonies with Europe, and the building of the Suez Canal by France in Egypt (completed in 1869) made that possible. The Suez Canal cut travel time between Europe and Asia, and Britain got control of Egypt in 1882. With Egypt under British control, the path into the Middle East and its potential oil reserves opened.

Britain then set its sights on oil. In 1908 oil was discovered in Persia (now Iran) and Britain founded the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. Britain, and to some extent France, began exploring neighbouring lands like Iraq for oil. The weakening Ottoman Empire made this expansion possible. In 1912 and 1913 the Balkan Wars weakened Ottoman power further, and by 1914 when World War I broke out the stage was set for the empire’s collapse.

When World War I began the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Britain’s plan, however, had already taken shape. They recruited Arab leaders such as Hussein Ibn Ali, promising him a united Arab state stretching from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf if he revolted against Ottoman rule. This revolt, known as the Arab Revolt of 1916, with the support of T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), weakened the Ottoman position significantly. The Arabs believed the promise of independence; Britain believed only in removing the Ottomans and securing control.

While the Arabs fought, Britain and France were secretly negotiating the division of Ottoman lands. In 1916 the Sykes-Picot Agreement allotted southern Israel, Jordan and southern Iraq to Britain, and Syria, Lebanon, northern Iraq and southeast Turkey to France. Jerusalem was earmarked for international control.

Simultaneously Britain issued the Balfour Declaration of 1917, promising a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. The Arab hopes and the Jewish hopes were set on separate tracks, but the people of the region were largely left out of the decision-making.

By the time the war ended in 1918 the Allied victory gave Britain and France the means to impose their will. The Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 formalised the partition of the Ottoman Empire. Britain took Mesopotamia (later Iraq), Palestine and Jordan. France took Syria and Lebanon. The Kurds, a distinct people occupying lands across Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria, were promised a state, but that promise was never fulfilled. Over time their lands were divided among the new states. This unresolved Kurdish question remains a major source of tension.

In Iraq, Britain combined three provinces, Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, though each had a very different dominant group: Basra was largely Shia Arab, Baghdad Sunni Arab, and Mosul Kurdish. This forced union created internal friction. Similarly, Britain separated Kuwait from Iraq and made it a protectorate, even as Iraq continued to claim it. Oil-rich Kuwait became a bone of contention.

In the Levant, France separated Lebanon from Syria in 1920, designating Lebanon as a Christian-dominated state while importing large numbers of Shia and Sunni Muslims into its boundaries. France further divided Syria into six zones to prevent unified opposition. All of these moves sowed seeds of future conflict.

Meanwhile Jewish migration to Palestine was growing since 1917. Arab Palestinians viewed the influx as a threat to their land and identity. In 1929 violence erupted when rumours spread of Jewish threats to Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem; Arabs attacked Jews in Hebron, killing dozens. The British, administering the mandate, were unable to control the unrest. The rise of competing nationalisms in one small land was a central part of the growing Middle East conflict.

After World War II, the colonial powers began to lose their grip. The creation of the State of Israel in 1948 was a game-changer. Under the British Mandate the land of Palestine had a large Arab population and a smaller Jewish one. The UN Partition Plan proposed dividing the land and was accepted by Jews but rejected by Arabs. When Israel declared independence, Arab states invaded. The war ended with Israel victorious, but hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced. The refugee crisis began. This was the first in a long series of Arab-Israeli wars.

Between 1948 and 1973 there were four major Arab-Israeli wars: the 1948-49 war, the 1956 Suez Crisis, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In the Six Day War of 1967 Israel swept aside Egypt, Jordan and Syria, capturing the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Golan Heights. These losses shattered the hopes of pan-Arab nationalism, symbolised by Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, and ushered in a new era of division rather than unity.

During the Cold War era the Middle East became a playground for superpower rivalry. The United States and the Soviet Union both sought influence over oil, alliances and territory. Nationalist leaders emerged who challenged Western dominance, such as Nasser in Egypt, but the internal divisions were deep. In 1956 Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal, angering Britain and France, who with Israel attacked Egypt. The U.S. intervened, and Egypt kept the canal. That moment showed that the old colonial powers were losing control but the struggle over who would dominate the Middle East was far from over.

