Empires and States in the Middle East

Based on a course by Yilmaz Özcan.

Languages

Deutsch

Español Français Italiano 日本語

Português 中文（简体)

The Contemporary Middle East: States, Nations, and Communities

The concept of the Middle East ● Languages, religions and cultures in the Middle East ● Empires and States in the Middle East ● Political and religious currents in the Middle East

The Middle East, cradle of ancient civilisations and crossroads of cultural and commercial exchange, has played a central role in world history, particularly during the Middle Ages. This dynamic and diverse period saw the rise and fall of numerous empires and states, each leaving an indelible mark on the region's political, cultural and social landscape. From the expansion of the Islamic caliphates, with their cultural and scientific apogee, to the prolonged influence of the Byzantine Empire, via the incursions of the Crusaders and the Mongol conquests, the Medieval Middle East was a constantly evolving mosaic of powers. This period not only shaped the region's identity but also had a profound impact on the development of world history, building bridges between East and West. The study of Middle Eastern empires and states in the Middle Ages therefore offers a fascinating window onto a crucial period in human history, revealing stories of conquest, resilience, innovation and cultural interaction.

The Ottoman Empire

Foundation and expansion of the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire, founded at the end of the 13th century, is a fascinating example of an imperial power that had a profound effect on the history of three continents: Asia, Africa and Europe. Its foundation is generally attributed to Osman I, the leader of a Turkish tribe in the Anatolia region. The success of this empire lay in its ability to expand rapidly and establish an efficient administration over an immense territory. From the middle of the 14th century, the Ottomans began to expand their territory in Europe, gradually conquering parts of the Balkans. This expansion marked a major turning point in the balance of power in the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe. However, contrary to popular belief, the Ottoman Empire did not destroy Rome. In fact, the Ottomans laid siege to Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and conquered it in 1453, putting an end to that empire. This conquest was a major historical event, marking the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the modern era in Europe.

The Ottoman Empire is known for its complex administrative structure and religious tolerance, notably with the millet system, which allowed a degree of autonomy for non-Muslim communities. Its heyday extended from the 15th to the 17th century, during which time it exerted a considerable influence on trade, culture, science, art and architecture. The Ottomans introduced many innovations and were important mediators between East and West. However, from the 18th century onwards, the Ottoman Empire began to decline in the face of rising European powers and internal problems. This decline accelerated in the 19th century, eventually leading to the dissolution of the empire after the First World War. The legacy of the Ottoman Empire remains deeply rooted in the regions it ruled, influencing the cultural, political and social aspects of those societies to this day.

The Ottoman Empire, a remarkable political and military entity founded at the end of the 13th century by Osman I, has had a profound impact on the history of Eurasia. Emerging against a backdrop of political fragmentation and rivalries between the beylicats in Anatolia, this empire quickly demonstrated an exceptional ability to extend its influence, positioning itself as a dominant power in the region. The middle of the 14th century was a decisive turning point for the Ottoman Empire, notably with the conquest of Gallipoli in 1354. This victory, far from being a mere feat of arms, marked the first permanent Ottoman settlement in Europe and paved the way for a series of conquests in the Balkans. These military successes, combined with skilful diplomacy, enabled the Ottomans to consolidate their hold on strategic territories and to interfere in European affairs.

Under the leadership of rulers such as Mehmed II, famous for his conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the Ottoman Empire not only reshaped the political landscape of the eastern Mediterranean but also initiated a period of profound cultural and economic transformation. The capture of Constantinople, which put an end to the Byzantine Empire, was a pivotal moment in world history, marking the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the modern era. The empire excelled in the art of warfare, often thanks to its disciplined and innovative army, but also through its pragmatic approach to governance, integrating diverse ethnic and religious groups under a centralised administrative system. This cultural diversity, coupled with political stability, encouraged a flourishing of the arts, science and commerce.

Conflicts and Military Challenges of the Ottoman Empire

Throughout its history, the Ottoman Empire experienced a series of spectacular conquests and significant setbacks that shaped its destiny and that of the regions it dominated. Their expansion, marked by major victories, was also punctuated by strategic failures. The Ottoman incursion into the Balkans was one of the first steps in their European expansion. This conquest not only extended their territory but also strengthened their position as the dominant power in the region. The capture of Istanbul in 1453 by Mehmed II, known as Mehmed the Conqueror, was a major historical event. This victory not only marked the end of the Byzantine Empire but also symbolised the indisputable rise of the Ottoman Empire as a superpower. Their expansion continued with the capture of Cairo in 1517, a crucial event that marked the integration of Egypt into the empire and the end of the Abbasid caliphate. Under Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottomans also conquered Baghdad in 1533, extending their influence over the rich and strategic lands of Mesopotamia.

However, Ottoman expansion was not without obstacles. The siege of Vienna in 1529, an ambitious attempt to further extend their influence in Europe, ended in failure. A further attempt in 1623 also failed, marking the limits of Ottoman expansion in Central Europe. These failures were key moments, illustrating the limits of the Ottoman Empire's military and logistical power in the face of organised European defences. Another major setback was the defeat at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. This naval battle, in which the Ottoman fleet was defeated by a coalition of European Christian forces, marked a turning point in Ottoman control of the Mediterranean. Although the Ottoman Empire managed to recover from this defeat and maintain a strong presence in the region, Lepanto symbolised the end of their uncontested expansion and marked the beginning of a period of more balanced maritime rivalries in the Mediterranean. Taken together, these events illustrate the dynamics of Ottoman expansion: a series of impressive conquests, interspersed with significant challenges and setbacks. They highlight the complexity of managing such a vast empire and the difficulty of maintaining constant expansion in the face of increasingly organised and resistant adversaries.

Reforms and Internal Transformations of the Ottoman Empire

The Russo-Ottoman War of 1768-1774 was a crucial episode in the history of the Ottoman Empire, marking not only the beginning of its significant territorial losses but also a change in its structure of political and religious legitimacy. The end of this war was marked by the signing of the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca (or Kutchuk-Kaïnardji) in 1774. This treaty had far-reaching consequences for the Ottoman Empire. Firstly, it resulted in the cession of significant territories to the Russian Empire, notably parts of the Black Sea and the Balkans. This loss not only reduced the size of the Empire but also weakened its strategic position in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea region. Secondly, the treaty marked a turning point in international relations at the time, by weakening the position of the Ottoman Empire on the European stage. The Empire, which had been a major and often dominant player in regional affairs, began to be perceived as a declining state, vulnerable to pressure and intervention from European powers.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the end of this war and the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca also had a significant impact on the internal structure of the Ottoman Empire. In the face of these defeats, the Empire began to place greater emphasis on the religious aspect of the Caliphate as a source of legitimacy. The Ottoman Sultan, already recognised as the political leader of the empire, began to be valued more as the Caliph, the religious leader of the Muslim community. This development was a response to the need to strengthen the authority and legitimacy of the Sultanate in the face of internal and external challenges, relying on religion as a unifying force and source of power. Thus, the Russo-Ottoman War and the resulting treaty marked a turning point in Ottoman history, symbolising both a territorial decline and a change in the nature of imperial legitimacy.

Foreign Influences and International Relations

The intervention in Egypt in 1801, where British and Ottoman forces joined forces to drive out the French, marked an important turning point in the history of Egypt and the Ottoman Empire. The appointment of Mehmet Ali, an Albanian officer, as pasha of Egypt by the Ottomans ushered in an era of profound transformation and semi-independence of Egypt from the Ottoman Empire. Mehmet Ali, often regarded as the founder of modern Egypt, initiated a series of radical reforms aimed at modernising Egypt. These reforms affected various aspects, including the army, the administration and the economy, and were inspired in part by European models. Under his leadership, Egypt underwent significant development, and Mehmet Ali sought to extend his influence beyond Egypt. Against this backdrop, the Nahda, or Arab Renaissance, gained considerable momentum. This cultural and intellectual movement, which sought to revitalise Arab culture and adapt it to modern challenges, benefited from the climate of reform and openness initiated by Mehmet Ali.

Mehmet Ali's son, Ibrahim Pasha, played a key role in Egypt's expansionist ambitions. In 1836, he launched an offensive against the Ottoman Empire, which was then weakened and in decline. This confrontation culminated in 1839, when Ibrahim's forces inflicted a major defeat on the Ottomans. However, the intervention of the European powers, notably Great Britain, Austria and Russia, prevented a total Egyptian victory. Under international pressure, a peace treaty was signed, recognising Egypt's de facto autonomy under the rule of Mehmet Ali and his descendants. This recognition marked an important step in Egypt's separation from the Ottoman Empire, although Egypt remained nominally under Ottoman suzerainty. The British position was particularly interesting. Initially allied with the Ottomans to contain French influence in Egypt, they eventually opted to support Egyptian autonomy under Mehmet Ali, recognising the changing political and strategic realities of the region. This decision reflected the British desire to stabilise the region while controlling vital trade routes, particularly those leading to India. The Egyptian episode in the early decades of the 19th century illustrates not only the complex power dynamics between the Ottoman Empire, Egypt and the European powers, but also the profound changes that were taking place in the political and social order of the Middle East at the time.

Modernisation and reform movements

Napoleon Bonaparte's expedition to Egypt in 1798 was a revelatory event for the Ottoman Empire, highlighting the fact that it was lagging behind the European powers in terms of modernisation and military capacity. This realisation was an important driving force behind a series of reforms known as the Tanzimat, launched in 1839 to modernise the empire and halt its decline. The Tanzimat, meaning "reorganisation" in Turkish, marked a period of profound transformation in the Ottoman Empire. One of the key aspects of these reforms was the modernisation of the organisation of the Dhimmis, the non-Muslim citizens of the empire. This included the creation of the Millet systems, which offered various religious communities a degree of cultural and administrative autonomy. The aim was to integrate these communities more effectively into the structure of the Ottoman state while preserving their distinct identities.

A second wave of reforms was initiated in an attempt to create a form of Ottoman citizenship, transcending religious and ethnic divisions. However, this attempt was often hampered by inter-communal violence, reflecting the deep tensions within the multi-ethnic and multi-faith empire. At the same time, these reforms met with significant resistance within certain factions of the army, who were hostile to changes perceived to threaten their traditional status and privileges. This resistance led to revolts and internal instability, exacerbating the challenges facing the empire.

Against this tumultuous backdrop, a political and intellectual movement known as the "Young Ottomans" emerged in the mid-19th century. This group sought to reconcile the ideals of modernisation and reform with the principles of Islam and Ottoman traditions. They advocated a constitution, national sovereignty, and more inclusive political and social reforms. The efforts of the Tanzimat and the ideals of the Young Ottomans were significant attempts to respond to the challenges facing the Ottoman Empire in a rapidly changing world. While these efforts brought about some positive changes, they also revealed the deep fissures and tensions within the empire, foreshadowing the even greater challenges that would arise in the final decades of its existence.

In 1876, a crucial stage in the Tanzimat process was reached with the accession to power of Sultan Abdülhamid II, who introduced the Ottoman Empire's first monarchical constitution. This period marked a significant turning point, attempting to reconcile the principles of modernisation with the traditional structure of the empire. The 1876 constitution represented an effort to modernise the administration of the empire and to establish a legislative system and parliament, reflecting the liberal and constitutional ideals in vogue in Europe at the time. However, Abdülhamid II's reign was also marked by a strong rise in pan-Islamism, an ideology aimed at strengthening ties between Muslims within the empire and beyond, against a backdrop of growing rivalry with Western powers.

Abdülhamid II used pan-Islamism as a tool to consolidate his power and counter external influences. He invited Muslim leaders and dignitaries to Istanbul and offered to educate their children in the Ottoman capital, an initiative designed to strengthen cultural and political ties within the Muslim world. However, in 1878, in a surprising U-turn, Abdülhamid II suspended the constitution and closed parliament, marking a return to autocratic rule. This decision was motivated in part by fears of insufficient control over the political process and the rise of nationalist movements within the empire. The Sultan thus strengthened his direct control over the government, while continuing to promote pan-Islamism as a means of legitimisation.

In this context, Salafism, a movement aimed at returning to the practices of first-generation Islam, was influenced by the ideals of pan-Islamism and the Nahda (Arab Renaissance). Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, often regarded as the precursor of the modern Salafist movement, played a key role in spreading these ideas. Al-Afghani advocated a return to the original principles of Islam while encouraging the adoption of certain forms of technological and scientific modernisation. The Tanzimat period and the reign of Abdülhamid II thus illustrate the complexity of attempts at reform in the Ottoman Empire, torn between the demands of modernisation and the maintenance of traditional structures and ideologies. The impact of this period was felt well beyond the fall of the Empire, influencing political and religious movements throughout the modern Muslim world.

Decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire

The "Eastern Question", a term used mainly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, refers to a complex and multi-dimensional debate concerning the future of the gradually declining Ottoman Empire. This issue emerged as a result of the Empire's successive territorial losses, the emergence of Turkish nationalism, and the growing separation from non-Muslim territories, particularly in the Balkans. As early as 1830, with the independence of Greece, the Ottoman Empire began to lose its European territories. This trend continued with the Balkan Wars and accelerated during the First World War, culminating in the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 and the founding of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. These losses profoundly altered the political geography of the region.

Against this backdrop, Turkish nationalism gained momentum. This movement sought to redefine the empire's identity around the Turkish element, in contrast to the multi-ethnic and multi-religious model that had prevailed until then. This rise in nationalism was a direct response to the gradual dismantling of the empire and the need to forge a new national identity. At the same time, the idea of forming a kind of "international of Islam" emerged, notably under the impetus of Sultan Abdülhamid II with his pan-Islamism. This idea envisaged the creation of a union or cooperation between Muslim nations, inspired by certain similar ideas in Europe, where internationalism sought to unite peoples beyond national borders. The aim was to create a united front of Muslim peoples to resist the influence and intervention of Western powers, while preserving the interests and independence of Muslim territories.

However, the implementation of such an idea proved difficult due to diverse national interests, regional rivalries and the growing influence of nationalist ideas. Moreover, political developments, notably the First World War and the rise of nationalist movements in various parts of the Ottoman Empire, made the vision of an "international of Islam" increasingly unattainable. The Question of the East as a whole therefore reflects the profound geopolitical and ideological transformations that took place in the region during this period, marking the end of a multi-ethnic empire and the birth of new nation-states with their own national identities and aspirations.

The 'Weltpolitik' or world policy adopted by Germany in the late 19th and early 20th centuries played a crucial role in the geopolitical dynamics involving the Ottoman Empire. This policy, initiated under the reign of Kaiser Wilhelm II, aimed to extend Germany's influence and prestige on the international stage, notably through colonial expansion and strategic alliances. The Ottoman Empire, seeking to escape pressure from Russia and Great Britain, found in Germany a potentially useful ally. This alliance was symbolised in particular by the project to build the Berlin-Baghdad Railway (BBB). This railway, designed to link Berlin to Baghdad via Byzantium (Istanbul), was of considerable strategic and economic importance. It was intended not only to facilitate trade and communications, but also to strengthen German influence in the region and provide a counterweight to British and Russian interests in the Middle East.

For the Panturquists and supporters of the Ottoman Empire, the alliance with Germany was viewed favourably. The Panturquists, who advocated the unity and solidarity of the Turkish-speaking peoples, saw in this alliance an opportunity to strengthen the position of the Ottoman Empire and counter external threats. The alliance with Germany offered an alternative to pressure from traditional powers such as Russia and Britain, which had long influenced Ottoman politics and affairs. This relationship between the Ottoman Empire and Germany reached its peak during the First World War, when the two nations found themselves allied in the Central Powers. This alliance had important consequences for the Ottoman Empire, both militarily and politically, and played a role in the events that eventually led to the dissolution of the Empire after the war. German Weltpolitik and the Berlin-Baghdad railway project were key elements in the Ottoman Empire's strategy to preserve its integrity and independence in the face of pressure from the Great Powers. This period marked a significant moment in the history of the Empire, illustrating the complexity of alliances and geopolitical interests at the beginning of the 20th century.

The year 1908 marked a decisive turning point in the history of the Ottoman Empire with the start of the second constitutional period, triggered by the Young Turks movement, represented mainly by the Union and Progress Committee (CUP). This movement, initially formed by reformist Ottoman officers and intellectuals, sought to modernise the Empire and save it from collapse.

Under pressure from the CUP, Sultan Abdülhamid II was forced to reinstate the 1876 constitution, which had been suspended since 1878, marking the start of the second constitutional period. This restoration of the constitution was seen as a step towards the modernisation and democratisation of the Empire, with the promise of more extensive civil and political rights and the establishment of parliamentary government. However, this period of reform soon came up against major challenges. In 1909, traditional conservative and religious circles, dissatisfied with the reforms and the growing influence of the Unionists, attempted a coup to overthrow the constitutional government and re-establish the absolute authority of the Sultan. This attempt was motivated by opposition to the rapid modernisation and secular policies promoted by the Young Turks, as well as fears of a loss of privileges and influence. However, the Young Turks, using this episode of counter-revolution as a pretext, succeeded in crushing the resistance and consolidating their power. This period was marked by increased repression against opponents and the centralisation of power in the hands of the CUP.

In 1913, the situation culminated in the seizure of parliament by CUP leaders, an event often described as a coup d'état. This marked the end of the Empire's brief constitutional and parliamentary experiment and the establishment of an increasingly authoritarian regime led by the Young Turks. Under their rule, the Ottoman Empire saw substantial reforms but also more centralising and nationalist policies, laying the foundations for the events that would unfold during and after the First World War. This tumultuous period reflects the tensions and internal struggles within the Ottoman Empire, torn between the forces of change and tradition, and laying the groundwork for the radical transformations that would follow in the empire's later years.

