Introduction

When we study World War I, our focus typically gravitates toward the trenches of the Western Front, the diplomatic entanglements of European powers, or perhaps the revolutionary upheaval in Russia. Yet one of the conflict’s most profound and enduring legacies played out in the Middle East, where the collapse of the Ottoman Empire – which had governed the region for four centuries – unleashed forces that continue to shape geopolitics to this day.

The Great War irreversibly transformed the Middle East, replacing Ottoman governance with a patchwork of European colonial arrangements disguised as “mandates.” Promises made and broken, borders drawn with ruler-straight lines across ancient communities, and the privileging of European strategic interests over local aspirations created a volatile foundation for the modern Middle East. This pivotal moment deserves our attention not just as a footnote to European history, but as a crucial chapter in understanding today’s regional landscape.

The Ottoman Empire on the Eve of War

By 1914, the Ottoman Empire was already known as “the sick man of Europe” – a once-mighty power weakened by decades of territorial losses, economic decline, and internal reforms that had produced mixed results. Yet it still governed a vast territory stretching from the Balkans to the Arabian Peninsula, including much of what we now know as Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Jordan, and parts of the Arabian Peninsula.

The empire was a multiethnic, multireligious entity where Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, and numerous other groups coexisted under Ottoman rule. While the Sultan-Caliph remained the nominal head of state and religious leader of the empire’s Muslims, real power had shifted to the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) – better known as the “Young Turks” – after the 1908 revolution and subsequent political struggles.

The Young Turks had initiated modernizing reforms but also promoted a more explicitly Turkish national identity for the empire, creating tensions with its Arab, Armenian, and other non-Turkish populations. These tensions would be exploited and exacerbated as the Great Powers pulled the Ottoman Empire into their global conflict.

The Fatal Decision: Entering the War

When war erupted in Europe in August 1914, the Ottoman Empire initially declared neutrality. Yet several factors pushed it toward the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary). Germany had invested heavily in Ottoman infrastructure, including the Berlin-Baghdad Railway project. German military advisors had been working to modernize the Ottoman army. And crucially, many Ottoman leaders viewed Germany as the only major European power without colonial designs on Ottoman territory.

The fateful decision came on October 29, 1914, when Ottoman warships (including two German vessels transferred to Ottoman control) bombarded Russian ports on the Black Sea. Russia declared war on November 2, followed quickly by Britain and France. The Ottoman Empire had thrown its lot in with the Central Powers – a decision that would lead to its dismemberment.

For ordinary people across the Middle East, this decision meant immediate hardship. Ottoman authorities imposed wartime measures including conscription, requisitioning of food and supplies, and security crackdowns. In areas close to combat zones like eastern Anatolia and the Levant coast, civilian populations endured bombardments, forced evacuations, and severe food shortages.

The Arab Revolt: Promise and Betrayal

As the war progressed, Britain sought to undermine Ottoman authority by encouraging Arab rebellion. In 1915-16, through a series of letters between Sir Henry McMahon (British High Commissioner in Egypt) and Sharif Hussein bin Ali of Mecca, the British appeared to promise support for an independent Arab state in most of the Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire in exchange for an Arab revolt against Ottoman rule.

Believing these promises, Sharif Hussein launched the Arab Revolt in June 1916. His forces, assisted by British advisors like T.E. Lawrence (“Lawrence of Arabia”), captured Aqaba and tied down Ottoman troops that might otherwise have been deployed against British forces advancing from Egypt.

Yet even as the British were encouraging Arab independence, they were making contradictory commitments elsewhere. In the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, Britain and France agreed to divide much of the Middle East into their respective spheres of influence after the war. Meanwhile, the 1917 Balfour Declaration expressed British support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” – a territory that had also been promised to the Arabs.

The duplicity of these arrangements became clear after the Bolshevik Revolution, when the new Soviet government published the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement. Arabs who had fought alongside the British felt betrayed, a sentiment that would poison relations between Arab nationalists and Western powers for generations to come.

