Between 1915 And 1922 Great Britain Embarked Upon

Between The Years 1915 And 1922 Great Britain Embarked Upon A Serie

Identify and very briefly explain the factors underlying Great Britain’s behavior. List and explain these agreements, examine their impact on the nature and scope of Middle Eastern state boundaries, and analyze the extent to which these agreements have advanced or impeded the processes of state formation and nation building in the Middle East.

Paper For Above instruction

The period between 1915 and 1922 was pivotal in shaping the political landscape of the Middle East, primarily due to British strategic interests and conflicting commitments during and after World War I. Britain’s behavior was driven by several factors, including the desire to secure imperial dominance, control vital trade routes, and suppress Ottoman influence. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 exemplified Britain’s secret negotiations with France, aiming to divide Ottoman territories into zones of influence, which severely impacted regional sovereignty. Additionally, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 expressed British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, adding a complex layer to regional political dynamics. These agreements collectively redefined the boundaries of Middle Eastern states, often disregarding existing ethnic and tribal identities, leading to artificial borders rooted in imperial interests rather than indigenous realities. Such boundaries impeded nation-building by fostering internal divisions and ethnic tensions, which persist to this day. While these arrangements facilitated British control and regional influence, they hindered organic state development, causing long-term instability. The legacy of these agreements highlights how external colonial designs can distort indigenous political processes, undermining authentic nation formation and self-determination. Overall, British policies between 1915 and 1922 significantly shaped Middle Eastern geopolitics, with enduring consequences for regional stability and state sovereignty.

Compare and contrast Iran’s and Israel’s multifaceted political systems: Identify the nature of the regime, explain the challenges that it faces, and analyze its impact on their domestic, regional, and foreign policy.

Iran and Israel possess highly complex political systems that reflect their unique historical, cultural, and regional contexts. Iran’s political regime is an Islamic republic characterized by a hybrid system that combines democratic structures with theocratic rule. The Supreme Leader holds substantial authority over all branches of government, military, and religious institutions, while elected bodies such as the President and Parliament operate within a framework constrained by religious oversight. Iran faces challenges such as political repression, economic sanctions, and regional conflicts, which influence its domestic stability and foreign policy. Its regional strategy emphasizes support for allied groups like Hezbollah and the Assad regime, aiming to project influence and counter regional adversaries like Saudi Arabia and Israel. Conversely, Israel is a parliamentary democracy with a vibrant political landscape marked by electoral competition among diverse parties representing various ethnic and ideological groups. Israel confronts internal challenges including security, minority integration, and political polarization, which impact its policymaking. Its regional and foreign policy are primarily centered on security concerns, maintaining military superiority, and fostering alliances with powerful states like the United States. Both regimes significantly impact regional stability: Iran through its revolutionary foreign policy and regional influence, and Israel through its security-focused approach and diplomatic initiatives. Despite differences, both states employ multifaceted political strategies to sustain their regimes amidst external pressures and internal challenges.

From the chapter by Roger Owen, identify the underlying components of the colonial state and explain their impact on the formation of the modern state in the Middle East

Roger Owen underscores that the colonial state in the Middle East was built upon several foundational components, fundamentally shaping the political evolution of the region. These components include administrative centralization, control over resources, and the establishment of legal and bureaucratic institutions influenced by European models. Colonial powers, mainly Britain and France, imposed governance structures that prioritized their strategic interests while often dismantling traditional authority systems like tribal structures or local monarchies. This top-down approach created a centralized state apparatus intended to facilitate resource extraction and maintain colonial dominance. The impact on state formation was profound; it led to the development of modern state institutions but also embedded a legacy of authoritarianism, political repression, and weak civil society. The colonial legacy constrained indigenous political development by emphasizing external control over internal governance and marginalizing local identities. These influences defined the political space in Middle Eastern countries by creating a paradigm of statehood rooted in external authority rather than organic national formation. In effect, the colonial state’s components—centralization, resource control, and institutionalization—shaped the exercise of power and laid the groundwork for ongoing political challenges in the region, including instability, authoritarianism, and identity conflicts.

References

• Hurewitz, J. C. (1980). The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics. Yale University Press.
• Khalidi, R. (2007). Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness. Columbia University Press.
• Fawcett, L. (2014). International Relations of the Middle East. Oxford University Press.
• Owen, R. (2004). The Middle East in the World Economy, 1820–1914. Routledge.
• Kaye, J. (2014). The Politics of Modern Egypt: A Study of the Administrative and Political Evolution. University of California Press.
• Kashmeri, S. (2012). Iran: From Princely State to Islamic Republic. Routledge.
• Shlaim, A. (2009). The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Fanon, F. (1961). The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press.
• Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.
• Lopez, A. (2011). Colonial Legacies and Political Development in the Middle East. Cambridge University Press.