In 1915, during the First World War, the Ottoman Empire undertook what is now widely recognised as the Armenian genocide, a tragic and dark episode in history. This policy involved the systematic deportation, mass murder and death of the Armenian population living in the Empire. The campaign against the Armenians began with arrests, executions and mass deportations. Armenian men, women, children and the elderly were forced from their homes and sent on death marches through the Syrian desert, where many died of hunger, thirst, disease or violence. Many Armenian communities, which had a long and rich history in the region, were destroyed.

Estimates of the number of victims vary, but it is generally believed that between 800,000 and 1.5 million Armenians perished during this period. The genocide has had a lasting impact on the global Armenian community and remains a subject of great sensitivity and controversy, not least because of the denial or downplaying of these events by some groups. The Armenian genocide is often considered to be one of the first modern genocides and served as a dark precursor to other mass atrocities during the 20th century. It has also played a key role in the formation of modern Armenian identity, with the memory of the genocide continuing to be central to Armenian consciousness. The recognition and commemoration of these events continues to be an important issue in international relations, particularly in discussions on human rights and the prevention of genocide.

The Persian Empire

The Origins and Completion of the Persian Empire

The history of the Persian Empire, now known as Iran, is characterised by impressive cultural and political continuity, despite dynastic changes and foreign invasions. This continuity is a key element in understanding the historical and cultural evolution of the region.

The Medes Empire, established in the early 7th century BC, was one of the first great powers in the history of Iran. This empire played a crucial role in laying the foundations of Iranian civilisation. However, it was overthrown by Cyrus II of Persia, also known as Cyrus the Great, around 550 BC. Cyrus' conquest of Media marked the beginning of the Achaemenid Empire, a period of great expansion and cultural influence. The Achaemenids created a vast empire stretching from the Indus to Greece, and their reign was characterised by efficient administration and a policy of tolerance towards the different cultures and religions within the empire. The fall of this empire was brought about by Alexander the Great in 330 BC, but this did not put an end to Persian cultural continuity.

After a period of Hellenistic domination and political fragmentation, the Sassanid dynasty emerged in 224 AD. Founded by Ardashir I, it marked the beginning of a new era for the region, lasting until 624 AD. Under the Sassanids, Greater Iran experienced a period of cultural and political renaissance. The capital, Ctesiphon, became a centre of power and culture, reflecting the grandeur and influence of the empire. The Sassanids played an important role in the development of art, architecture, literature and religion in the region. They championed Zoroastrianism, which had a profound influence on Persian culture and identity. Their empire was marked by constant conflict with the Roman Empire and later the Byzantine Empire, culminating in costly wars that weakened both empires. The fall of the Sassanid dynasty came in the wake of the Muslim conquests of the 7th century, but Persian culture and traditions continued to influence the region, even in later Islamic periods. This resilience and ability to integrate new elements while preserving a distinct cultural core is at the heart of the notion of continuity in Persian history.

Iran under Islam: Conquests and Transformations

From 642 onwards, Iran entered a new era in its history with the start of the Islamic period, following the Muslim conquests. This period marked a significant turning point not only in the political history of the region, but also in its social, cultural and religious structure. The conquest of Iran by Muslim armies began shortly after the death of the prophet Mohammed in 632. In 642, with the capture of the Sassanid capital Ctesiphon, Iran came under the control of the nascent Islamic Empire. This transition was a complex process, involving both military conflict and negotiation. Under Muslim rule, Iran underwent profound changes. Islam gradually became the dominant religion, replacing Zoroastrianism, which had been the state religion under previous empires. However, this transition did not happen overnight, and there was a period of coexistence and interaction between the different religious traditions.

Iranian culture and society were profoundly influenced by Islam, but they also exerted a significant influence on the Islamic world. Iran became an important centre of Islamic culture and knowledge, with remarkable contributions in fields such as philosophy, poetry, medicine and astronomy. Iconic Iranian figures such as the poet Rumi and the philosopher Avicenna (Ibn Sina) played a major role in Islamic cultural and intellectual heritage. This period was also marked by successive dynasties, such as the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Saffarids, the Samanids, the Bouyids and later the Seljuks, each of which contributed to the richness and diversity of Iranian history. Each of these dynasties brought its own nuances to the region's governance, culture and society.

Emergence and influence of the Sefevids

In 1501, a major event in the history of Iran and the Middle East took place when Shah Ismail I established the Sefevid Empire in Azerbaijan. This marked the beginning of a new era not only for Iran but for the region as a whole, with the introduction of Duodeciman Shiism as the state religion, a change that profoundly influenced Iran's religious and cultural identity. The Sefevid Empire, which reigned until 1736, played a crucial role in consolidating Iran as a distinct political and cultural entity. Shah Ismail I, a charismatic leader and talented poet, succeeded in unifying various regions under his control, creating a centralised and powerful state. One of his most significant decisions was to impose Duodecimal Shiism as the official religion of the empire, an act that had profound implications for the future of Iran and the Middle East.

This 'Shiitisation' of Iran, which involved the forced conversion of Sunni populations and other religious groups to Shiism, was a deliberate strategy to differentiate Iran from its Sunni neighbours, notably the Ottoman Empire, and to consolidate Sefevid power. This policy also had the effect of reinforcing Iran's Shiite identity, which has become a distinctive feature of the Iranian nation to this day. Under the Sefevids, Iran experienced a period of cultural and artistic renaissance. The capital, Isfahan, became one of the most important centres of art, architecture and culture in the Islamic world. The Sefevids encouraged the development of the arts, including painting, calligraphy, poetry and architecture, creating a rich and lasting cultural legacy. However, the empire was also marked by internal and external conflicts, including wars against the Ottoman Empire and the Uzbeks. These conflicts, along with internal challenges, ultimately contributed to the empire's decline in the 18th century.

The Battle of Chaldiran, which took place in 1514, is a significant event in the history of the Sephardic Empire and the Ottoman Empire, marking not only a military turning point but also the formation of an important political dividing line between the two empires. In this battle, Sefevid forces, led by Shah Ismail I, clashed with the Ottoman army under the command of Sultan Selim I. The Sefevids, although valiant in battle, were defeated by the Ottomans, largely because of the latter's technological superiority, in particular their effective use of artillery. This defeat had major consequences for the Sephardic Empire. One of the immediate results of the Battle of Chaldiran was the loss of significant territory for the Sefevids. The Ottomans succeeded in seizing the eastern half of Anatolia, considerably reducing Sefevid influence in the region. This defeat also established a lasting political boundary between the two empires, which has become an important geopolitical marker in the region. The defeat of the Sefevids also had repercussions for the Alevis, a religious community that supported Shah Ismail I and his policy of Shiitisation. Following the battle, many Alevis were persecuted and massacred in the decade that followed, due to their allegiance to the Sefevid Shah and their distinct religious beliefs, which were at odds with the dominant Sunni practices of the Ottoman Empire.

After his victory at Chaldiran, Sultan Selim I continued his expansion, and in 1517 he conquered Cairo, putting an end to the Abbasid Caliphate. This conquest not only extended the Ottoman Empire as far as Egypt, but also strengthened the Sultan's position as an influential Muslim leader, as he assumed the title of Caliph, symbolising religious and political authority over the Sunni Muslim world. The Battle of Chaldiran and its aftermath therefore illustrate the intense rivalry between the two great Muslim powers of the time, significantly shaping the political, religious and territorial history of the Middle East.

The Qajar Dynasty and the Modernisation of Iran

In 1796, Iran saw the emergence of a new ruling dynasty, the Qajar (or Kadjar) dynasty, founded by Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar. Of Turkmen origin, this dynasty replaced the Zand dynasty and ruled Iran until the early 20th century. Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar, after unifying various factions and territories in Iran, proclaimed himself Shah in 1796, marking the official start of Qajar rule. This period was significant for several reasons in Iranian history. Under the Qajars, Iran experienced a period of centralisation of power and territorial consolidation after years of turmoil and internal divisions. The capital was transferred from Shiraz to Tehran, which became the political and cultural centre of the country. This period was also marked by complex international relations, particularly with the imperialist powers of the time, Russia and Great Britain. The Qajars had to navigate a difficult international environment, with Iran often caught up in the geopolitical rivalries of the great powers, particularly in the 'Great Game' between Russia and Great Britain. These interactions often led to the loss of territory and major economic and political concessions for Iran.

Culturally, the Qajar period is known for its distinctive art, particularly painting, architecture and decorative arts. The Qajar court was a centre of artistic patronage, and this period saw a unique blend of traditional Iranian styles with modern European influences. However, the Qajar dynasty was also criticised for its inability to effectively modernise the country and meet the needs of its population. This failure led to internal discontent and laid the foundations for the reform movements and constitutional revolutions that occurred in the early 20th century. The Qajar dynasty represents an important period in Iranian history, marked by efforts to centralise power, diplomatic challenges and significant cultural contributions, but also by internal struggles and external pressures that shaped the country's subsequent development.

Iran in the 20th Century: Towards a Constitutional Monarchy

In 1906, Iran experienced a historic moment with the start of its constitutional period, a major step in the country's political modernisation and the struggle for democracy. This development was largely influenced by social and political movements demanding a limitation of the absolute power of the monarch and more representative and constitutional governance. The Iranian Constitutional Revolution led to the adoption of the country's first constitution in 1906, marking Iran's transition to a constitutional monarchy. This constitution provided for the creation of a parliament, or Majlis, and put in place laws and structures to modernise and reform Iranian society and government. However, this period was also marked by foreign interference and the division of the country into spheres of influence. Iran was caught up in rivalries between Great Britain and Russia, each seeking to extend its influence in the region. These powers established different "international orders" or zones of influence, limiting Iran's sovereignty.

The discovery of oil in 1908-1909 added a new dimension to the situation in Iran. The discovery, made in the Masjed Soleyman region, quickly attracted the attention of foreign powers, particularly Great Britain, which sought to control Iran's oil resources. This discovery considerably increased Iran's strategic importance on the international stage and also complicated the country's internal dynamics. Despite these external pressures and the stakes associated with natural resources, Iran maintained a policy of neutrality, particularly during global conflicts such as the First World War. This neutrality was in part an attempt to preserve its autonomy and resist foreign influences that sought to exploit its resources and control its politics. The early 20th century was a period of change and challenge for Iran, characterised by efforts at political modernisation, the emergence of new economic challenges with the discovery of oil, and navigation in a complex international environment.

The Ottoman Empire in the First World War

Diplomatic manoeuvres and the formation of alliances

The Ottoman Empire's entry into the First World War in 1914 was preceded by a period of complex diplomatic and military manoeuvring, involving several major powers, including Britain, France and Germany. After exploring potential alliances with Britain and France, the Ottoman Empire finally opted for an alliance with Germany. This decision was influenced by several factors, including pre-existing military and economic ties between the Ottomans and Germany, as well as perceptions of the intentions of the other major European powers.

Despite this alliance, the Ottomans were reluctant to enter the conflict directly, aware of their internal difficulties and military limitations. However, the situation changed with the Dardanelles incident. The Ottomans used warships (some of which had been acquired from Germany) to bombard Russian ports on the Black Sea. This action drew the Ottoman Empire into the war alongside the Central Powers and against the Allies, notably Russia, France and Great Britain.

In response to the Ottoman Empire's entry into the war, the British launched the Dardanelles Campaign in 1915. The aim was to take control of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, opening up a sea route to Russia. However, the campaign ended in failure for the Allied forces and resulted in heavy casualties on both sides. At the same time, Britain formalised its control over Egypt, proclaiming the British Protectorate of Egypt in 1914. This decision was strategically motivated, largely to secure the Suez Canal, a vital crossing point for British shipping routes, particularly for access to the colonies in Asia. These events illustrate the complexity of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East during the First World War. The decisions taken by the Ottoman Empire had important implications, not only for their own empire but also for the configuration of the Middle East in the post-war period.

The Arab Revolt and Changing Dynamics in the Middle East

During the First World War, the Allies sought to weaken the Ottoman Empire by opening a new front in the south, leading to the famous Arab Revolt of 1916. This revolt was a key moment in the history of the Middle East and marked the beginning of the Arab nationalist movement. Hussein ben Ali, the Sherif of Mecca, played a central role in this revolt. Under his leadership, and with the encouragement and support of figures such as T.E. Lawrence, known as Lawrence of Arabia, the Arabs rose up against Ottoman domination in the hope of creating a unified Arab state. This aspiration for independence and unification was motivated by a desire for national liberation and by the promise of autonomy made by the British, in particular by General Henry MacMahon.

The Arab Revolt had several significant successes. In June 1917, Faisal, son of Hussein ben Ali, won the Battle of Aqaba, a strategic turning point in the revolt. This victory opened up a crucial front against the Ottomans and boosted the morale of the Arab forces. With the help of Lawrence of Arabia and other British officers, Faisal succeeded in uniting several Arab tribes in the Hijaz, leading to the liberation of Damascus in 1917. In 1920, Faisal proclaimed himself King of Syria, affirming the Arab aspiration for self-determination and independence. However, his ambitions came up against the reality of international politics. The Sykes-Picot Accords of 1916, a secret arrangement between Britain and France, had already divided large parts of the Middle East into zones of influence, undermining hopes of a great unified Arab kingdom. The Arab Revolt was a decisive factor in weakening the Ottoman Empire during the war and laid the foundations for modern Arab nationalism. However, the post-war period saw the division of the Middle East into a number of nation-states under European mandate, putting the realisation of a unified Arab state, as envisaged by Hussein ben Ali and his supporters, a long way off.

Internal challenges and the Armenian Genocide

The First World War was marked by complex developments and changing dynamics, including Russia's withdrawal from the conflict as a result of the Russian Revolution in 1917. This withdrawal had significant implications for the course of the war and for the other belligerent powers. Russia's withdrawal eased the pressure on the Central Powers, particularly Germany, which could now concentrate its forces on the Western Front against France and its allies. This change worried Great Britain and her allies, who were looking for ways to maintain the balance of power.

With regard to the Bolshevik Jews, it is important to note that the Russian revolutions of 1917 and the rise of Bolshevism were complex phenomena influenced by various factors within Russia. Although there were Jews among the Bolsheviks, as in many political movements of the time, their presence should not be over-interpreted or used to promote simplistic or anti-Semitic narratives. As far as the Ottoman Empire is concerned, Enver Pasha, one of the leaders of the Young Turk movement and Minister of War, played a key role in the conduct of the war. In 1914, he launched a disastrous offensive against the Russians in the Caucasus, which resulted in a major defeat for the Ottomans at the Battle of Sarikamish.

Enver Pasha's defeat had tragic consequences, including the outbreak of the Armenian genocide. Looking for a scapegoat to explain the defeat, Enver Pasha and other Ottoman leaders accused the empire's Armenian minority of collusion with the Russians. These accusations fuelled a campaign of systematic deportations, massacres and exterminations against the Armenians, culminating in what is now recognised as the Armenian genocide. This genocide represents one of the darkest episodes of the First World War and the history of the Ottoman Empire, highlighting the horrors and tragic consequences of large-scale conflict and policies of ethnic hatred.

Post-war settlement and redefinition of the Middle East

The Paris Peace Conference, which began in January 1919, was a crucial moment in the redefinition of world order after the First World War. The conference brought together the leaders of the major Allied powers to discuss the terms of peace and the geopolitical future, including the territories of the failing Ottoman Empire. One of the major issues discussed at the conference concerned the future of the Ottoman territories in the Middle East. The Allies were considering redrawing the borders of the region, influenced by various political, strategic and economic considerations, including control of oil resources. Although the conference theoretically allowed the nations concerned to present their points of view, in practice several delegations were marginalised or their demands ignored. For example, the Egyptian delegation, which sought to discuss Egyptian independence, faced obstacles, illustrated by the exile of some of its members to Malta. This situation reflects the unequal power dynamics at the conference, where the interests of the predominant European powers often prevailed.

Faisal, son of Hussein bin Ali and leader of the Arab Revolt, played an important role at the conference. He represented Arab interests and argued for the recognition of Arab independence and autonomy. Despite his efforts, the decisions taken at the conference did not fully meet Arab aspirations for an independent and unified state. Faisal went on to create a state in Syria, proclaiming himself King of Syria in 1920. However, his ambitions were short-lived, as Syria was placed under French mandate after the San Remo Conference in 1920, a decision that formed part of the division of the Middle East between the European powers in accordance with the Sykes-Picot agreements of 1916. The Paris Conference and its outcomes therefore had profound implications for the Middle East, laying the foundations for many of the regional tensions and conflicts that continue to this day. The decisions taken reflected the interests of the victorious powers of the First World War, often to the detriment of the national aspirations of the peoples of the region.

The agreement between Georges Clemenceau, representing France, and Faisal, leader of the Arab Revolt, as well as the discussions around the creation of new states in the Middle East, are key elements of the post-First World War period that have shaped the geopolitical order of the region. The Clemenceau-Fayçal agreement was seen as highly favourable to France. Fayçal, seeking to secure a form of autonomy for the Arab territories, had to make significant concessions. France, which had colonial and strategic interests in the region, used its position at the Paris Conference to assert its control, particularly over territories such as Syria and Lebanon. The Lebanese delegation won the right to create a separate state, Greater Lebanon, under French mandate. This decision was influenced by the aspirations of Lebanon's Maronite Christian communities, who sought to establish a state with extended borders and a degree of autonomy under French tutelage. On the Kurdish question, promises were made to create a Kurdistan. These promises were in part a recognition of Kurdish nationalist aspirations and a means of weakening the Ottoman Empire. However, the implementation of this promise proved complex and was largely ignored in the post-war treaties.

