The Sykes-Picot Agreement and its Legacy in Shaping the Middle East

The Middle East has long been a region that has intrigued Western scholars, given its deep history of political instability and the role of external forces in shaping its destiny. The Middle East as we know it today is often perceived through a negative viewpoint, often shaped by media and political motivations, which portrays the region as riddled with terrorism, violence, and extremism. To some degree, there is a clear connection between the Middle East and these perceptions about it, especially post-9/11 and the war on terror. More recently, the War in Gaza has returned a lot of attention to the region’s geopolitics and the rise of extremism. But how is it that a region so complex and diverse could so easily be characterised in such a uniform manner? In order to understand the Middle East as we see it today, it’s necessary to first understand the groundwork of the modern Middle East, and the extensive influence that foreign Western powers had on shaping the region's geopolitics, which still has consequences to this day. This paper will argue that the Sykes-Picot agreement was the most significant factor in shaping the Middle East as we know it today, as the agreement shaped the political landscape, and fostered nationalist movements and long-term resentment toward Western intervention. 

Few agreements in human history have had as lasting an impact as the Sykes-Picot agreement has. The agreement has effectively shaped the Middle East as we know it today and can be directly pointed to when attempting to explain the conflict that we’ve seen throughout the region’s history since its agreement until the modern day. But to understand the agreement’s significance on the course of the region’s future, it’s important to establish the historical context for the agreement, as well as what specifically it entailed. As noted in a 2016 analysis by Al Jazeera, the Sykes-Picot agreement was an agreement negotiated between the French and the British during the First World War which sought to establish spheres of influence in the Middle East, particularly in modern-day Syria and Iraq. The primary concern for the British and French was control of the region’s natural resources, such as oil, as well as its strategic location with access to Asia and Northern Africa. When drawing up the agreement, there was no clear indication of a concern for the political consequences of the spheres of influence the British and French had agreed to, which would soon become a key issue for nationalist movements around the region following the First World War. It’s also important to recognise that the British and French weren’t only looking to gain access to strategic resources but were also looking to dismantle the Ottoman Empire, a force which had exerted significant influence over the region prior to the First World War. Ultimately, the Sykes-Picot agreement was not implemented following the conclusion of the First World War, but later agreements would lead to the establishment of colonial influence throughout the region. Some scholars, such as David Patel, argue that because the Sykes-Picot agreement was not formally implemented, it therefore did not play a significant role in shaping the Middle East as we see it today (2016). This argument is flawed for a multitude of reasons, as it fails to consider the influence the agreement had on later colonial control of the region. It’s important to note that the main change that took place in regard to the British and the French’s viewpoint toward regional influence was an expansion of their prospective influence beyond spheres of influence to direct colonial rule. After the First World War ended, the British and French utilised the “mandate system” approved during the San Remo conference to exert control over Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine under the guise of establishing self-determination, which would only eventually come to fruition as a result of nationalist movements and revolutions against the colonial powers (Britannica, 2024b). The Sykes-Picot agreement laid the groundwork for future agreements on the influence of Western imperial powers in the region's affairs and developments.