The Armenian Genocide: Catastrophe Amid Conflict

While much of the Middle Eastern narrative focuses on Arab-Turkish-European dynamics, the war brought catastrophe to the region’s Armenian population. As the Ottoman Empire fought Russian forces in eastern Anatolia, Ottoman authorities viewed the Christian Armenian community with increasing suspicion, accusing them of sympathy with Russia.

Beginning in April 1915, the Ottoman government implemented a systematic campaign of deportation, forced marches, mass killings, and deliberate starvation that resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1-1.5 million Armenians. Similar policies targeted Assyrian and Greek Orthodox communities.

This genocide – though the term remains contested by Turkey to this day – destroyed communities that had been integral to the multicultural fabric of the Middle East for millennia. Cities and regions that had been centers of Armenian culture for centuries were emptied of their Armenian populations, fundamentally altering the demographic and cultural landscape of eastern Anatolia.

The End of the War: New Maps, New Problems

By October 1918, the Ottoman Empire was defeated. The Armistice of Mudros (October 30, 1918) opened the Turkish Straits to Allied vessels and allowed Allied occupation of strategic points across the empire. British, French, Italian, and Greek forces soon occupied various portions of the Ottoman territories.

The 1919 Paris Peace Conference and subsequent Treaty of Sèvres (1920) attempted to formalize the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The treaty would have reduced Turkey to a small rump state in central Anatolia, with territories carved out for Greece, Armenia, Kurdistan, and European zones of influence. However, it triggered a nationalist Turkish resistance led by Mustafa Kemal (later Atatürk), whose forces ultimately defeated Greek troops and forced the Allies to renegotiate.

The revised Treaty of Lausanne (1923) recognized the sovereignty of the new Republic of Turkey within its modern borders, but confirmed the separation of the Arab provinces. These former Ottoman territories were divided into “mandates” administered by Britain and France under nominal League of Nations supervision:

• Britain received the mandates for Palestine (including Transjordan) and Iraq
• France received the mandates for Syria and Lebanon

In theory, these mandates were temporary arrangements to prepare these territories for independence. In practice, they functioned as colonial possessions, with European powers establishing administrative systems that served their strategic and economic interests.

The Mandates: Colonialism by Another Name

The mandate system represented a new form of colonialism, cloaked in the language of international oversight and development. Rather than outright annexation, these territories were ostensibly being prepared for eventual self-government. However, the European powers constructed governance systems that extended their influence deep into these societies.

In Iraq, Britain installed Faisal bin Hussein (son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca) as king in 1921, creating a constitutional monarchy dependent on British support. Despite the façade of Iraqi sovereignty, British advisors maintained control over defense, foreign policy, and finances. Iraq’s valuable oil resources were developed primarily to benefit British interests.

In Palestine, Britain attempted to balance its contradictory promises to Arabs and Jews, ultimately satisfying neither. Jewish immigration increased under British rule, leading to growing tensions with the Arab population. The British mandate saw recurring cycles of violence, including major Arab revolts in 1920, 1929, and 1936-39.

In Syria and Lebanon, France applied a “divide and rule” strategy, emphasizing sectarian differences to justify its presence. Lebanon was expanded beyond its traditional Mount Lebanon boundaries to include coastal areas and the Bekaa Valley, creating a precarious demographic balance between Christians, Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, and Druze. In Syria, France initially divided the territory into separate statelets based on sectarian and regional distinctions before reluctantly reunifying them in the face of nationalist resistance.

Seeds of Future Conflicts

The post-WWI settlement laid the groundwork for decades of conflict in the Middle East. Several critical issues emerged directly from this period:

1. Border Disputes and National Identities

The arbitrary borders drawn by European powers frequently ignored historical, cultural, and economic realities on the ground. Iraq cobbled together Kurdish, Sunni Arab, and Shia Arab regions with little organic unity. Syria was separated from Lebanon despite centuries of close economic and cultural ties. Palestine was administered as a single unit despite profound divisions between its Jewish and Arab populations.

These artificial boundaries created states without cohesive national identities. Local loyalties to family, tribe, and religious community often remained stronger than allegiance to these new nation-states, contributing to political instability.