All these elements converged in the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, which formalised the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. This treaty redrew the borders of the Middle East, creating new states under French and British mandates. The treaty also provided for the creation of an autonomous Kurdish entity, although this provision was never implemented. The Treaty of Sèvres, although never fully ratified and later replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, was a decisive moment in the history of the region. It laid the foundations for the modern political structure of the Middle East, but also sowed the seeds of many future conflicts, due to ignorance of the ethnic, cultural and historical realities of the region.

The Transition to the Republic and the Rise of Atatürk

After the end of the First World War, the Ottoman Empire, weakened and under pressure, agreed to sign the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920. This treaty, which dismantled the Ottoman Empire and redistributed its territories, seemed to mark the conclusion of the long-running "Eastern Question" concerning the fate of the empire. However, far from ending tensions in the region, the Treaty of Sevres exacerbated nationalist feelings and led to new conflicts.

In Turkey, a strong nationalist resistance, led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, formed in opposition to the Treaty of Sèvres. This nationalist movement opposed the treaty's provisions, which imposed severe territorial losses and increased foreign influence on Ottoman territory. The resistance fought against various groups, including the Armenians, the Greeks in Anatolia and the Kurds, with the aim of forging a new, homogenous Turkish nation-state. The ensuing War of Turkish Independence was a period of intense conflict and territorial recomposition. The Turkish nationalist forces succeeded in pushing back the Greek armies in Anatolia and countering the other rebel groups. This military victory was a key element in the foundation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923.

As a result of these events, the Treaty of Sèvres was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. This new treaty recognised the borders of the new Republic of Turkey and cancelled the most punitive provisions of the Treaty of Sevres. The Treaty of Lausanne marked an important stage in the establishment of modern Turkey as a sovereign and independent state, redefining its role in the region and in international affairs. Not only did these events redraw the political map of the Middle East, they also marked the end of the Ottoman Empire and opened a new chapter in Turkey's history, with repercussions that continue to influence the region and the world to this day.

Abolition of the Caliphate and its repercussions

The abolition of the Caliphate in 1924 was a major event in the modern history of the Middle East, marking the end of an Islamic institution that had lasted for centuries. The decision was taken by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey, as part of his reforms to secularise and modernise the new Turkish state. The abolition of the Caliphate was a blow to the traditional structure of Islamic authority. The Caliph had been considered the spiritual and temporal head of the Muslim community (ummah) since the time of the Prophet Mohammed. With the abolition of the Caliphate, this central institution of Sunni Islam disappeared, leaving a vacuum in Muslim leadership.

In response to Turkey's abolition of the Caliphate, Hussein ben Ali, who had become King of the Hijaz after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, proclaimed himself Caliph. Hussein, a member of the Hashemite family and a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed, sought to claim this position in order to maintain a form of spiritual and political continuity in the Muslim world. However, Hussein's claim to the Caliphate was not widely recognised and was short-lived. His position was weakened by internal and external challenges, including opposition from the Saud family, which controlled much of the Arabian Peninsula. The rise of the Sauds, under the leadership of Abdelaziz Ibn Saud, eventually led to the conquest of Hijaz and the establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The ousting of Hussein bin Ali by the Sauds symbolised the radical shift in power in the Arabian Peninsula and marked the end of his ambitions for a caliphate. This event also highlighted the political and religious transformations underway in the Muslim world, marking the beginning of a new era in which politics and religion would begin to follow more distinct paths in many Muslim countries.

The period following the First World War was crucial for the political redefinition of the Middle East, with significant interventions by European powers, notably France and Great Britain. In 1920, a major event took place in Syria, marking a turning point in the history of the region. Faisal, the son of Hussein ben Ali and a central figure in the Arab Revolt, had established an Arab kingdom in Syria after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, aspiring to realise the dream of a unified Arab state. However, his ambitions came up against the reality of French colonial interests. After the Battle of Maysaloun in July 1920, the French, acting under their League of Nations mandate, took control of Damascus and dismantled Faisal's Arab state, ending his reign in Syria. This French intervention reflected the complex dynamics of the post-war period, in which the national aspirations of the peoples of the Middle East were often overshadowed by the strategic interests of the European powers. Fayçal, deposed from his Syrian throne, nevertheless found a new destiny in Iraq. In 1921, under British auspices, he was installed as the first king of the Hashemite monarchy of Iraq, a strategic move on the part of the British to ensure favourable leadership and stability in this oil-rich region.

At the same time, in Transjordan, another political manoeuvre was implemented by the British. To thwart Zionist aspirations in Palestine and maintain a balance in their mandate, they created the Kingdom of Transjordan in 1921 and installed Abdallah, another son of Hussein ben Ali, there. This decision was intended to provide Abdallah with a territory over which to rule, while keeping Palestine under direct British control. The creation of Transjordan was an important step in the formation of the modern state of Jordan and illustrated how colonial interests shaped the borders and political structures of the modern Middle East. These developments in the region after the First World War demonstrate the complexity of Middle Eastern politics in the inter-war period. The decisions taken by the European proxy powers, influenced by their own strategic and geopolitical interests, had lasting consequences, laying the foundations for the state structures and conflicts that continue to affect the Middle East. These events also highlight the struggle between the national aspirations of the peoples of the region and the realities of European colonial rule, a recurring theme in the history of the Middle East in the twentieth century.

The repercussions of the San Remo Conference

The San Remo Conference, held in April 1920, was a defining moment in post-First World War history, particularly for the Middle East. It focused on the allocation of mandates over the former provinces of the Ottoman Empire, following its defeat and break-up. At this conference, the victorious Allied Powers decided on the distribution of the mandates. France obtained the mandate over Syria and Lebanon, thereby taking control of two strategically important and culturally rich regions. For their part, the British were given mandates over Transjordan, Palestine and Mesopotamia, the latter being renamed Iraq. These decisions reflected the geopolitical and economic interests of the colonial powers, particularly in terms of access to resources and strategic control.

In parallel with these developments, Turkey, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, was engaged in a process of national redefinition. After the war, Turkey sought to establish new national borders. This period was marked by tragic conflicts, notably the crushing of the Armenians, which followed the Armenian genocide perpetrated during the war. In 1923, after several years of struggle and diplomatic negotiations, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk succeeded in renegotiating the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres, which had been imposed on Turkey in 1920 and was widely regarded as humiliating and unacceptable by Turkish nationalists. The Treaty of Lausanne, signed in July 1923, replaced the Treaty of Sevres and recognised the sovereignty and borders of the new Republic of Turkey. This treaty marked the official end of the Ottoman Empire and laid the foundations of the modern Turkish state.

The Treaty of Lausanne is considered a major success for Mustafa Kemal and the Turkish nationalist movement. Not only did it redefine Turkey's borders, but it also enabled the new republic to make a fresh start on the international stage, freed from the restrictions of the Treaty of Sèvres. These events, from the San Remo Conference to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, had a profound impact on the Middle East, shaping national borders, international relations and political dynamics in the region for decades to come.

Allied promises and Arab demands

During the First World War, the dismantling and partition of the Ottoman Empire was at the heart of the concerns of the Allied powers, mainly Great Britain, France and Russia. These powers, anticipating a victory over the Ottoman Empire, an ally of the Central Powers, began planning the partition of its vast territories.

In 1915, as the First World War raged, crucial negotiations took place in Constantinople, involving representatives of Great Britain, France and Russia. These discussions centred on the future of the territories of the Ottoman Empire, which was then allied to the Central Powers. The Ottoman Empire, weakened and in decline, was seen by the Allies as a territory to be divided in the event of victory. These negotiations in Constantinople were strongly motivated by strategic and colonial interests. Each power sought to extend its influence in the region, which was strategically important because of its geographical position and resources. Russia was particularly interested in controlling the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, which were essential for its access to the Mediterranean. France and Britain, meanwhile, were looking to expand their colonial empires and secure their access to the region's resources, particularly oil. However, it is important to note that, although these discussions had a significant impact on the future of the Ottoman territories, the most significant and detailed agreements concerning their division were formalised later, notably in the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, concluded by British diplomat Mark Sykes and French diplomat François Georges-Picot, represents a key moment in the history of the Middle East, profoundly influencing the geopolitical configuration of the region after the First World War. This agreement was designed to define the division of the territories of the Ottoman Empire between Great Britain, France and, to a certain extent, Russia, although Russian participation was rendered null and void by the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Sykes-Picot Agreement established zones of influence and control for France and Britain in the Middle East. Under this agreement, France was to gain direct control or influence over Syria and Lebanon, while Britain was to have similar control over Iraq, Jordan and an area around Palestine. However, this agreement did not precisely define the borders of the future states, leaving that to later negotiations and agreements.

The importance of the Sykes-Picot agreement lies in its role as the "genesis" of collective memories concerning the geographical space in the Middle East. It symbolises the imperialist intervention and manipulations of the European powers in the region, often in defiance of local ethnic, religious and cultural identities. Although the agreement influenced the creation of states in the Middle East, the actual borders of these states were determined by subsequent balances of power, diplomatic negotiations and geopolitical realities that evolved after the First World War. The consequences of the Sykes-Picot agreement were reflected in the League of Nations mandates given to France and Great Britain after the war, leading to the formation of several modern Middle Eastern states. However, the borders drawn and decisions taken often ignored the ethnic and religious realities on the ground, sowing the seeds of future conflict and tension in the region. The legacy of the agreement remains a subject of debate and discontent in the contemporary Middle East, symbolising the interventions and divisions imposed by foreign powers.

This map illustrates the division of the territories of the Ottoman Empire as laid down in the Sykes-Picot agreements of 1916 between France and Great Britain, with zones of direct administration and zones of influence.

The "Blue Zone", representing direct French administration, covered the regions that would later become Syria and Lebanon. This shows that France intended to exercise direct control over strategic urban centres and coastal regions. The "Red Zone", under direct British administration, encompassed the future Iraq with key cities such as Baghdad and Basra, as well as Kuwait, which was represented in a detached manner. This zone reflected the British interest in the oil-producing regions and their strategic importance as a gateway to the Persian Gulf. The "Brown Zone", representing Palestine (including places such as Haifa, Jerusalem and Gaza), is not explicitly defined in the Sykes-Picot Agreement in terms of direct control, but is generally associated with British influence. It later became a British mandate and the focus of political tension and conflict as a result of the Balfour Declaration and the Zionist movement.

Arab Areas A and B" were regions where Arab autonomy was to be recognised under French and British supervision respectively. This was interpreted as a concession to Arab aspirations for some form of autonomy or independence, which had been encouraged by the Allies during the war to win Arab support against the Ottoman Empire. What this map does not show is the complexity and multiple promises made by the Allies during the war, which were often contradictory and led to feelings of betrayal among local populations after the agreement was revealed. The map represents a simplification of the Sykes-Picot agreements, which in reality were much more complex and underwent changes over time as a result of political developments, conflicts and international pressure.

The revelation of the Sykes-Picot agreements by the Russian Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution of 1917 had a resounding impact, not only in the Middle East region, but also on the international scene. By exposing these secret agreements, the Bolsheviks sought to criticise the imperialism of the Western powers, particularly France and Britain, and to demonstrate their own commitment to the principles of self-determination and transparency. The Sykes-Picot agreements were not the beginning, but rather a culmination of the long process of the "Oriental Question", a complex diplomatic issue that had preoccupied European powers throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. This process concerned the management and sharing of influence over the territories of the declining Ottoman Empire, and the Sykes-Picot agreements were a decisive step in this process.

Under these agreements, a French zone of influence was established in Syria and Lebanon, while Britain gained control or influence over Iraq, Jordan and a region around Palestine. The intention was to create buffer zones between the spheres of influence of the great powers, including between the British and the Russians, who had competing interests in the region. This configuration was partly a response to the difficulty of cohabitation between these powers, as demonstrated by their competition in India and elsewhere. The publication of the Sykes-Picot agreements provoked a strong reaction in the Arab world, where they were seen as a betrayal of the promises made to Arab leaders during the war. This revelation exacerbated feelings of mistrust towards the Western powers and fuelled nationalist and anti-imperialist aspirations in the region. The impact of these agreements is still felt today, as they laid the foundations for the modern borders of the Middle East and the political dynamics that continue to influence the region.

The Armenian Genocide

Historical Background and the Beginning of the Genocide (1915-1917)

The First World War was a period of intense conflict and political upheaval, but it was also marked by one of the most tragic events of the early 20th century: the Armenian genocide. This genocide was perpetrated by the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1917, although acts of violence and deportation began before and continued after these dates.

During this tragic period, Ottoman Armenians, a minority Christian ethnic group in the Ottoman Empire, were systematically targeted by campaigns of forced deportations, mass executions, death marches and planned famines. The Ottoman authorities, using the war as a cover and pretext to resolve what they considered to be an "Armenian problem", orchestrated these actions with the aim of eliminating the Armenian population from Anatolia and other regions of the Empire. Estimates of the number of victims vary, but it is widely accepted that up to 1.5 million Armenians perished. The Armenian genocide has left a profound mark on the Armenian collective memory and has had a lasting impact on the global Armenian community. It is considered one of the first modern genocides and cast a shadow over Turkish-Armenian relations for more than a century.

Recognition of the Armenian genocide remains a sensitive and controversial issue. Many countries and international organisations have formally recognised the genocide, but certain debates and diplomatic tensions persist, particularly with Turkey, which disputes the characterisation of the events as genocide. The Armenian genocide has also had implications for international law, influencing the development of the notion of genocide and motivating efforts to prevent such atrocities in the future. This sombre event underlines the importance of historical memory and recognition of past injustices in building a common future based on understanding and reconciliation.

Armenia's historical roots

The Armenian people have a rich and ancient history, dating back to well before the Christian era. According to Armenian nationalist tradition and mythology, their roots go back as far as 200 BC, and even earlier. This is supported by archaeological and historical evidence showing that Armenians have occupied the Armenian plateau for millennia. Historic Armenia, often referred to as Upper Armenia or Greater Armenia, was located in an area that included parts of eastern modern Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, modern Iran and Iraq. This region was the birthplace of the kingdom of Urartu, considered to be a precursor of ancient Armenia, which flourished from the 9th to the 6th century BC. The kingdom of Armenia was formally established and recognised at the beginning of the 6th century BC, after the fall of Urartu and through integration into the Achaemenid Empire. It reached its apogee under the reign of Tigran the Great in the 1st century BC, when it briefly expanded to form an empire stretching from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean.

The historical depth of the Armenian presence in the region is also illustrated by the early adoption of Christianity as the state religion in 301 AD, making Armenia the first country to do so officially. Armenians have maintained a distinct cultural and religious identity throughout the centuries, despite invasions and the domination of various foreign empires. This long history has forged a strong national identity that has survived through the ages, even in the face of severe hardship such as the Armenian genocide in the early 20th century. Armenian mythological and historical accounts, although sometimes embellished in a nationalist spirit, are based on a real and significant history that has contributed to the cultural richness and resilience of the Armenian people.

Armenia, the first Christian state

Armenia holds the historic title of being the first kingdom to officially adopt Christianity as its state religion. This monumental event took place in 301 AD, during the reign of King Tiridates III, and was largely influenced by the missionary activity of Saint Gregory the Illuminator, who became the first head of the Armenian Church. The conversion of the Kingdom of Armenia to Christianity preceded that of the Roman Empire, which, under Emperor Constantine, began to adopt Christianity as its dominant religion after the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. The Armenian conversion was a significant process that profoundly influenced the cultural and national identity of the Armenian people. The adoption of Christianity led to the development of Armenian culture and religious art, including the unique architecture of Armenian churches and monasteries, as well as the creation of the Armenian alphabet by Saint Mesrop Mashtots in the early 5th century. This alphabet enabled Armenian literature to flourish, including the translation of the Bible and other important religious texts, thus helping to strengthen the Armenian Christian identity. Armenia's position as the first Christian state also had political and geopolitical implications, as it was often placed on the border of major competing empires and surrounded by non-Christian neighbours. This distinction has helped to shape Armenia's role and history over the centuries, making it an important player in the history of Christianity and in the regional history of the Middle East and the Caucasus.

Armenia's history after the adoption of Christianity as the state religion was complex and often tumultuous. After several centuries of conflict with neighbouring empires and periods of relative autonomy, the Armenians experienced a major change with the Arab conquests in the 7th century.

With the rapid spread of Islam following the death of the prophet Mohammed, Arab forces conquered vast swathes of the Middle East, including much of Armenia, around 640 AD. This period saw Armenia divided between Byzantine influence and the Arab caliphate, resulting in a cultural and political division of the Armenian region. During the period of Arab rule, and later under the Ottoman Empire, Armenians, as Christians, were generally classified as "dhimmis" - a protected but inferior category of non-Muslims under Islamic law. This status gave them a degree of protection and allowed them to practise their religion, but they were also subject to specific taxes and social and legal restrictions. The largest part of historic Armenia found itself caught between the Ottoman and Russian empires in the 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period, Armenians sought to preserve their cultural and religious identity, while facing increasing political challenges.

Under the reign of Sultan Abdülhamid II (late 19th century), the Ottoman Empire adopted a pan-Islamist policy, seeking to unite the diverse Muslim peoples of the empire in response to the decline of Ottoman power and internal and external pressures. This policy often exacerbated ethnic and religious tensions within the Empire, leading to violence against Armenians and other non-Muslim groups. The Hamidian massacres of the late 19th century, in which tens of thousands of Armenians were killed, are a tragic example of the violence that preceded and foreshadowed the Armenian genocide of 1915. These events highlighted the difficulties faced by Armenians and other minorities in an empire seeking political and religious unity in the face of emerging nationalism and imperial decline.