Religion and sectarian identity also grew in importance. The Sunni-Shia divide, which had roots in the early centuries of Islam, became more salient. Territories where one community felt dominated by another began to resist. In Iran the 1979 Islamic Revolution replaced a Western-backed monarchy with a theocratic republic under Ayatollah Khomeini.

That revolution alarmed Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states. Soon Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, invaded Iran in 1980 in a brutal eight-year war, driven in part by fear of the Iranian example and by control of oil and border rights.

In the Gulf region oil became both a source of wealth and a reason for conflict. In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait, setting off the Gulf War and a U.S.–led coalition to drive Iraqi forces out. The Gulf region remains one of the most militarised and unstable parts of the Middle East.

Even when major international wars slowed, internal conflicts surged. Syria, Yemen and Libya each slid into civil war, often backed by external powers. Proxy wars emerged: Saudi Arabia and Iran supported opposing sides, strengthening the sectarian dimension. The rivalry between the Sunni-majority Saudi state and the Shia-led Iran remains a critical axis of instability. Iran’s support for militias such as in Lebanon and in Palestine challenged Israel and its allies.

Why does war continue in the Middle East? First, many of the states were created around 100 years ago with borders drawn by external powers, with little regard for local identity, tribes, sects or history. This legacy means many states live with deep internal division.

Second, the battle over resources, especially oil, continues. Powers both internal and external chase control, giving rise to more conflict.

Third, the unresolved issue of Palestine and the relationship between Israel and its Arab neighbours remains central. The establishment of Israel displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and created a refugee crisis that still fuels anger, despair and militancy.

In more recent years the nature of the conflict has changed but the ingredients remain the same. The growing rivalry between Iran and Israel, often fought through proxy militias and regional alliances, shows how local disputes become part of global contests. The region’s religious and sectarian tensions, Sunni versus Shia, secular versus religious, Arab versus non-Arab, add many layers of difficulty.

The legacy of colonialism, the creation of Israel, the struggle for oil, ethnic division and external interference combine into a complex web where simple peace is almost impossible.

One of the most enduring problems is the lack of resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The land claims, the refugee crisis, the status of Jerusalem, security for Israel, rights for Palestinians, all of those issues have never been fully resolved. Attempts at a two-state solution, peace treaties and negotiations have repeatedly stalled. Thus the Israel issue remains a central driver of tension.

Another factor is the way external powers continue to intervene. Whether during the era of Britain and France, or during the Cold War, or today with the United States, Russia, Iran and others, the region has rarely been allowed to settle its own affairs fully. Foreign military bases, arms sales, funding of proxy forces, and diplomatic pressure keep local conflicts alive rather than letting them fade.

The Middle East has also been a region where modernization, oil wealth, and traditional structures collided. Rapid change generated economic and social dislocation. Young populations with unemployment and limited freedom have often turned to radical politics. These internal pressures add fuel. Environmental and demographic stress, water shortages, climate change, dislocation, also worsen instability.

Because of all this, despite repeated ceasefires, treaties and declarations of peace, the frontier of conflict in the Middle East seems permanent. One war leads to another. One border crisis feeds a civil war. One state’s internal collapse spills across its neighbours. The border drawn by the colonial powers may have faded, but the fractures remain. The feeling of unfinished business, whether over land, identity, justice or resources, haunts the region.

In the end, the Middle East remains a battlefield not because of one single cause but because many causes converge: colonial legacy, oil competition, sectarian identity, border disputes, national trauma, foreign interference, and unresolved justice for Palestinians. Each time one flashpoint is addressed another lies waiting. The scars of history run deep.

Peace remains a possibility, but it will require real recognition of those roots – understanding of how foreign powers drew lines, how communities were divided, how promises were broken. It will require addressing not just surface politics but identity, memory, justice and power. Every time external powers withdraw or recalibrate, internal tensions return.

And so the Middle East, after more than a century of struggle, still watches for a dawn where the guns fall silent and the people can live in stability and dignity.

Cover Photo: Photo by Ramzi Mahmud/Anadolu via Getty Images

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking.  You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com (For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary) Images from different sources.