The legacy and impact of the Sykes-Picot agreement would go on to shape future arrangements for British and French colonisation of the region. This colonisation would eventually lead to the growth of nationalist movements with anti-imperialist and Western sentiments. As Barnard Lewis writes in his article titled “The Roots of Muslim Rage,” Western imperialism played a major role in shaping Muslim resentment towards the West as it brought about colonial intervention in Middle Eastern politics and economic exploitation (1990). A prominent example of the Sykes-Picot agreement representing a lack of interest in allowing self-governance for the Arab population in the region would be the blatant backtracking on previous agreements of the sort. Given that the Ottoman Empire had aligned itself with the German and Austro-Hungarian Empire, the British and French sought ways to weaken its influence in the region to ultimately dismantle its empire across the Middle East. This weakening of the Ottoman Empire was ultimately achieved through the means of enlisting the support of Arab forces to directly oppose the Ottoman Empire (Al Jazeera, 2016). The best example of this enlistment would be the Hussein-McMahon correspondence, which promised Hussein ibn Ali, the emir of Mecca, an independent Arab state following the end of the war given Arab opposition to the Ottoman Empire. The Sykes-Picot agreement would go ack on this promise by instead establishing spheres of influence for the British and French in the place of an independent Arab State (Britannica, 2024a). This lack of right to self-determination would continue after the First World War through agreements made at the San Remo conference, specifically the Treaty of Sèvres. The Treaty of Sèvres was the official partitioning of the Middle East through League of Nations mandates, which allowed for British and French influence throughout territories previously held by the Ottoman Empire (Britannica, 2025). Although the Treaty of Sèvres was ultimately replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, the establishment of colonial rule over Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine remained and would continue for many years. The borders and institutions imposed on the Middle East that came about following the First World War did not take into account the complexity of the region and have faced severe pushback since their implementation. The artificial borders drawn after Sykes-Picot forced diverse religious and ethnic groups into new nation-states, fostering tensions that persist in conflicts such as the Syrian Civil War, the Iraq War, and ongoing unrest in Lebanon (Wright, 2016). The legacy of Western colonialism in the Middle East cannot be understated and is effectively highlighted by Bernard Lewis. Lewis highlights how the prominence of Western colonialism contributed to growing resentment in the Middle East towards Western ideals and reform, and although some supported reform, a growing fundamentalist movement in the region, which sought to return to Islamic traditions, began to grow its prominence, and has continued to exist to this day (Shboul, 2020). With various nationalist revolutions in Egypt in 1919, Palestine in 1936, Iraq in 1941, and Algeria in 1954, it’s clear that the legacy of Western colonialism has created a cycle of political instability that persists today, as Freedom House, a prominent group that analyses global democracy, notes a continued decline in democracy in the Middle East (2024). 

Ultimately, the Sykes-Picot agreement was a turning point for the Middle East that brought about lasting instability and shaped the Middle East’s political landscape. The effects of the Sykes-Picot agreement have had real consequences for the Middle East and the rest of the World, and although it was never formally adopted, it was a foundational proposal that would go on to shape how Western powers exerted direct influence over the region. The Sykes-Picot agreement disregarded ethnic realities, imposed Western styles of government which have yet to truly take shape and has resulted in widespread conflict led by reactionary forces, such as ISIS, that continue to view Western attempts at regional influence as an extension of the Sykes-Picot legacy (Patel, 2016). As the Middle East continues to be a prominent region in global politics, it is essential to recognise how the region’s past continues to play a role in the developments and conflicts we see today.

Works Cited

Al Jazeera (2016, 7 July), Sykes-Picot a Century On, available at https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2016/sykes-picot-100-years-middle-east-map/index.html.

Freedom House (2024, February 29). NEW REPORT: Freedom in the Middle East Remains Out of Reach for Most as Israel and the Gaza Strip Experienced the Region’s Sharpest Setbacks. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/article/new-report-freedom-middle-east-remains-out-reach-most-israel-and-gaza-strip-experienced

Lewis, Bernard (1990). The Roots of Muslim Rage: Why so many Muslims deeply resent the West, and why their bitterness will not easily be mollified, The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1990/09/the-roots-of-muslim-rage/304643/

Patel, David S. (2016, November). Repartitioning the Sykes-Picot Middle East? Debunking Three Myths. Brandeis University, Crown Center, Middle East Brief No: 103.

Shboul, H. (2020) Discussing Islamic Fundamentalism and Its Role in Politicizing Religion. Open Journal of Political Science, 10, 626-637. doi: 10.4236/ojps.2020.104037.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2025, January 25). Treaty of Sèvres. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Sevres

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2024a, October 15). Hussein-McMahon correspondence. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Husayn-McMahon-correspondence

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2024b, April 12). Conference of San Remo. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Conference-of-San-Remo

Wright, R. (2016, April 30) How the Curse of Sykes-Picot Still Haunts the Middle East. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-curse-of-sykes-picot-still-haunts-the-middle-east

*Any implied information is credited to class lectures