The Treaty of San Stefano and the Congress of Berlin

The Treaty of San Stefano, signed in 1878, was a pivotal moment for the Armenian question, which became a matter of international concern. The treaty was concluded at the end of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, which saw a significant defeat for the Ottoman Empire at the hands of the Russian Empire. One of the most remarkable aspects of the Treaty of San Stefano was the clause requiring the Ottoman Empire to implement reforms in favour of the Christian populations, particularly the Armenians, and to improve their living conditions. This implicitly recognised the mistreatment that the Armenians had suffered and the need for international protection. However, implementation of the reforms promised in the treaty was largely ineffective. The Ottoman Empire, weakened by the war and internal pressures, was reluctant to grant concessions that might have been perceived as foreign interference in its internal affairs. In addition, the provisions of the Treaty of San Stefano were reworked later that year by the Congress of Berlin, which adjusted the terms of the treaty to accommodate the concerns of other major powers, notably Great Britain and Austria-Hungary.

The Congress of Berlin nevertheless kept up the pressure on the Ottoman Empire to reform, but in practice little was done to actually improve the situation of the Armenians. This lack of action, combined with political instability and growing ethnic tensions within the Empire, created an environment that eventually led to the Hamidian massacres of the 1890s and, later, the Armenian genocide of 1915. The internationalisation of the Armenian question by the Treaty of San Stefano thus marked the beginning of a period in which the European powers began to exert more direct influence over the affairs of the Ottoman Empire, often under the guise of protecting Christian minorities. However, the gap between promises of reform and their implementation left a legacy of unfulfilled commitments with tragic consequences for the Armenian people.

The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were a period of great violence for the Armenian and Assyrian communities of the Ottoman Empire. In particular, the years 1895 and 1896 were marked by large-scale massacres, often referred to as the Hamidian massacres, named after Sultan Abdülhamid II. These massacres were carried out in response to Armenian protests against oppressive taxes, persecution and the lack of reforms promised by the Treaty of San Stefano. The Young Turks, a reformist nationalist movement that came to power after a coup in 1908, were initially seen as a source of hope for minorities in the Ottoman Empire. However, a radical faction of this movement ended up adopting an even more aggressive and nationalist policy than their predecessors. Convinced of the need to create a homogenous Turkish state, they saw Armenians and other non-Turkish minorities as obstacles to their national vision. Systematic discrimination against Armenians increased, fuelled by accusations of treason and collusion with the enemies of the Empire, notably Russia. This atmosphere of suspicion and hatred created the breeding ground for the genocide that began in 1915. One of the first acts of this genocidal campaign was the arrest and murder of Armenian intellectuals and leaders in Constantinople on 24 April 1915, a date that is now commemorated as the start of the Armenian genocide.

Mass deportations, death marches to the Syrian desert and massacres followed, with estimates of up to 1.5 million Armenians killed. In addition to the death marches, there are reports of Armenians being forced to board ships that were intentionally sunk in the Black Sea. In the face of these horrors, some Armenians converted to Islam to survive, while others went into hiding or were protected by sympathetic neighbours, including Kurds. At the same time, the Assyrian population also suffered similar atrocities between 1914 and 1920. As a millet, or autonomous community recognised by the Ottoman Empire, the Assyrians should have enjoyed some protection. However, in the context of the First World War and Turkish nationalism, they were the target of systematic extermination campaigns. These tragic events show how discrimination, dehumanisation and extremism can lead to acts of mass violence. The Armenian genocide and the massacres of the Assyrians are dark chapters in history that underline the importance of remembrance, recognition and prevention of genocide to ensure that such atrocities never happen again.

Towards the Republic of Turkey and the Denial of Genocide

The occupation of Istanbul by the Allies in 1919 and the establishment of a court martial to try those Ottoman officials responsible for the atrocities committed during the war marked an attempt to bring justice for the crimes committed, in particular the Armenian genocide. However, the situation in Anatolia remained unstable and complex. The nationalist movement in Turkey, led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, grew rapidly in response to the terms of the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, which dismembered the Ottoman Empire and imposed severe sanctions on Turkey. The Kemalists rejected the treaty as a humiliation and a threat to Turkey's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

One of the sticking points was the question of the Greek Orthodox populations in Turkey, which were protected by the provisions of the treaty but were at stake in the Greek-Turkish conflict. Tensions between the Greek and Turkish communities led to large-scale violence and population exchanges, exacerbated by the war between Greece and Turkey from 1919 to 1922. Mustafa Kemal, who had been a prominent member of the Young Turks and gained fame as the defender of the Dardanelles during the First World War, is sometimes quoted as having described the Armenian genocide as a "shameful act". However, these claims are subject to controversy and historical debate. The official position of Kemal and the nascent Republic of Turkey on the genocide was to deny it and attribute it to wartime circumstances and civil unrest rather than to a deliberate policy of extermination.

During the resistance for Anatolia and the struggle to establish the Republic of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal and his supporters focused on building a unified Turkish nation-state, and any acknowledgement of past events that might have divided or weakened this national project was avoided. The period following the First World War was therefore marked by major political changes, attempts at post-conflict justice, and the emergence of new nation-states in the region, with the nascent Republic of Turkey seeking to define its own identity and politics independently of the Ottoman legacy.

The founding of Turkey

The Treaty of Lausanne and the New Political Reality (1923)

The Treaty of Lausanne, signed on 24 July 1923, marked a decisive turning point in the contemporary history of Turkey and the Middle East. After the failure of the Treaty of Sevres, mainly due to Turkish national resistance led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the Allies were forced to renegotiate. Exhausted by the war and faced with the reality of a Turkey determined to defend its territorial integrity, the Allied powers had to recognise the new political reality established by the Turkish nationalists. The Treaty of Lausanne established the internationally recognised borders of the modern Republic of Turkey and cancelled the provisions of the Treaty of Sèvres, which had provided for the creation of a Kurdish state and recognised a certain degree of protection for the Armenians. By not including a provision for the creation of a Kurdistan or any measures for the Armenians, the Treaty of Lausanne closed the door on the "Kurdish question" and the "Armenian question" at international level, leaving these issues unresolved.

At the same time, the treaty formalised the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey, which led to the "expulsion of Greeks from Turkish territories", a painful episode marked by the forced displacement of populations and the end of historic communities in Anatolia and Thrace. After the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, the Union and Progress Committee (CUP), better known as the Young Turks, which had been in power during the First World War, was officially dissolved. Several of its leaders went into exile, and some were assassinated in retaliation for their role in the Armenian genocide and the destructive policies of the war.

In the years that followed, the Republic of Turkey was consolidated, and several nationalist associations emerged with the aim of defending the sovereignty and integrity of Anatolia. Religion played a role in the construction of national identity, with a distinction often drawn between the "Christian West" and "Muslim Anatolia". This discourse was used to reinforce national cohesion and to justify resistance against any foreign influence or intervention perceived as a threat to the Turkish nation. The Treaty of Lausanne is therefore regarded as the cornerstone of the modern Republic of Turkey, and its legacy continues to shape Turkey's domestic and foreign policy, as well as its relations with its neighbours and minority communities within its borders.

The Arrival of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the Turkish National Resistance (1919)

The arrival of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Anatolia in May 1919 marked the beginning of a new phase in the struggle for Turkish independence and sovereignty. Opposing the Allied occupation and the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres, he established himself as the leader of the Turkish national resistance. In the years that followed, Mustafa Kemal led several crucial military campaigns. He fought on various fronts: against the Armenians in 1921, against the French in southern Anatolia to redefine borders, and against the Greeks, who had occupied the city of Izmir in 1919 and advanced into western Anatolia. These conflicts were key elements in the Turkish nationalist movement to establish a new nation state on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. British strategy in the region was complex. Faced with the possibility of a wider conflict between Greeks and Turks on the one hand, and Turks and British on the other, Britain saw an advantage in letting the Greeks and Turks fight each other, which would allow them to concentrate their efforts elsewhere, notably in Iraq, an oil-rich and strategically important territory.

The Greek-Turkish war culminated in the Turkish victory and Greek withdrawal from Anatolia in 1922, which resulted in the Asia Minor catastrophe for Greece and a major victory for Turkish nationalist forces. Mustafa Kemal's victorious military campaign enabled the terms of the Treaty of Sevres to be renegotiated and led to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which recognised the sovereignty of the Republic of Turkey and redefined its borders. At the same time as the Treaty of Lausanne, a convention for the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey was drawn up. This led to the forced exchange of Greek Orthodox and Turkish Muslim populations between the two countries, with the aim of creating more ethnically homogenous states. After repelling the French forces, concluding border agreements and signing the Treaty of Lausanne, Mustafa Kemal proclaimed the Republic of Turkey on 29 October 1923, becoming its first president. The proclamation of the Republic marked the culmination of Mustafa Kemal's efforts to found a modern, secular and nationalist Turkish state on the remnants of the multi-ethnic and multi-faith Ottoman Empire.

Border formation and the Mosul and Antioch issues

After the conclusion of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which marked the international recognition of the Republic of Turkey and redefined its borders, there were still unresolved border issues, particularly concerning the city of Antioch and the Mosul region. These issues required further negotiations and the intervention of international organisations in order to be resolved. The city of Antioch, located in the historically rich and culturally diverse region of southern Anatolia, was a subject of contention between Turkey and France, the latter exercising a mandate over Syria, including Antioch. The city, with its multicultural past and strategic importance, was a point of tension between the two countries. Eventually, after negotiations, Antioch was awarded to Turkey, although the decision was a source of controversy and tension. The issue of the Mosul region was even more complex. Rich in oil, the Mosul region was claimed by both Turkey and Great Britain, which had a mandate over Iraq. Turkey, on the basis of historical and demographic arguments, wanted to include it within its borders, while Great Britain supported its inclusion in Iraq for strategic and economic reasons, in particular because of the presence of oil.

The League of Nations, forerunner of the United Nations, intervened to resolve the dispute. After a series of negotiations, an agreement was reached in 1925. Under this agreement, the Mosul region would become part of Iraq, but Turkey would receive financial compensation, notably in the form of a share of oil revenues. The agreement also stipulated that Turkey should officially recognise Iraq and its borders. This decision was crucial in stabilising relations between Turkey, Iraq and Great Britain and played an important role in defining Iraq's borders, influencing future developments in the Middle East. These negotiations and the resulting agreements illustrate the complexity of post-First World War dynamics in the Middle East. They show how the modern borders of the region have been shaped by a mixture of historical claims, strategic and economic considerations, and international interventions, often reflecting the interests of the colonial powers rather than those of the local populations.

The Radical Reforms of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

The post-First World War period in Turkey was marked by radical reforms and transformations led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who sought to modernise and secularise the new Republic of Turkey. In 1922, a crucial step was taken with the abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate by the Turkish Parliament, a decision that ended centuries of imperial rule and consolidated political power in Ankara, Turkey's new capital. The year 1924 saw another major reform with the abolition of the Caliphate. This decision eliminated the Islamic religious and political leadership that had been a feature of the Ottoman Empire and represented a decisive step towards the secularisation of the state. In parallel with this abolition, the Turkish government created the Diyanet, or the Presidency of Religious Affairs, an institution designed to supervise and regulate religious matters in the country. The aim of this organisation was to place religious affairs under the control of the state and to ensure that religion was not used for political ends. Mustafa Kemal then implemented a series of reforms aimed at modernising Turkey, often referred to as "authoritarian modernisation". These reforms included the secularisation of education, the reform of the dress code, the adoption of a Gregorian calendar, and the introduction of civil law to replace Islamic religious law.

As part of the creation of a homogenous Turkish nation-state, assimilation policies were put in place for minorities and different ethnic groups. These policies included the creation of Turkish surnames for all citizens, encouragement to adopt the Turkish language and culture, and the closure of religious schools. These measures aimed to unify the population under a common Turkish identity, but they also raised issues of cultural rights and autonomy for minorities. These radical reforms transformed Turkish society and laid the foundations for modern Turkey. They reflected Mustafa Kemal's desire to create a modern, secular and unitary state, while navigating the complex post-war context of nationalist aspirations. These changes had a profound effect on Turkish history and continue to influence Turkish politics and society today.

The period of the 1920s and 1930s in Turkey, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, was characterised by a series of radical reforms aimed at modernising and westernising the country. These reforms affected almost every aspect of Turkish social, cultural and political life. One of the first measures was the creation of the Ministry of Education, which played a central role in reforming the education system and promoting Kemalist ideology. In 1925, one of the most symbolic reforms was the imposition of the European hat, replacing the traditional fez, as part of a policy to modernise the appearance and dress of Turkish citizens.

Legal reforms were also significant, with the adoption of legal codes inspired by Western models, notably the Swiss civil code. The aim of these reforms was to replace the Ottoman legal system, based on Sharia (Islamic law), with a modern, secular legal system. Turkey also adopted the metric system, a Gregorian calendar and changed its day of rest from Friday (traditionally observed in Muslim countries) to Sunday, bringing the country into line with Western standards. One of the most radical reforms was the change of alphabet in 1928 from Arabic to a modified Latin script. The aim of this reform was to increase literacy and modernise the Turkish language. The Institute of Turkish History, created in 1931, was part of a wider effort to reinterpret Turkish history and promote Turkish national identity. In the same spirit, the policy of purifying the Turkish language was aimed at eliminating Arabic and Persian borrowings and reinforcing the "Sun Language" theory, a nationalist ideology that asserted the ancient origin and superiority of the Turkish language and culture.

On the Kurdish question, the Kemalist government pursued a policy of assimilation, considering the Kurds as "mountain Turks" and attempting to integrate them into the Turkish national identity. This policy led to tensions and conflicts, particularly during the repression of Kurdish and non-Muslim populations in 1938. The Kemalist period was an era of profound transformation for Turkey, marked by efforts to create a modern, secular and homogenous nation-state. However, these reforms, while progressive in their intent to modernise, were also accompanied by authoritarian policies and efforts at assimilation that have left a complex and sometimes controversial legacy in contemporary Turkey.

The Kemalist period in Turkey, which began with the founding of the Republic in 1923, was characterised by a series of reforms aimed at centralising, nationalising and secularising the state, as well as Europeanising society. These reforms, led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, aimed to break with the Ottoman Empire's imperial and Islamic past, which was seen as an obstacle to progress and modernisation. The aim was to create a modern Turkey aligned with Western values and standards. From this perspective, the Ottoman and Islamic heritage was often portrayed in a negative light, associated with backwardness and obscurantism. The shift towards the West was evident in politics, culture, law, education and even in everyday life.

Multipartyism and the Tensions between Modernisation and Tradition (Post-1950)

However, with the arrival of the multi-party system in the 1950s, the Turkish political landscape began to change. Turkey, which had operated as a one-party state under the Republican People's Party (CHP), began to open up to political pluralism. This transition was not without its tensions. Conservatives, who had often been marginalised during the Kemalist period, began to question some of the Kemalist reforms, particularly those concerning secularism and westernisation. The debate between secularism and traditional values, between westernisation and Turkish and Islamic identity, has become a recurring theme in Turkish politics. Conservative and Islamist parties have gained ground, questioning the Kemalist heritage and calling for a return to certain traditional and religious values.

This political dynamic has sometimes led to repression and tension, as different governments seek to consolidate their power while navigating an increasingly diverse political environment. Periods of political tension and repression, notably during the military coups of 1960, 1971, 1980 and the attempted coup of 2016, bear witness to the challenges Turkey has faced in its quest to strike a balance between modernisation and tradition, secularism and religiosity, Westernisation and Turkish identity. The post-1950 period in Turkey has seen a complex and sometimes conflicting rebalancing between the Kemalist heritage and the aspirations of part of the population for a return to traditional values, reflecting the ongoing tensions between modernity and tradition in contemporary Turkish society.

Turkey and its Internal Challenges: Managing Ethnic and Religious Diversity

As a strategic ally of the West, particularly since joining NATO in 1952, Turkey has had to reconcile its relations with the West with its own internal political dynamics. The multi-party system introduced in the 1950s was a key element in this reconciliation, reflecting a transition towards a more democratic form of governance. However, this transition has been marked by periods of instability and military intervention. Indeed, Turkey has experienced several military coups, approximately every ten years, notably in 1960, 1971, 1980, and an attempt in 2016. These coups were often justified by the military as being necessary to restore order and protect the principles of the Turkish Republic, in particular Kemalism and secularism. After each coup d'état, the army generally called new elections to return to civilian rule, although the army continued to play the role of guardian of Kemalist ideology.

However, since the 2000s, the Turkish political landscape has undergone a significant change with the rise of conservative and Islamist parties, in particular the Justice and Development Party (AKP). Under the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the AKP won several elections and held power for an extended period. The AKP government, despite advocating more conservative and Islamic values, has not been overthrown by the military. This represents a change from previous decades when governments perceived to deviate from Kemalist principles were often targeted by military intervention. This relative stability of conservative government in Turkey suggests a rebalancing of power between the military and civilian political parties. This can be attributed to a series of reforms aimed at reducing the political power of the army, as well as a change in the attitude of the Turkish population, which has become increasingly receptive to governance reflecting conservative and Islamic values. The political dynamics of contemporary Turkey reflect the challenges of a country navigating between its secular Kemalist heritage and growing conservative and Islamist tendencies, while maintaining its commitment to multi-partyism and Western alliances.

Modern Turkey has faced various internal challenges, including the management of its ethnic and religious diversity. Assimilation policies, particularly towards the Kurdish population, have played a significant role in strengthening Turkish nationalism. This situation has led to tensions and conflicts, particularly with the Kurdish minority, which has not benefited from the millet (autonomous community) status granted to certain religious minorities under the Ottoman Empire. The influence of European anti-Semitism and racism during the 20th century also had an impact on Turkey. In the 1930s, discriminatory and xenophobic ideas, influenced by political and social currents in Europe, began to manifest themselves in Turkey. This led to tragic events such as the pogroms against Jews in Thrace in 1934, where Jewish communities were targeted, attacked and forced to flee their homes.

