In the second year of the Great War, the British began to consider the future of the Middle East once the Ottoman EmpireOttoman Empire ottoman-empire The Islamic empire centred on Istanbul that ruled Anatolia, the Arab Middle East, North Africa, and southeastern Europe from the fourteenth century to its dissolution after the First World War. Its collapse created the modern states of the Middle East, Turkey, and the Balkans in ways that continue to shape regional politics. At its peak in the sixteenth century, the Ottoman Empire encompassed an enormous territory from Hungary to Yemen, from Algeria to the borders of Persia. It was a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state governed through the millet system, which granted non-Muslim communities (Christians, Jews) significant autonomy in their internal affairs in exchange for taxes and political loyalty. The nineteenth century brought simultaneous challenges: nationalist movements among the Balkan populations — Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians — used the language of national self-determination to carve independent states from Ottoman territory, with Russian and Western support; the empire lost more than a third of its European territory in the 1877–78 war with Russia. Attempts at modernisation and reform — the Tanzimat reforms, the Young Turk Revolution of 1908 — failed to arrest the decline and produced new tensions between Turkish nationalist modernisers and the empire’s Arab, Armenian, and Kurdish populations. The First World War was catastrophic: the empire entered on the German side, suffered the Armenian Genocide (1915–23), lost the Arab provinces to British-led forces, and was dissolved by the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) — replaced by the Turkish Republic under Ataturk, whose territorial integrity was established by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). The Ottoman Empire’s collapse created the modern Middle East in ways that are still unfolding. The borders drawn by the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the subsequent mandates reflected French and British strategic priorities rather than the population distributions, administrative traditions, or political aspirations of the peoples concerned. The result was a set of states whose internal social compositions were incompatible with the nation-state model imposed on them: Iraq with its Sunni-Shia-Kurdish divisions, Lebanon with its confessional arithmetic, Syria with its minority-dominated military, Israel-Palestine with its overlapping claims. These incompatibilities were not caused by the Ottoman Empire — which governed diverse populations through systems of autonomous administration — but by the particular form of its destruction and replacement. The ongoing instability of the region reflects, in significant part, the unresolved consequences of those decisions made in London and Paris between 1916 and 1920. had been defeated. The Ottomans were proving to be far more effective fighters than the British had anticipated, but the discovery of oil at Mosul had made the control of the Middle East a priority. Prime Minister David Lloyd George summoned Sir Mark SykesSir Mark Sykes Full Description:A British aristocrat, adventurer, and Member of Parliament who co-negotiated the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Sykes had traveled extensively in the Ottoman Empire and cultivated a romanticized, paternalistic fascination with the Middle East. He was seen as a “expert” on the region, though his knowledge was superficial and his sympathies entirely imperial. Critical Perspective:Sykes embodies the cheerful arrogance of British imperialism. He was personally charming, genuinely interested in Arab culture, and utterly convinced that he knew what was best for millions of people he had never governed. His legacy is a warning: well-intentioned ignorance, when backed by military power, can be as destructive as malice. He died of the Spanish flu in 1919, never witnessing the full catastrophe his line in the sand would unleash.
Read more, a British diplomat and explorer to demonstrate how British and French ambitions in the region could both be accomodated.