2. The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

The contradictory British promises to Arabs and Jews in Palestine created an intractable conflict. The Balfour Declaration’s support for a “Jewish national home” in Palestine, without consulting the majority Arab population, planted seeds of resentment. Meanwhile, for Jews fleeing persecution in Europe, the promise of a homeland represented life-saving hope.

As Jewish immigration increased under the British mandate, tensions escalated. By the time Britain withdrew in 1948, the stage was set for the first Arab-Israeli war and the ongoing conflict that continues to this day.

3. Arab Nationalism and Anti-Western Sentiment

The betrayal of wartime promises fueled a powerful Arab nationalist movement characterized by deep suspicion of Western intentions. The exposure of the Sykes-Picot Agreement became a powerful symbol of Western duplicity that resonates in Middle Eastern politics to this day.

This sentiment would later be channeled by movements and regimes that defined themselves in opposition to Western influence, from Nasser’s pan-Arabism to various Islamist movements. The legacy of broken promises during and after WWI became a foundational narrative in regional politics.

4. Authoritarian Governance Models

The mandate systems established governance patterns that prioritized central control over democratic representation. When Arab states eventually gained independence, many retained these authoritarian structures, merely replacing European administrators with local elites. The emphasis on strong central authority to maintain control over diverse populations became a recurring feature of Middle Eastern governance.

Conclusion: The Long Shadow of WWI

The First World War and its aftermath fundamentally reshaped the Middle East, dismantling centuries-old political structures and replacing them with a fragile new order designed primarily to serve European interests. The decisions made by distant diplomats in London, Paris, and elsewhere – often with limited understanding of local conditions and little regard for indigenous aspirations – created a regional architecture fraught with contradictions and tensions.

A century later, we continue to live with the consequences of these decisions. The borders drawn after WWI largely define today’s Middle Eastern states. The governance systems established under the mandates influenced political development across the region. And the memory of promises made and broken continues to color perceptions of Western involvement in Middle Eastern affairs.

Understanding this history is essential not just for making sense of the region’s current challenges, but for recognizing the heavy responsibility that comes with external intervention in complex societies. The experience of the Middle East after WWI stands as a powerful reminder that actions taken during moments of geopolitical transformation can cast shadows that extend for generations.

By examining this pivotal moment from the perspective of the Middle East rather than European capitals, we gain invaluable insights into how global conflicts can fundamentally reshape regional dynamics – and how the decisions made in times of flux can create patterns of conflict and cooperation that endure long after the original decision-makers have left the stage.

References and Further Reading

Antonius, G. (1938). The Arab Awakening: The Story of the Arab National Movement. Hamish Hamilton.

Barr, J. (2011). A Line in the Sand: The Anglo-French Struggle for the Middle East, 1914-1948. W.W. Norton & Company.

Cleveland, W. L., & Bunton, M. (2016). A History of the Modern Middle East (6th ed.). Westview Press.

Fawcett, L. (Ed.). (2016). International Relations of the Middle East (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Fromkin, D. (1989). A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Henry Holt and Company.

Hourani, A. (1991). A History of the Arab Peoples. Harvard University Press.

Karsh, E., & Karsh, I. (1999). Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923. Harvard University Press.

Kedourie, E. (1987). England and the Middle East: The Destruction of the Ottoman Empire, 1914-1921. Mansell Publishing.

Lawrence, T. E. (1935). Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Doubleday, Doran & Company.

MacMillan, M. (2001). Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World. Random House.

McMeekin, S. (2015). The Ottoman Endgame: War, Revolution, and the Making of the Modern Middle East, 1908-1923. Penguin Books.

Rogan, E. (2015). The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East. Basic Books.

Segev, T. (2000). One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate. Metropolitan Books.

Tamari, S. (2017). The Great War and the Remaking of Palestine. University of California Press.

Tripp, C. (2007). A History of Iraq (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

This is part of a series of blog posts looking at different aspects of WW1 and WW2 that do not always get mentioned in the classroom. To read more of these stories follow the link 20th Century.