In addition, the Wealth Tax Law (Varlık Vergisi) introduced in 1942 was another discriminatory measure that mainly affected non-Turkish and non-Muslim minorities, including Jews, Armenians and Greeks. This law imposed exorbitant taxes on wealth, disproportionately high for non-Muslims, and those who could not pay were sent to labour camps, notably in Aşkale, in eastern Turkey. These policies and events reflected ethnic and religious tensions within Turkish society and a period when Turkish nationalism was sometimes interpreted in an exclusive and discriminatory way. They also highlighted the complexity of the process of forming a nation-state in a region as diverse as Anatolia, where a multitude of ethnic and religious groups coexisted. The treatment of minorities in Turkey during this period remains a sensitive and controversial subject, reflecting the challenges the country faced in its quest for a unified national identity while managing its internal diversity. These events also had a long-term impact on relations between different ethnic and religious groups in Turkey.

Separation between Secularism and Secularism: The Legacy of the Kemalist Period

The distinction between secularisation and secularism is important for understanding social and political dynamics in different historical and geographical contexts. Secularisation refers to a historical and cultural process in which societies, institutions and individuals begin to detach themselves from religious influence and norms. In a secularised society, religion gradually loses its influence over public life, laws, education, politics and other areas. This process does not necessarily mean that individuals become less religious on a personal level, but rather that religion becomes a private matter, separate from public affairs and the State. Secularisation is often associated with modernisation, scientific and technological development, and changing social norms. Secularism, on the other hand, is an institutional and legal policy by which a state declares itself neutral in matters of religion. It is a decision to separate the state from religious institutions, ensuring that government decisions and public policies are not influenced by specific religious doctrines. Secularism can coexist with a deeply religious society; it is mainly about how the state manages its relationship with different religions. In theory, secularism aims to guarantee freedom of religion, treating all religions equally and avoiding favouritism towards any specific religion.

Historical and contemporary examples show different combinations of these two concepts. For example, some European countries have undergone significant secularisation while maintaining official links between the state and certain churches (such as the United Kingdom with the Church of England). On the other hand, countries such as France have adopted a strict policy of secularism (laïcité), while historically being societies strongly imbued with religious traditions. In Turkey, the Kemalist period saw the introduction of a strict form of secularism with the separation of mosque and state, while living in a society where the Muslim religion continued to play a significant role in people's private lives. The Kemalist policy of secularism aimed to modernise and unify Turkey, drawing inspiration from Western models, while navigating the complex context of a society with a long history of social and political organisation around Islam.

The post-Second World War period in Turkey was marked by a number of incidents that exacerbated ethnic and religious tensions in the country, particularly affecting minorities. Among these incidents, the bombing of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's birthplace in Thessaloniki (then in Greece) in 1955 served as a catalyst for one of the most tragic events in modern Turkish history: the Istanbul pogroms. The Istanbul pogroms, also known as the events of 6-7 September 1955, were a series of violent attacks directed mainly against the city's Greek community, but also against other minorities, notably Armenians and Jews. These attacks were triggered by rumours of the bombing of Atatürk's birthplace and were exacerbated by nationalist and anti-minority sentiments. The riots resulted in massive destruction of property, violence and the displacement of many people.

This event marked a turning point in the history of minorities in Turkey, leading to a significant decrease in the Greek population of Istanbul and a general feeling of insecurity among other minorities. The Istanbul pogroms also revealed the underlying tensions within Turkish society over issues of national identity, ethnic and religious diversity, and the challenges of maintaining harmony in a diverse nation-state. Since then, the proportion of ethnic and religious minorities in Turkey has declined considerably due to a variety of factors, including emigration, assimilation policies, and sometimes inter-communal tensions and conflicts. Although modern Turkey has endeavoured to promote an image of a tolerant and diverse society, the legacy of these historical events continues to influence relations between the different communities and the State's policy towards minorities. The situation of minorities in Turkey remains a sensitive issue, illustrating the challenges faced by many states in managing diversity and preserving the rights and security of all communities within their borders.

The Alevis

The Impact of the Foundation of the Republic of Turkey on the Alevis (1923)

The creation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 and the secularist reforms initiated by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had a significant impact on various religious and ethnic groups in Turkey, including the Alevi community. The Alevis, a distinct religious and cultural group within Islam, practising a form of belief that differs from mainstream Sunnism, greeted the founding of the Turkish Republic with a degree of optimism. The promise of secularism and secularisation offered the hope of greater equality and religious freedom, compared with the period of the Ottoman Empire when they had often been the subject of discrimination and sometimes violence.

However, with the creation of the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) after the abolition of the Caliphate in 1924, the Turkish government sought to regulate and control religious affairs. Although the Diyanet was designed to exercise state control over religion and promote an Islam compatible with republican and secular values, in practice it has often favoured Sunni Islam, which is the majority branch in Turkey. This policy has caused problems for the Alevi community, who have felt marginalised by the state's promotion of a form of Islam that does not correspond to their religious beliefs and practices. Although the situation of Alevis under the Turkish Republic was much better than under the Ottoman Empire, where they were frequently persecuted, they continued to face challenges regarding their religious recognition and rights.

Over the years, Alevis have fought for official recognition of their places of worship (cemevis) and for fair representation in religious affairs. Despite the progress made in terms of secularism and civil rights in Turkey, the Alevi question remains an important issue, reflecting Turkey's wider challenges in managing its religious and ethnic diversity within a secular framework. The situation of the Alevis in Turkey is therefore an example of the complex relationship between the state, religion and minorities in a context of modernisation and secularisation, illustrating how state policies can influence social and religious dynamics within a nation.

Alevi Political Engagement in the 1960s

In the 1960s, Turkey experienced a period of significant political and social change, with the emergence of various political parties and movements representing a range of views and interests. It was a time of political dynamism, marked by a greater expression of political identities and demands, including those of minority groups such as the Alevis. The creation of the first Alevi political party during this period was an important development, reflecting a growing willingness on the part of this community to engage in the political process and defend its specific interests. Alevis, with their distinct beliefs and practices, have often sought to promote greater recognition and respect for their religious and cultural rights. However, it is also true that other political parties, particularly those of the left or communist persuasion, have responded to the demands of the Kurdish and Alevi electorate. By promoting ideas of social justice, equality and minority rights, these parties have attracted significant support from these communities. Issues of minority rights, social justice and secularism were often at the heart of their political platforms, which resonated with the concerns of Alevis and Kurds.

In the context of 1960s Turkey, marked by growing political tension and ideological divides, left-wing parties were often seen as champions of the underclass, minorities and marginalised groups. This led to a situation where Alevi political parties, although directly representing this community, were sometimes overshadowed by broader, more established parties addressing broader issues of social justice and equality. Thus, Turkish politics in this period reflected a growing diversity and complexity of political identities and affiliations, illustrating how issues of minority rights, social justice and identity played a central role in Turkey's emerging political landscape.

Alevis Facing Extremism and Violence in the 1970s and 1980s

The 1970s were a period of great social and political tension in Turkey, marked by increasing polarisation and the emergence of extremist groups. During this period, the far right in Turkey, represented in part by nationalist and ultranationalist groups, gained in visibility and influence. This rise in extremism has had tragic consequences, particularly for minority communities such as the Alevis. Alevis, because of their beliefs and practices distinct from the majority Sunni Islam, have often been targeted by ultra-nationalist and conservative groups. These groups, fuelled by nationalist and sometimes sectarian ideologies, have carried out violent attacks against Alevi communities, including massacres and pogroms. The most notorious incidents include the massacres at Maraş in 1978 and Çorum in 1980. These events were characterised by extreme violence, mass murder, and other atrocities, including scenes of beheading and mutilation. These attacks were not isolated incidents, but part of a wider trend of violence and discrimination against Alevis, which exacerbated social divisions and tensions in Turkey.

The violence of the 1970s and early 1980s contributed to the instability that led to the military coup of 1980. Following the coup, the army established a regime that cracked down on many political groups, including the far right and the far left, in an attempt to restore order and stability. However, the underlying problems of discrimination and tension between different communities have remained, posing ongoing challenges to Turkey's social and political cohesion. The situation of the Alevis in Turkey is therefore a poignant example of the difficulties faced by religious and ethnic minorities in a context of political polarisation and rising extremism. It also highlights the need for an inclusive approach that respects the rights of all communities in order to maintain social peace and national unity.

The Tragedies of Sivas and Gazi in the 1990s

The 1990s in Turkey continued to witness tensions and violence, particularly against the Alevi community, which was the target of several tragic attacks. In 1993, a particularly shocking event occurred in Sivas, a town in central Turkey. On 2 July 1993, during the Pir Sultan Abdal cultural festival, a group of Alevi intellectuals, artists and writers, as well as spectators, were attacked by an extremist mob. The Madımak Hotel, where they were staying, was set on fire, resulting in the deaths of 37 people. This incident, known as the Sivas massacre or Madımak tragedy, was one of the darkest events in modern Turkish history and highlighted the vulnerability of Alevis to extremism and religious intolerance. Two years later, in 1995, another violent incident took place in the Gazi district of Istanbul, an area with a large Alevi population. Violent clashes broke out after an unknown gunman fired on cafés frequented by Alevis, killing one person and injuring several others. The following days were marked by riots and clashes with the police, which led to many more casualties.

These incidents exacerbated tensions between the Alevi community and the Turkish state, and highlighted the persistence of prejudice and discrimination against Alevis. They also raised questions about the protection of minorities in Turkey and the State's ability to ensure security and justice for all its citizens. The violence in Sivas and Gazi marked a turning point in awareness of the situation of Alevis in Turkey, leading to stronger calls for recognition of their rights and for greater understanding and respect for their unique cultural and religious identity. These tragic events remain etched in Turkey's collective memory, symbolising the challenges the country faces in terms of religious diversity and peaceful coexistence.

Alevis under the AKP: Identity Challenges and Conflicts

Since the Justice and Development Party (AKP), led by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, came to power in 2002, Turkey has seen significant changes in its policy towards Islam and religious minorities, including the Alevi community. The AKP, often perceived as a party with Islamist or conservative leanings, has been criticised for favouring Sunni Islam, raising concerns among religious minorities, particularly the Alevis. Under the AKP, the government strengthened the role of the Diyanet (Presidency of Religious Affairs), which was accused of promoting a Sunni version of Islam. This has caused problems for the Alevi community, which practises a form of Islam that is markedly different from the dominant Sunnism. Alevis do not go to traditional mosques to worship; instead, they use "cemevi" for their religious ceremonies and gatherings. However, the Diyanet does not officially recognise cemevi as places of worship, which has been a source of frustration and conflict for the Alevis. The issue of assimilation is also of concern to Alevis, as the government has been perceived as seeking to integrate all religious and ethnic communities into a homogenous Sunni Turkish identity. This policy is reminiscent of the assimilation efforts of the Kemalist era, although the motivations and contexts are different.

The Alevis are an ethnically and linguistically diverse group, with both Turkish-speaking and Kurdish-speaking members. Although their identity is largely defined by their distinct faith, they also share cultural and linguistic aspects with other Turks and Kurds. However, their unique religious practice and history of marginalisation sets them apart within Turkish society. The situation of the Alevis in Turkey since 2002 reflects the continuing tensions between the State and religious minorities. It raises important questions about religious freedom, minority rights and the state's ability to accommodate diversity within a secular and democratic framework. How Turkey manages these issues remains a crucial aspect of its domestic policy and its image on the international stage.

Iran

Challenges and External Influences at the Beginning of the 20th Century

The history of modernisation in Iran is a fascinating case study that illustrates how external influences and internal dynamics can shape a country's course. In the early 20th century, Iran (then known as Persia) faced multiple challenges that culminated in a process of authoritarian modernisation. In the years leading up to the First World War, particularly in 1907, Iran was on the verge of implosion. The country had suffered significant territorial losses and was struggling with administrative and military weakness. The Iranian army, in particular, was unable to effectively manage the influence of the state or protect its borders from foreign incursions. This difficult context was exacerbated by the competing interests of the imperialist powers, particularly Britain and Russia. In 1907, despite their historical rivalries, Great Britain and Russia concluded the Anglo-Russian Entente. Under this agreement, they shared spheres of influence in Iran, with Russia dominating the north and Britain the south. This agreement was a tacit recognition of their respective imperialist interests in the region and had a profound impact on Iranian policy.

The Anglo-Russian Entente not only limited Iran's sovereignty, but also hindered the development of a strong central power. Britain, in particular, was reticent about the idea of a centralised and powerful Iran that could threaten its interests, particularly in terms of access to oil and control of trade routes. This international framework posed major challenges for Iran and influenced its path towards modernisation. The need to navigate between foreign imperialist interests and domestic needs to reform and strengthen the state led to a series of attempts at modernisation, some more authoritarian than others, over the course of the 20th century. These efforts culminated in the period of the reign of Reza Shah Pahlavi, who undertook an ambitious programme of modernisation and centralisation, often by authoritarian means, with the aim of transforming Iran into a modern nation-state.

The coup of 1921 and the rise of Reza Khan

The 1921 coup in Iran, led by Reza Khan (later Reza Shah Pahlavi), was a decisive turning point in the country's modern history. Reza Khan, a military officer, took control of the government in a context of political weakness and instability, with the ambition of centralising power and modernising Iran. After the coup, Reza Khan undertook a series of reforms aimed at strengthening the state and consolidating his power. He created a centralised government, reorganised the administration and modernised the army. These reforms were essential to establish a strong and effective state structure capable of promoting the country's development and modernisation. A key aspect of Reza Khan's consolidation of power was the negotiation of agreements with foreign powers, notably Great Britain, which had major economic and strategic interests in Iran. The issue of oil was particularly crucial, as Iran had considerable oil potential, and control and exploitation of this resource were at the heart of the geopolitical stakes.

Reza Khan successfully navigated these complex waters, striking a balance between cooperating with foreign powers and protecting Iranian sovereignty. Although he had to make concessions, particularly on oil exploitation, his government worked to ensure that Iran received a fairer share of oil revenues and to limit direct foreign influence in the country's internal affairs. In 1925, Reza Khan was crowned Reza Shah Pahlavi, becoming the first Shah of the Pahlavi dynasty. Under his reign, Iran underwent radical transformations, including modernisation of the economy, educational reform, westernisation of social and cultural norms, and a policy of industrialisation. These reforms, although often carried out in an authoritarian manner, marked Iran's entry into the modern era and laid the foundations for the country's subsequent development.

The era of Reza Shah Pahlavi: Modernisation and Centralisation

The advent of Reza Shah Pahlavi in Iran in 1925 marked a radical change in the country's political and social landscape. After the fall of the Kadjar dynasty, Reza Shah, inspired by the reforms of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey, initiated a series of far-reaching transformations aimed at modernising Iran and forging it into a powerful, centralised nation-state. His reign was characterised by authoritarian modernisation, with power highly concentrated and reforms imposed top-down. The centralisation of power was a crucial step, with Reza Shah seeking to eliminate traditional intermediate powers such as tribal chiefs and local notables. This consolidation of authority was intended to strengthen the central government and ensure tighter control over the country as a whole. As part of his modernisation efforts, he also introduced the metric system, modernised transport networks with the construction of new roads and railways, and implemented cultural and dress reforms to bring Iran into line with Western standards.

Reza Shah also promoted a strong nationalism, glorifying the Persian imperial past and the Persian language. This exaltation of Iran's past was intended to create a sense of national unity and common identity among Iran's diverse population. However, these reforms came at a high cost in terms of individual freedoms. Reza Shah's regime was marked by censorship, repression of freedom of expression and political dissent, and strict control of the political apparatus. On the legislative front, modern civil and penal codes were introduced, and dress reforms were imposed to modernise the appearance of the population. Although these reforms contributed to the modernisation of Iran, they were implemented in an authoritarian manner, without any significant democratic participation, which sowed the seeds of future tensions. The Reza Shah period was therefore an era of contradictions in Iran. On the one hand, it represented a significant leap forward in the modernisation and centralisation of the country. On the other, it laid the foundations for future conflicts because of its authoritarian approach and the absence of channels for free political expression. This period was therefore decisive in Iran's modern history, shaping its political, social and economic trajectory for decades to come.

Name change: From Persia to Iran

The change of name from Persia to Iran in December 1934 is a fascinating example of how international politics and ideological influences can shape a country's national identity. Under the reign of Reza Shah Pahlavi, Persia, which had been the country's historical and Western name, officially became Iran, a term that had long been used within the country and which means "land of the Aryans". The name change was partly an effort to strengthen ties with the West and to emphasise the nation's Aryan heritage, against the backdrop of the emergence of nationalist and racial ideologies in Europe. At the time, Nazi propaganda had some resonance in several Middle Eastern countries, including Iran. Reza Shah, seeking to counterbalance British and Soviet influence in Iran, saw Nazi Germany as a potential strategic ally. However, his policy of rapprochement with Germany aroused the concern of the Allies, particularly Great Britain and the Soviet Union, who feared Iranian collaboration with Nazi Germany during the Second World War.

As a result of these concerns, and Iran's strategic role as a transit route for supplies to Soviet forces, the country became a focal point in the war. In 1941, British and Soviet forces invaded Iran, forcing Reza Shah to abdicate in favour of his son, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Mohammed Reza, still young and inexperienced, acceded to the throne against a backdrop of international tensions and foreign military presence. The Allied invasion and occupation of Iran had a profound impact on the country, hastening the end of Reza Shah's policy of neutrality and ushering in a new era in Iranian history. Under Mohammed Reza Shah, Iran would become a key ally of the West during the Cold War, although this would be accompanied by internal challenges and political tensions that would ultimately culminate in the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

Oil nationalisation and the fall of Mossadegh

The episode of the nationalisation of oil in Iran and the fall of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 constitute a crucial chapter in the history of the Middle East and reveal the power dynamics and geopolitical interests during the Cold War. In 1951, Mohammad Mossadegh, a nationalist politician elected Prime Minister, took the bold step of nationalising the Iranian oil industry, which was then controlled by the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC, now BP). Mossadegh considered that control of the country's natural resources, particularly oil, was essential for Iran's economic and political independence. The decision to nationalise oil was extremely popular in Iran, but it also provoked an international crisis. The UK, losing its privileged access to Iran's oil resources, sought to thwart the move by diplomatic and economic means, including imposing an oil embargo. Faced with an impasse with Iran and unable to resolve the situation by conventional means, the British government asked the United States for help. Initially reluctant, the United States was eventually persuaded, partly because of rising Cold War tensions and fears of Communist influence in Iran.

In 1953, the CIA, with the support of Britain's MI6, launched Operation Ajax, a coup that led to the removal of Mossadegh and the strengthening of the power of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. This coup marked a decisive turning point in Iranian history, strengthening the monarchy and increasing Western influence, particularly that of the United States, in Iran. However, foreign intervention and the suppression of nationalist and democratic aspirations also created deep resentment in Iran, which would contribute to internal political tensions and, ultimately, to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Operation Ajax is often cited as a classic example of Cold War interventionism and its long-term consequences, not just for Iran, but for the Middle East region as a whole.

The 1953 event in Iran, marked by the removal of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, was a pivotal period that had a profound impact on the country's political development. Mossadegh, although democratically elected and extremely popular for his nationalist policies, in particular the nationalisation of the Iranian oil industry, was overthrown following a coup d'état orchestrated by the American CIA and British MI6, known as Operation Ajax.

The "White Revolution" of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

After Mossadegh's departure, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi consolidated his power and became increasingly authoritarian. The Shah, supported by the United States and other Western powers, launched an ambitious programme of modernisation and development in Iran. This programme, known as the 'White Revolution', was launched in 1963 and aimed to rapidly transform Iran into a modern, industrialised nation. The Shah's reforms included land redistribution, a massive literacy campaign, economic modernisation, industrialisation and the granting of voting rights to women. These reforms were supposed to strengthen the Iranian economy, reduce dependence on oil, and improve the living conditions of Iranian citizens. However, the Shah's reign was also characterised by strict political control and repression of dissent. The Shah's secret police, the SAVAK, created with the help of the United States and Israel, was notorious for its brutality and repressive tactics. The lack of political freedoms, corruption and growing social inequality led to widespread discontent among the Iranian population. Although the Shah managed to achieve some progress in terms of modernisation and development, the lack of democratic political reform and the repression of opposition voices ultimately contributed to the alienation of large segments of Iranian society. This situation paved the way for the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which overthrew the monarchy and established the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Strengthening ties with the West and social impact

Since 1955, Iran, under the leadership of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, has sought to strengthen its ties with the West, particularly the United States, in the context of the Cold War. Iran's accession to the Baghdad Pact in 1955 was a key element of this strategic orientation. This pact, which also included Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan and the United Kingdom, was a military alliance aimed at containing the expansion of Soviet communism in the Middle East. As part of his rapprochement with the West, the Shah launched the "White Revolution", a set of reforms aimed at modernising Iran. These reforms, largely influenced by the American model, included changes in production and consumption patterns, land reform, a literacy campaign and initiatives to promote industrialisation and economic development. The close involvement of the United States in Iran's modernisation process was also symbolised by the presence of American experts and advisers on Iranian soil. These experts often enjoyed privileges and immunities, which gave rise to tensions within various sectors of Iranian society, particularly among religious circles and nationalists.

The Shah's reforms, while leading to economic and social modernisation, were also perceived by many as a form of Americanisation and an erosion of Iranian values and traditions. This perception was exacerbated by the authoritarian nature of the Shah's regime and the absence of political freedoms and popular participation. The American presence and influence in Iran, as well as the reforms of the "White Revolution", have fuelled growing resentment, particularly in religious circles. Religious leaders, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, began to articulate increasingly strong opposition to the Shah, criticising him for his dependence on the United States and for his departure from Islamic values. This opposition eventually played a key role in the mobilisation that led to the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

The "White Revolution" reforms in Iran, initiated by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the 1960s, included a major land reform that had a profound impact on the country's social and economic structure. The aim of this reform was to modernise Iranian agriculture and reduce the country's dependence on oil exports, while improving the living conditions of peasants. The land reform broke with traditional practices, particularly those linked to Islam, such as offerings by imams. Instead, it favoured a market economy approach, with the aim of increasing productivity and stimulating economic development. Land was redistributed, reducing the power of the large landowners and religious elites who controlled vast tracts of agricultural land. However, this reform, along with other modernisation initiatives, was carried out in an authoritarian and top-down manner, without any meaningful consultation or participation of the population. Repression of the opposition, including left-wing and communist groups, was also a feature of the Shah's regime. The SAVAK, the Shah's secret police, was infamous for its brutal methods and extensive surveillance.

The Shah's authoritarian approach, combined with the economic and social impact of the reforms, created growing discontent among various segments of Iranian society. Shiite clerics, nationalists, communists, intellectuals and other groups found common ground in their opposition to the regime. Over time, this disparate opposition consolidated into an increasingly coordinated movement. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 can be seen as the result of this convergence of oppositions. The Shah's repression, perceived foreign influence, disruptive economic reforms and the marginalisation of traditional and religious values created fertile ground for a popular revolt. This revolution eventually overthrew the monarchy and established the Islamic Republic of Iran, marking a radical turning point in the country's history.

The celebration of the 2,500th anniversary of the Persian Empire in 1971, organised by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was a monumental event designed to underline the greatness and historical continuity of Iran. This lavish celebration, which took place in Persepolis, the ancient capital of the Achaemenid Empire, was intended to establish a link between the Shah's regime and the glorious imperial history of Persia. As part of his effort to strengthen Iran's national identity and highlight its historical roots, Mohammad Reza Shah made a significant change to the Iranian calendar. This change saw the Islamic calendar, which was based on the Hegira (the migration of the prophet Mohammed from Mecca to Medina), replaced by an imperial calendar that began with the founding of the Achaemenid Empire by Cyrus the Great in 559 BC.

However, this change of calendar was controversial and was seen by many as an attempt by the Shah to play down the importance of Islam in Iranian history and culture in favour of glorifying the pre-Islamic imperial past. This was part of the Shah's policies of modernisation and secularisation, but it also fuelled discontent among religious groups and those attached to Islamic traditions. A few years later, following the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Iran returned to using the Islamic calendar. The revolution, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, overthrew the Pahlavi monarchy and established the Islamic Republic of Iran, marking a profound rejection of the Shah's policies and style of governance, including his attempts to promote a nationalism based on Iran's pre-Islamic history. The calendar issue and the celebration of the 2,500th anniversary of the Persian Empire are examples of how history and culture can be mobilised in politics, and how such actions can have a significant impact on the social and political dynamics of a country.

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 and its Impact

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was a landmark event in contemporary history, not only for Iran but also for global geopolitics. The revolution saw the collapse of the monarchy under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and the establishment of an Islamic Republic under the leadership of Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini. In the years leading up to the revolution, Iran was rocked by massive demonstrations and popular unrest. These protests were motivated by a multitude of grievances against the Shah, including his authoritarian policies, perceived corruption and dependence on the West, political repression, and social and economic inequalities exacerbated by rapid modernisation policies. In addition, the Shah's illness and inability to respond effectively to growing demands for political and social reform contributed to a general feeling of discontent and disillusionment.

In January 1979, faced with intensifying unrest, the Shah left Iran and went into exile. Shortly afterwards, Ayatollah Khomeini, the spiritual and political leader of the revolution, returned to Iran after 15 years in exile. Khomeini was a charismatic and respected figure, whose opposition to the Pahlavi monarchy and call for an Islamic state had won widespread support among various segments of Iranian society. When Khomeini arrived in Iran, he was greeted by millions of supporters. Shortly afterwards, the Iranian armed forces declared their neutrality, a clear sign that the Shah's regime had been irreparably weakened. Khomeini quickly seized the reins of power, declaring an end to the monarchy and establishing a provisional government.

The Iranian Revolution led to the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a theocratic state based on the principles of Shiite Islam and led by religious clerics. Khomeini became Iran's Supreme Leader, a position that gave him considerable power over the political and religious aspects of the state. The revolution not only transformed Iran, but also had a significant impact on regional and international politics, notably by intensifying tensions between Iran and the United States, and by influencing Islamist movements in other parts of the Muslim world.

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 attracted worldwide attention and was supported by various groups, including some Western intellectuals who saw it as a liberation movement or a spiritual and political revival. Among them, the French philosopher Michel Foucault was particularly noted for his writings and commentary on the revolution. Foucault, known for his critical analyses of power structures and governance, was interested in the Iranian Revolution as a significant event that challenged contemporary political and social norms. He was fascinated by the popular and spiritual aspect of the revolution, seeing it as a form of political resistance that went beyond the traditional Western categories of left and right. However, his position was a source of controversy and debate, not least because of the nature of the Islamic Republic that emerged after the revolution.

The Iranian Revolution led to the establishment of a Shia theocracy, where the principles of Islamic governance, based on Shia law (Sharia), were integrated into the political and legal structures of the state. Under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini, the new regime established a unique political structure known as "Velayat-e Faqih" (the tutelage of the Islamic jurist), in which a supreme religious authority, the Supreme Leader, holds considerable power. Iran's transition to a theocracy has led to profound changes in all aspects of Iranian society. Although the revolution initially enjoyed the support of various groups, including nationalists, leftists and liberals, as well as clerics, the years that followed saw a consolidation of power in the hands of Shiite clerics and increasing repression of other political groups. The nature of the Islamic Republic, with its mix of theocracy and democracy, continued to be a subject of debate and analysis, both within Iran and internationally. The revolution profoundly transformed Iran and had a lasting impact on regional and global politics, redefining the relationship between religion, politics and power.

The Iran-Iraq War and its Effects on the Islamic Republic

The invasion of Iran by Iraq in 1980, under the regime of Saddam Hussein, played a paradoxical role in the consolidation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This conflict, known as the Iran-Iraq war, lasted from September 1980 to August 1988 and was one of the longest and bloodiest conflicts of the 20th century. At the time of the attack on Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran was still in its infancy, following the 1979 revolution that overthrew the Pahlavi monarchy. The Iranian regime, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, was in the process of consolidating its power, but faced significant internal tensions and challenges. The Iraqi invasion had a unifying effect in Iran, strengthening national sentiment and support for the Islamic regime. Faced with an external threat, the Iranian people, including many groups previously at odds with the government, rallied around national defence. The war also allowed Khomeini's regime to strengthen its grip on the country, mobilising the population under the banner of defending the Islamic Republic and Shia Islam. The Iran-Iraq war also reinforced the importance of religious power in Iran. The regime used religious rhetoric to mobilise the population and legitimise its actions, relying on the concept of "defence of Islam" to unite Iranians of different political and social persuasions.

The Islamic Republic of Iran was not formally proclaimed, but emerged from the Islamic revolution of 1979. Iran's new constitution, adopted after the revolution, established a unique theocratic political structure, with Shiite Islamic principles and values at the heart of the system of government. Secularism is not a feature of the Iranian constitution, which instead merges religious and political governance under the doctrine of "Velayat-e Faqih" (the guardianship of the Islamic jurist).

Egypt

Ancient Egypt and its Successions

Egypt, with its rich and complex history, is a cradle of ancient civilisations and has seen a succession of rulers over the centuries. The region that is now Egypt was the centre of one of the earliest and greatest civilisations in history, with roots going back to ancient Pharaonic Egypt. Over time, Egypt has been under the influence of various empires and powers. After the Pharaonic era, it was successively under Persian, Greek (after the conquest of Alexander the Great) and Roman domination. Each of these periods left a lasting mark on Egypt's history and culture. The Arab conquest of Egypt, which began in 639, marked a turning point in the country's history. The Arab invasion led to the Islamisation and Arabisation of Egypt, profoundly transforming Egyptian society and culture. Egypt became an integral part of the Islamic world, a status it retains to this day.

In 1517, Egypt fell under the control of the Ottoman Empire after the capture of Cairo. Under Ottoman rule, Egypt retained a degree of local autonomy, but was also tied to the political and economic fortunes of the Ottoman Empire. This period lasted until the early 19th century, when Egypt began to move towards greater modernisation and independence under leaders such as Muhammad Ali Pasha, often regarded as the founder of modern Egypt. Egypt's history is therefore that of a crossroads of civilisations, cultures and influences, which has shaped the country into a unique nation with a rich and diverse identity. Each period of its history has contributed to the construction of contemporary Egypt, a state that plays a key role in the Arab world and in international politics.

In the 18th century, Egypt became a territory of strategic interest to European powers, particularly Great Britain, due to its crucial geographical location and control over the route to India. British interest in Egypt increased with the growing importance of maritime trade and the need for secure trade routes.

Mehmet Ali and the Modernising Reforms

The Nahda, or Arab Renaissance, was a major cultural, intellectual and political movement that took root in Egypt in the 19th century, particularly during the reign of Mehmet Ali, who is often regarded as the founder of modern Egypt. Mehmet Ali, of Albanian origin, was appointed governor of Egypt by the Ottomans in 1805 and quickly set about modernising the country. His reforms included modernising the army, introducing new agricultural methods, expanding industry and establishing a modern education system. The Nahda in Egypt coincided with a wider cultural and intellectual movement in the Arab world, characterised by a literary, scientific and intellectual revival. In Egypt, this movement was stimulated by Mehmet Ali's reforms and by the opening up of the country to European influences.

Ibrahim Pasha, Mehmet Ali's son, also played an important role in Egyptian history. Under his command, Egyptian forces carried out several successful military campaigns, extending Egyptian influence far beyond its traditional borders. In the 1830s, Egyptian troops even challenged the Ottoman Empire, leading to an international crisis involving the great European powers. The expansionism of Mehmet Ali and Ibrahim Pasha was a direct challenge to Ottoman authority and marked Egypt out as a significant political and military player in the region. However, the intervention of European powers, particularly Britain and France, ultimately limited Egyptian ambitions, foreshadowing the increased role these powers would play in the region in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 marked a decisive moment in Egypt's history, significantly increasing its strategic importance on the international stage. This canal, linking the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea, revolutionised maritime trade by considerably reducing the distance between Europe and Asia. Egypt thus found itself at the centre of the world's trade routes, attracting the attention of the great imperialist powers, in particular Great Britain. At the same time, however, Egypt faced considerable economic challenges. The costs of building the Suez Canal and other modernisation projects led the Egyptian government to incur heavy debts to European countries, mainly France and Britain. Egypt's inability to repay these loans had major political and economic consequences.

The British Protectorate and the Struggle for Independence

In 1876, as a result of the debt crisis, a Franco-British control commission was set up to supervise Egypt's finances. This commission took a major role in the administration of the country, effectively reducing Egypt's autonomy and sovereignty. This foreign interference provoked growing discontent among the Egyptian population, particularly among the working classes, who were suffering from the economic effects of the reforms and debt repayments. The situation worsened still further in the 1880s. In 1882, after several years of growing tension and internal disorder, including Ahmed Urabi's nationalist revolt, Britain intervened militarily and established a de facto protectorate over Egypt. Although Egypt officially remained part of the Ottoman Empire until the end of the First World War, it was in reality under British control. The British presence in Egypt was justified by the need to protect British interests, in particular the Suez Canal, which was crucial to the sea route to India, the "jewel in the crown" of the British Empire. This period of British rule had a profound impact on Egypt, shaping its political, economic and social development, and sowing the seeds of Egyptian nationalism that would eventually lead to the 1952 revolution and the country's formal independence.

The First World War accentuated the strategic importance of the Suez Canal for the belligerent powers, particularly Britain. The Canal was vital to British interests as it provided the fastest sea route to its colonies in Asia, notably India, which was then a crucial part of the British Empire. With the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, the need to secure the Suez Canal against possible attack or interference from the Central Powers (notably the Ottoman Empire, allied to Germany) became a priority for Britain. In response to these strategic concerns, the British decided to strengthen their hold on Egypt. In 1914, Britain officially proclaimed a protectorate over Egypt, nominally replacing the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire with direct British control. The proclamation marked the end of nominal Ottoman rule over Egypt, which had existed since 1517, and established a British colonial administration in the country.

The British protectorate involved direct interference in Egypt's internal affairs and strengthened British military and political control over the country. Although the British justified this measure as necessary for the defence of Egypt and the Suez Canal, it was widely perceived by Egyptians as a violation of their sovereignty and fuelled nationalist sentiment in Egypt. The First World War was a period of economic and social hardship in Egypt, exacerbated by the demands of the British war effort and the restrictions imposed by the colonial administration. These conditions contributed to the emergence of a stronger Egyptian nationalist movement, which eventually led to revolts and the struggle for independence in the years following the war.

The Nationalist Movement and the Quest for Independence

The post-First World War period in Egypt was one of growing tensions and nationalist demands. Egyptians, who had suffered the rigours of war, including drudgery and starvation due to British requisitioning of resources, began to demand independence and recognition for their war efforts.

The end of the First World War had created a global climate in which ideas of self-determination and an end to colonial empires were gaining ground, thanks in part to US President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, which called for new principles of international governance and the right of peoples to self-determination. In Egypt, this climate led to the formation of a nationalist movement, embodied by the Wafd (which means "delegation" in Arabic). The Wafd was led by Saad Zaghloul, who became the spokesman for Egyptian nationalist aspirations. In 1919, Zaghloul and other members of the Wafd sought to travel to the Paris Peace Conference to present the case for Egyptian independence. However, the Egyptian delegation's attempt to travel to Paris was obstructed by the British authorities. Zaghloul and his companions were arrested and exiled to Malta by the British, which triggered massive demonstrations and riots in Egypt, known as the 1919 Revolution. This revolution was a major popular uprising, with massive participation by Egyptians from all walks of life, and marked a decisive turning point in the struggle for Egyptian independence.

Zaghloul's forced exile and the repressive British response galvanised the nationalist movement in Egypt and increased pressure on Britain to recognise Egyptian independence. Ultimately, the crisis led to the partial recognition of Egypt's independence in 1922 and the formal end of the British protectorate in 1936, although British influence in Egypt remained significant until the 1952 revolution. The Wafd became a major political player in Egypt, playing a crucial role in Egyptian politics in the following decades, and Saad Zaghloul remained an emblematic figure of Egyptian nationalism.

The revolutionary nationalist movement in Egypt, strengthened by the 1919 Revolution and the leadership of the Wafd under Saad Zaghloul, put increasing pressure on Britain to reconsider its position in Egypt. In response to this pressure and the changing political realities after the First World War, Britain proclaimed the end of its protectorate over Egypt in 1922. However, this 'independence' was highly conditional and limited. Indeed, although the declaration of independence marked a step towards Egyptian sovereignty, it included several important reservations that maintained British influence in Egypt. These included maintaining the British military presence around the Suez Canal, which was crucial to British strategic and commercial interests, and control of the Sudan, the vital source of the Nile and a major geopolitical issue.

Against this backdrop, Sultan Fouad, who had been Sultan of Egypt since 1917, took advantage of the end of the protectorate to proclaim himself King Fouad I in 1922, thereby establishing an independent Egyptian monarchy. However, his reign was characterised by close ties with Great Britain. Fouad I, while formally accepting independence, often acted in close collaboration with the British authorities, which drew criticism from Egyptian nationalists who perceived him as a monarch subservient to British interests. The period following the declaration of independence in 1922 was therefore one of transition and tension in Egypt, with internal political struggles over the direction of the country and the real degree of independence from Britain. This situation laid the foundations for future political conflicts in Egypt, including the 1952 revolution that overthrew the monarchy and established the Arab Republic of Egypt.

The founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna is a major event in the social and political history of the country. The movement was created against a backdrop of growing dissatisfaction with the rapid modernisation and Western influence in Egypt, as well as the perceived deterioration of Islamic values and traditions. The Muslim Brotherhood positioned itself as an Islamist movement seeking to promote a return to Islamic principles in all aspects of life. They advocated a society governed by Islamic laws and principles, in opposition to what they perceived as excessive westernisation and a loss of Islamic cultural identity. The movement rapidly gained popularity, becoming an influential social and political force in Egypt. Alongside the emergence of movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt experienced a period of political instability in the 1920s and 1930s. This instability, combined with the rise of fascist powers in Europe, created a worrying international context for Britain.

Against this backdrop, Britain sought to consolidate its influence in Egypt while recognising the need to make concessions on Egyptian independence. In 1936, Britain and Egypt signed the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, which formally reinforced Egypt's independence while allowing a British military presence in the country, particularly around the Suez Canal. The treaty also recognised Egypt's role in the defence of Sudan, then under Anglo-Egyptian rule. The 1936 Treaty was a step towards greater independence for Egypt, but it also maintained key aspects of British influence. The signing of the Treaty was an attempt by Britain to stabilise the situation in Egypt and to ensure that the country would not fall under the influence of the Axis powers during the Second World War. It also reflected Britain's recognition of the need to adapt to changing political realities in Egypt and the region.

The Nasser Era and the 1952 Revolution

On 23 July 1952, a coup d'état led by a group of Egyptian military officers, known as the Free Officers, marked a major turning point in Egypt's history. This revolution overthrew the monarchy of King Farouk and led to the establishment of a republic. Among the leaders of the Free Officers, Gamal Abdel Nasser quickly became the dominant figure and the face of the new regime. Nasser, who became president in 1954, adopted a strongly nationalist and Third Worldist policy, influenced by ideas of pan-Arabism and socialism. His pan-Arabism aimed to unite Arab countries around common values and political, economic and cultural interests. This ideology was partly a response to Western influence and intervention in the region. The nationalisation of the Suez Canal in 1956 was one of Nasser's boldest and most emblematic decisions. This action was motivated by the desire to control a resource vital to the Egyptian economy and to free himself from Western influence, but it also triggered the Suez Canal crisis, a major military confrontation with France, the United Kingdom and Israel.

Nasser's socialism was developmentalist, aiming to modernise and industrialise the Egyptian economy while promoting social justice. Under his leadership, Egypt launched major infrastructure projects, the most notable of which was the Aswan Dam. To complete this major project, Nasser turned to the Soviet Union for financial and technical support, marking a rapprochement between Egypt and the Soviets during the Cold War. Nasser also sought to develop an Egyptian bourgeoisie while implementing socialist policies, such as land reform and the nationalisation of certain industries. These policies aimed to reduce inequality and establish a fairer, more independent economy. Nasser's leadership had a significant impact not only on Egypt but also on the entire Arab world and the Third World. He became an emblematic figure of Arab nationalism and the non-aligned movement, seeking to establish an independent path for Egypt outside the Cold War power blocs.

From Sadat to Contemporary Egypt

The Six Day War in 1967, lost by Egypt along with Jordan and Syria to Israel, was a devastating moment for Nasser's pan-Arabism. Not only did this defeat result in a significant territorial loss for these Arab countries, it was also a serious blow to the idea of Arab unity and power. Nasser, deeply affected by this failure, remained in power until his death in 1970. Anwar Sadat succeeded Nasser and took a different direction. He launched economic reforms, known as Infitah, aimed at opening the Egyptian economy to foreign investment and stimulating economic growth. Sadat also questioned Egypt's commitment to pan-Arabism and sought to establish relations with Israel. The Camp David Accords of 1978, negotiated with the help of the United States, led to a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, a major turning point in the history of the Middle East.

However, Sadat's rapprochement with Israel was extremely controversial in the Arab world and led to Egypt's expulsion from the Arab League. This decision was seen by many as a betrayal of pan-Arab principles and contributed to a re-evaluation of pan-Arab ideology in the region. Sadat was assassinated in 1981 by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group that had opposed his policies, particularly his foreign policy. He was succeeded by his vice-president, Hosni Mubarak, who established a regime that would last almost three decades.

Under Mubarak, Egypt enjoyed relative stability, but also increasing political repression, particularly against the Muslim Brotherhood and other opposition groups. However, in 2011, during the Arab Spring, Mubarak was toppled by a popular uprising, illustrating widespread discontent with corruption, unemployment and political repression. Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood member, was elected president in 2012, but his term was short-lived. In 2013, he was overthrown by a military coup led by General Abdel Fattah al-Sissi, who was subsequently elected president in 2014. Sissi's regime has been marked by an increased crackdown on political dissidents, including members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and efforts to stabilise the economy and strengthen the country's security. The recent period in Egyptian history is therefore characterised by major political changes, reflecting the complex and often turbulent dynamics of Egyptian and Arab politics.

Saudi Arabia

The Founding Alliance: Ibn Saud and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab

Saudi Arabia is distinguished by its relative youth as a modern nation-state and by the unique ideological foundations that have shaped its formation and evolution. A key element in understanding Saudi history and society is the ideology of Wahhabism.

Wahhabism is a form of Sunni Islam, characterised by a strict and puritanical interpretation of Islam. It takes its name from Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, an 18th-century theologian and religious reformer from the Najd region in what is now Saudi Arabia. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab advocated a return to what he considered to be the original principles of Islam, rejecting many practices that he deemed to be innovations (bid'ah) or idolatries. The influence of Wahhabism on the formation of Saudi Arabia is inextricably linked to the alliance between Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Muhammad ibn Saud, the founder of the first Saudi dynasty, in the 18th century. This alliance united the religious aims of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab with the political and territorial ambitions of Ibn Saud, creating an ideological and political foundation for the first Saudi state.

Establishment of the Modern Saudi State

During the 20th century, under the reign of Abdelaziz ibn Saud, the founder of the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, this alliance was strengthened. Saudi Arabia was officially founded in 1932, uniting various tribes and regions under a single national authority. Wahhabism became the official religious doctrine of the state, permeating governance, education, legislation and social life in Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism has not only influenced Saudi Arabia's internal social and political structure, but has also had an impact on its external relations, particularly in terms of foreign policy and support for various Islamic movements around the world. Saudi Arabia's oil wealth has enabled the kingdom to promote its version of Islam internationally, helping to spread Wahhabism beyond its borders.

The pact of 1744 between Muhammad ibn Saud, the chief of the Al Saud tribe, and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, a religious reformer, is a founding event in the history of Saudi Arabia. This pact united the political aims of Ibn Saud with the religious ideals of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, laying the foundations for what was to become the Saudi state. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab advocated a puritanical interpretation of Islam, seeking to purge religious practice of what he considered to be innovations, superstitions and deviations from the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran. His movement, which came to be known as Wahhabism, called for a return to a "purer" form of Islam. On the other hand, Ibn Saud saw in Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's movement an opportunity to legitimise and extend his political power. The pact between them was therefore both a religious and political alliance, with Ibn Saud pledging to defend and promote Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's teachings, while Ibn Abd al-Wahhab supported Ibn Saud's political authority. In the years that followed, the Al Sauds, with the support of Wahhabi followers, undertook military campaigns to extend their influence and impose their interpretation of Islam. These campaigns led to the creation of the first Saudi state in the 18th century, covering a large part of the Arabian Peninsula.

However, the formation of the Saudi state was not a linear process. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Al Saud political entity suffered several setbacks, including the destruction of the first Saudi state by the Ottomans and their Egyptian allies. It was not until Abdelaziz ibn Saud, at the beginning of the 20th century, that the Al Sauds finally succeeded in establishing a stable and lasting kingdom, modern Saudi Arabia, proclaimed in 1932. The history of Saudi Arabia is therefore intimately linked to the alliance between the Al Sauds and the Wahhabi movement, an alliance that shaped not only the kingdom's political and social structure, but also its religious and cultural identity.

Ibn Saud's Reconquest and the founding of the Kingdom

The attack on Mecca by Saudi forces in 1803 is a significant event in the history of the Arabian Peninsula and reflects the religious and political tensions of the time. Wahhabism, the strict interpretation of Sunni Islam promoted by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and adopted by the House of Saud, considered certain practices, particularly those of Shi'ism, to be alien or even heretical to Islam. In 1803, Saudi Wahhabi forces took control of Mecca, one of Islam's holiest sites, which was seen as a provocative act by other Muslims, particularly the Ottomans who were the traditional custodians of the Islamic holy sites. This takeover was seen not only as territorial expansion by the Saud, but also as an attempt to impose their particular interpretation of Islam.

In response to this Saudi advance, the Ottoman Empire, seeking to maintain its influence over the region, sent forces under the command of Mehmet Ali Pasha, the Ottoman governor of Egypt. Mehmet Ali Pasha, renowned for his military skills and efforts to modernise Egypt, led an effective campaign against the Saudi forces. In 1818, after a series of military confrontations, Mehmet Ali Pasha's troops succeeded in defeating the Saudi forces and capturing their leader, Abdullah bin Saud, who was sent to Constantinople (now Istanbul) where he was executed. This defeat marked the end of the first Saudi state. This episode illustrates the complexity of the political and religious dynamics in the region at the time. It highlights not only the conflicts between different interpretations of Islam, but also the struggle for power and influence among the regional powers of the time, notably the Ottoman Empire and the emerging Sauds.

The second attempt to create a Saudi state, which took place between 1820 and 1840, also encountered difficulties and ultimately failed. This period was marked by a series of conflicts and confrontations between the Saud and various adversaries, including the Ottoman Empire and its local allies. These struggles resulted in the loss of territory and influence for the House of Saud. However, the aspiration to establish a Saudi state did not disappear. At the turn of the 20th century, particularly around 1900-1901, a new phase in Saudi history began with the return of members of the Al Saud family from exile. Among them, Abdelaziz ibn Saud, often referred to as Ibn Saud, played a crucial role in the rebirth and expansion of Saudi influence. Ibn Saud, a charismatic and strategic leader, set out to reconquer and unify the territories of the Arabian Peninsula under the banner of the House of Saud. His campaign began with the capture of Riyadh in 1902, which became the starting point for further conquests and the expansion of his kingdom.

Over the following decades, Ibn Saud led a series of military campaigns and political manoeuvres, gradually extending his control over much of the Arabian Peninsula. These efforts were facilitated by his ability to negotiate alliances, manage tribal rivalries and integrate Wahhabi teachings as the ideological basis of his state. Ibn Saud's success culminated in the founding of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932, uniting the various regions and tribes under a single national authority. The new kingdom consolidated the various territories conquered by Ibn Saud, establishing a lasting Saudi state with Wahhabism as its religious and ideological foundation. The creation of Saudi Arabia marked a significant milestone in the modern history of the Middle East, with far-reaching implications for both the region and international politics, particularly following the discovery and exploitation of oil in the kingdom.

Relations with the British Empire and the Arab Revolt

In 1915, during the First World War, the British, seeking to weaken the Ottoman Empire, established contacts with various Arab leaders, including Sherif Hussein of Mecca, who was a prominent member of the Hashemite family. At the same time, the British maintained relations with the Saudis, led by Abdelaziz ibn Saud, although these were less direct and involved than those with the Hashemites. Sherif Hussein, encouraged by British promises of support for Arab independence, launched the Arab Revolt in 1916 against the Ottoman Empire. This revolt was motivated by the desire for Arab independence and opposition to Ottoman domination. However, the Saudis, under the leadership of Ibn Saud, did not take an active part in this revolt. They were engaged in their own campaign to consolidate and extend their control over the Arabian Peninsula. Although the Saudis and Hashemites had common interests against the Ottomans, they were also rivals for control of the region.

After the war, with the failure of British and French promises to create an independent Arab kingdom (as envisaged in the secret Sykes-Picot agreements), Sherif Hussein found himself isolated. In 1924, he proclaimed himself Caliph, an act that was seen as provocative by many Muslims, including the Saudis. Hussein's proclamation as Caliph provided a pretext for the Saudis to attack him as they sought to extend their influence. Saudi forces finally took control of Mecca in 1924, ending Hashemite rule in the region and consolidating the power of Ibn Saud. This conquest was a key stage in the formation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and marked the end of Sherif Hussein's ambitions to create a unified Arab kingdom under the Hashemite dynasty.

The Rise of Saudi Arabia and the Discovery of Oil

In 1926, Abdelaziz ibn Saud, having consolidated his control over a large part of the Arabian Peninsula, proclaimed himself King of Hijaz. The Hijaz, a region of considerable religious importance due to the presence of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, had previously been under the control of the Hashemite dynasty. Ibn Saud's seizure of the Hijaz marked a significant step in the establishment of Saudi Arabia as a powerful political entity in the region. The recognition of Ibn Saud as King of the Hijaz by powers such as Russia, France and Great Britain was a key moment in the international legitimisation of his rule. These recognitions signalled a significant change in international relations and an acceptance of the new balance of power in the region. Ibn Saud's takeover of Hijaz not only strengthened his position as a political leader in the Arabian Peninsula, but also increased his prestige in the Muslim world, placing him as the guardian of Islam's holy places. It also meant the end of the Hashemite presence in the Hijaz, with the remaining members of the Hashemite dynasty fleeing to other parts of the Middle East, where they would establish new kingdoms, particularly in Jordan and Iraq. The proclamation of Ibn Saud as King of the Hijaz was therefore an important milestone in the formation of modern Saudi Arabia and helped to shape the political architecture of the Middle East in the period following the First World War.

In 1932, Abdelaziz ibn Saud completed a process of territorial and political consolidation that led to the creation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The kingdom united the regions of Nedj (or Nejd) and Hedjaz under a single national authority, marking the birth of the modern Saudi state. This unification represented the culmination of Ibn Saud's efforts to establish a stable and unified kingdom in the Arabian Peninsula, consolidating the various conquests and alliances he had achieved over the years. The discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia in 1938 was a major turning point not only for the kingdom, but also for the world economy. The American California Arabian Standard Oil Company (later ARAMCO) was the first to discover oil in commercial quantities. This discovery transformed Saudi Arabia from a predominantly desert and agrarian state into one of the world's largest oil producers.

The Second World War accentuated the strategic importance of Saudi oil. Although Saudi Arabia remained officially neutral during the war, the growing demand for oil to fuel the war effort made the kingdom an important economic partner for the Allies, notably Britain and the United States. The relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States, in particular, strengthened during and after the war, laying the foundations for a lasting alliance centred on security and oil. This period also saw the beginning of Saudi Arabia's significant influence in world affairs, thanks in large part to its vast oil reserves. The kingdom became a key player in the global economy and Middle East politics, a position it continues to occupy today. Oil wealth has enabled Saudi Arabia to invest heavily in national development and play an influential role in regional and international politics.

Modern Challenges: Islamism, Oil, and International Politics

The Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979 had a profound impact on the geopolitical balance in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. The rise to power of Ayatollah Khomeini and the establishment of an Islamic Republic in Iran raised concerns in many countries in the region, particularly in Saudi Arabia, where it was feared that Shiite revolutionary ideology could be exported and destabilise the predominantly Sunni Gulf monarchies. In Saudi Arabia, these fears strengthened the kingdom's position as an ally of the United States and other Western powers. In the context of the Cold War and the growing hostility between the United States and Iran after the revolution, Saudi Arabia was seen as a vital counterweight to Iranian influence in the region. Wahhabism, the strict and conservative interpretation of Sunni Islam practised in Saudi Arabia, became central to the kingdom's identity and was used to counter Iranian Shiite influence.

Saudi Arabia also played a key role in anti-Soviet efforts, particularly during the Afghan War (1979-1989). The kingdom supported the Afghan mujahideen fighting the Soviet invasion, both financially and ideologically, promoting Wahhabism as part of the Islamic resistance against Soviet atheism. In 1981, as part of its strategy to strengthen regional cooperation and counter Iranian influence, Saudi Arabia was a key player in the creation of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The GCC, a political and economic alliance, comprises Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. The organisation is designed to foster collaboration between the Gulf monarchies in a variety of areas, including defence, economics and foreign policy. Saudi Arabia's position within the GCC has reflected and reinforced its role as a regional leader. The kingdom has used the GCC as a platform to promote its strategic interests and to stabilise the region in the face of security and political challenges, notably tensions with Iran and turbulence linked to Islamist movements and regional conflicts.

The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq under Saddam Hussein in August 1990 triggered a series of crucial events in the Gulf region, with major repercussions for Saudi Arabia and world politics. The invasion led to the 1991 Gulf War, in which a US-led international coalition was formed to liberate Kuwait. Faced with the Iraqi threat, Saudi Arabia, fearing a possible invasion of its own territory, accepted the presence of US military forces and other coalition troops on its soil. Temporary military bases were established in Saudi Arabia to launch operations against Iraq. This decision was historic and controversial, as it involved the stationing of non-Muslim troops in the country that is home to Islam's two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina.

The US military presence in Saudi Arabia was strongly criticised by various Islamist groups, including al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden, himself of Saudi origin, interpreted the US military presence in Saudi Arabia as a desecration of the holy lands of Islam. This was one of Al Qaeda's main grievances against the United States and was used as a justification for its terrorist attacks, including the attacks of 11 September 2001. Al Qaeda's reaction to the Gulf War and the US military presence in Saudi Arabia highlighted the growing tensions between Western values and certain radical Islamist groups. It also highlighted the challenges Saudi Arabia faced in balancing its strategic relationship with the US and managing conservative Islamic sentiments within its own population. The post-Gulf War period has been a time of change and instability in the region, marked by political and ideological conflicts, which continue to influence regional and international dynamics.

The incident at the Great Mosque in Mecca in 1979 is a landmark event in Saudi Arabia's contemporary history and illustrates the internal tensions linked to issues of religious and political identity. On 20 November 1979, a group of Islamic fundamentalists led by Juhayman al-Otaybi stormed the Great Mosque of Mecca, one of the holiest sites in Islam. Juhayman al-Otaybi and his supporters, mainly from conservative and religious backgrounds, criticised the Saudi royal family for its corruption, luxury and openness to Western influence. They considered these factors to be at odds with the Wahhabi principles on which the kingdom was founded. Al-Otaybi proclaimed his brother-in-law, Mohammed Abdullah al-Qahtani, as the Mahdi, a messianic figure in Islam.

The siege of the Grand Mosque lasted two weeks, during which time the insurgents held thousands of pilgrims hostage. The situation posed a considerable challenge to the Saudi government, not only in terms of security, but also in terms of religious and political legitimacy. Saudi Arabia had to ask for a fatwa (religious decree) to allow military intervention in the mosque, normally a sanctuary of peace where violence is forbidden. The final assault to retake the mosque began on 4 December 1979 and was led by Saudi security forces with the help of French advisers. The battle was intense and deadly, leaving hundreds of insurgents, security forces and hostages dead.

The incident had far-reaching repercussions in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim world. It revealed fissures in Saudi society and highlighted the challenges facing the kingdom in terms of managing religious extremism. In response to the crisis, the Saudi government strengthened its conservative religious policies and increased its control over religious institutions, while continuing to repress Islamist opposition. The incident also highlighted the complexity of the relationship between religion, politics and power in Saudi Arabia.

Countries created by decree

At the end of the First World War, the United States, under the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, had a different vision from that of the European powers regarding the future of the territories conquered during the war. Wilson, with his Fourteen Points, advocated the right of peoples to self-determination and opposed the acquisition of territory by conquest, a position that contrasted with the traditional colonial objectives of the European powers, notably Great Britain and France. The United States was also in favour of an open and equitable system of trade, which meant that territories should not be exclusively under the control of a single power, in order to allow wider commercial access, thus benefiting American interests. In practice, however, British and French interests prevailed, the latter having made significant territorial gains following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the defeat of Germany.

To reconcile these different perspectives, a compromise was found through the League of Nations system of mandates. This system was supposed to be a form of international governance for the conquered territories, in preparation for their eventual independence. Setting up this system required a complex process of negotiations and treaties. The San Remo Conference in 1920 was a key moment in this process, during which the mandates for the territories of the former Ottoman Empire were awarded, mainly to Great Britain and France. Subsequently, the Cairo Conference in 1921 further defined the terms and limits of these mandates. The Treaties of Sèvres in 1920 and Lausanne in 1923 redrew the map of the Middle East and formalised the end of the Ottoman Empire. The Treaty of Sèvres, in particular, dismantled the Ottoman Empire and provided for the creation of a number of independent nation states. However, due to Turkish opposition and subsequent changes in the geopolitical situation, the Treaty of Sèvres was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne, which redefined the borders of modern Turkey and annulled some of the provisions of the Treaty of Sèvres. This lengthy negotiation process reflected the complexities and tensions of the post-war world order, with established powers seeking to maintain their influence while confronting new international ideals and the emergence of the United States as a global power.

After the First World War, the dismantling of the Ottoman and German empires led to the creation of the League of Nations system of mandates, an attempt to manage the territories of these former empires in a post-colonial context. This system, established by the post-war peace treaties, notably the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, was divided into three categories - A, B and C - reflecting the perceived degree of development and readiness for self-government of the territories concerned.

Type A mandates, allocated to the territories of the former Ottoman Empire in the Middle East, were considered to be the most advanced towards self-determination. These territories, considered relatively "civilised" by the standards of the time, included Syria and Lebanon, under the French mandate, as well as Palestine (including present-day Jordan) and Iraq, under the British mandate. The notion of "civilisation" employed at the time reflected the prejudices and paternalistic attitudes of the colonial powers, assuming that these regions were closer to self-governance than others. The treatment of Type A mandates reflected the geopolitical interests of the mandating powers, notably Britain and France, who sought to extend their influence in the region. Their actions were often motivated by strategic and economic considerations, such as control of trade routes and access to oil resources, rather than a commitment to the autonomy of local populations. This was illustrated by the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which Britain expressed its support for the creation of a "Jewish national home" in Palestine, a decision that had lasting and divisive consequences for the region. Type B and C mandates, mainly in Africa and certain Pacific islands, were considered to require a higher level of supervision. These territories, often underdeveloped and with little infrastructure, were managed more directly by the mandating powers. The system of mandates, although presented as a form of benevolent trusteeship, was in reality very close to colonialism and was widely perceived as such by the indigenous populations.

In short, the League of Nations system of mandates, despite its stated intention to prepare territories for independence, often served to perpetuate the influence and control of the European powers in the regions concerned. It also laid the foundations for many future political and territorial conflicts, particularly in the Middle East, where the borders and policies established during this period continue to have a significant impact on regional and international dynamics.

This map shows the distribution of territories formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East and North Africa after they were lost by the Empire, mainly as a result of the First World War. The different zones of influence and the territories controlled by the European powers are colour-coded. The territories are divided according to the power that controlled them or exercised influence over them. British-controlled territories are in purple, the French in yellow, the Italians in pink and the Spanish in blue. Independent territories are marked in pale yellow, the Ottoman Empire is in glass with its borders at their height highlighted, and areas of Russian and British influence are also shown.

The map also shows the dates of initial occupation or control of certain territories by colonial powers, indicating the period of imperialist expansion in North Africa and the Middle East. For example, Algeria has been marked as French territory since 1830, Tunisia since 1881 and Morocco is divided between French (since 1912) and Spanish (since 1912) control. Libya, meanwhile, was under Italian control from 1911 to 1932. Egypt has been marked as British-controlled since 1882, although it was technically a British protectorate. Anglo-Egyptian Sudan is also shown, reflecting joint Egyptian and British control since 1899. As far as the Middle East is concerned, the map clearly shows the League of Nations mandates, with Syria and Lebanon under French mandate and Iraq and Palestine (including present-day Transjordan) under British mandate. The Hijaz, the region around Mecca and Medina, is also shown, reflecting the control of the Saud family, while Yemen and Oman are marked as British protectorates. This map is a useful tool for understanding the geopolitical changes that took place after the decline of the Ottoman Empire and how the Middle East and North Africa were reshaped by European colonial interests. It also shows the complexity of power relations in the region, which continue to affect regional and international politics today.

In 1919, following the First World War, the division of the territories of the former Ottoman Empire between the European powers was a controversial and divisive process. The local populations of these regions, having nurtured aspirations to self-determination and independence, often greeted the establishment of European-controlled mandates with hostility. This hostility was part of a wider context of dissatisfaction with Western influence and intervention in the region. The Arab nationalist movement, which had gained momentum during the war, aspired to the creation of a unified Arab state or several independent Arab states. These aspirations had been encouraged by British promises of support for Arab independence in return for support against the Ottomans, notably through the Hussein-McMahon correspondence and the Arab Revolt led by Sherif Hussein of Mecca. However, the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, a secret arrangement between Britain and France, divided the region into zones of influence, betraying promises made to the Arabs.

Anti-Western feelings were particularly strong because of the perception that the European powers were not honouring their commitments to the Arab populations and were manipulating the region for their own imperialist interests. By contrast, the United States was often viewed less critically by local populations. American policy under President Woodrow Wilson was seen as more supportive of self-determination and less inclined towards traditional imperialism. Moreover, the United States did not have the same colonial history as the European powers in the region, which made it less likely to arouse the hostility of local populations. The immediate post-war period was therefore one of profound uncertainty and tension in the Middle East, as local populations struggled for independence and autonomy in the face of foreign powers seeking to shape the region according to their own strategic and economic interests. The repercussions of these events shaped the political and social history of the Middle East throughout the 20th century and continue to influence international relations in the region.

Syria

The Dawn of Arab Nationalism: The Role of Faisal

Faisal, son of Sherif Hussein bin Ali of Mecca, played a leading role in the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War and in subsequent attempts to form an independent Arab kingdom. After the war, he went to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, armed with British promises of independence for the Arabs in return for their support during the conflict. However, once in Paris, Faisal soon discovered the complex political realities and intrigues of post-war diplomacy. French interests in the Middle East, particularly in Syria and Lebanon, were in direct contradiction with aspirations for Arab independence. The French were resolutely opposed to the creation of a unified Arab kingdom under Faisal, envisaging instead placing these territories under their control as part of the League of Nations system of mandates. Faced with this opposition, and conscious of the need to strengthen his political position, Faisal negotiated an agreement with French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau. This agreement aimed to establish a French protectorate over Syria, which was at odds with the aspirations of the Arab nationalists. Faisal kept the agreement secret from his supporters, who continued to fight for full independence.

Meanwhile, a Syrian state was being formed. Under Faisal's leadership, efforts were made to lay the foundations of a modern state, with reforms in education, the creation of a public administration, the establishment of an army and the development of policies to strengthen national identity and sovereignty. Despite these developments, the situation in Syria remained precarious. The secret agreement with Clemenceau and the lack of British support put Faisal in a difficult position. Eventually, France took direct control of Syria in 1920 after the Battle of Maysaloun, ending Faisal's hopes of establishing an independent Arab kingdom. Faisal was expelled from Syria by the French, but would later become King of Iraq, another newly formed state under the British Mandate.

Syria under the French Mandate: The Sykes-Picot Agreements

The Sykes-Picot Accords, concluded in 1916 between Great Britain and France, established a division of influence and control over the territories of the former Ottoman Empire after the First World War. Under the terms of these agreements, France was to gain control of what is now Syria and Lebanon, while Great Britain was to control Iraq and Palestine. In July 1920, France sought to consolidate its control over the territories promised to it by the Sykes-Picot agreements. The Battle of Maysaloun was fought between French forces and troops from the short-lived Syrian Arab Kingdom under the command of King Faisal. The ill-equipped and ill-prepared Faisal forces were greatly outnumbered by the better-equipped and better-trained French army. The defeat at the Battle of Maysaloun was a devastating blow to Arab aspirations for independence and ended Faisal's reign in Syria. Following this defeat, he was forced into exile. This event marked the establishment of the French Mandate over Syria, which was officially recognised by the League of Nations despite the aspirations of the Syrian people for self-determination. The establishment of mandates was supposed to prepare territories for eventual autonomy and independence, but in practice it often functioned as colonial conquest and administration. Local populations largely viewed the mandates as a continuation of European colonialism, and the period of the French mandate in Syria was marked by significant rebellion and resistance. This period shaped many of Syria's political, social and national dynamics, influencing the country's history and identity to this day.

Fragmentation and the French Administration in Syria

After establishing control over the Syrian territories following the Battle of Maysaloun, France, under the authority of the mandate conferred by the League of Nations, set about restructuring the region according to its own administrative and political designs. This restructuring often involved the division of territories along sectarian or ethnic lines, a common practice of colonial policy aimed at fragmenting and weakening local nationalist movements.

In Syria, the French Mandatory authorities divided the territory into several entities, including the Aleppine State, the Damascene State, the Alawite State and Greater Lebanon, the latter becoming the modern Lebanese Republic. These divisions partly reflected the complex socio-cultural realities of the region, but they were also designed to prevent the emergence of an Arab unity that could challenge French domination, embodying the strategy of "divide and rule". Lebanon, in particular, was created with a distinct identity, largely to serve the interests of the Maronite Christian communities, which had historical links with France. The creation of these different states within Mandatory Syria led to a political fragmentation that complicated efforts for a unified national movement.

France administered these territories in a similar way to its metropolitan departments, imposing a centralised structure and placing high commissioners to govern the territories on behalf of the French government. This direct administration was accompanied by the rapid establishment of administrative and educational institutions with the aim of assimilating local populations into French culture and strengthening the French presence in the region. However, this policy exacerbated Arab frustrations, as many Syrians and Lebanese aspired to independence and the right to determine their own political future. France's policies were often seen as a continuation of Western interference and fuelled nationalist and anti-colonialist sentiment. Uprisings and revolts broke out in response to these measures, notably the Great Syrian Revolt of 1925-1927, which was violently suppressed by the French. The legacy of this period has left lasting marks on Syria and Lebanon, shaping their borders, political structures and national identities. The tensions and divisions established under the French mandate continued to influence the political and community dynamics of these countries long after their independence.

The 1925-1927 Revolt and the French Repression

The Great Syrian Revolt, which broke out in 1925, was a key episode in the resistance against the French Mandate in Syria. It began among the Druze population of Jabal al-Druze (Mountain of the Druze) in southern Syria and quickly spread to other regions, including the capital, Damascus. The Druze, who had enjoyed a degree of autonomy and privilege under Ottoman rule, found themselves marginalised and their powers curtailed under the French Mandate. Their dissatisfaction with the loss of autonomy and the policies imposed by the French, who sought to centralise administration and weaken traditional local powers, was the spark that ignited the revolt. The revolt spread and grew, gaining support from various segments of Syrian society, including Arab nationalists who opposed foreign domination and the administrative divisions imposed by France. The reaction of the French proxy authorities was extremely harsh. They used aerial bombardments, mass executions and public displays of the bodies of insurgents to deter further resistance.

The repressive actions of the French, which included the destruction of villages and brutality towards civilians, were widely condemned and tarnished France's reputation both internationally and among the local population. Although the revolt was eventually crushed, it has remained engraved in the collective Syrian memory as a symbol of the struggle for independence and national dignity. The Great Syrian Uprising also had long-term implications for Syrian politics, strengthening anti-colonial sentiment and helping to forge a Syrian national identity. It also contributed to changes in French policy, which had to adjust its approach to the mandate in Syria, ultimately leading to increased Syrian autonomy in the years that followed.

The Road to Syrian Independence

The management of the French mandate in Syria was marked by policies that were more akin to colonial administration than to benevolent tutelage leading to self-determination, contrary to what the League of Nations system of mandates theoretically provided for. The repression of the Great Syrian Revolt and administrative centralisation strengthened nationalist and anti-colonial sentiments in Syria, which continued to grow despite oppression.

The rise of Syrian nationalism, together with global geopolitical changes, eventually led to the country's independence. After the Second World War, in a world that was increasingly turning against colonialism, France was forced to recognise Syria's independence in 1946. However, this transition to independence was complicated by regional political manoeuvring and international alliances, particularly with Turkey. During the Second World War, Turkey maintained a neutral position throughout most of the conflict, but its relations with Nazi Germany caused concern among the Allies. In an effort to secure Turkish neutrality or to prevent Turkey from allying itself with the Axis powers, France made a diplomatic gesture by ceding the Hatay region (historically known as Antioch and Alexandrette) to Turkey.

The Hatay region was of strategic importance and had a mixed population, with Turkish, Arab and Armenian communities. The question of its membership has been a bone of contention between Syria and Turkey since the break-up of the Ottoman Empire. In 1939, a plebiscite, the legitimacy of which was disputed by the Syrians, was held and led to the formal annexation of the region to Turkey. The cession of Hatay was a blow to Syrian national sentiment and left a scar on Turkish-Syrian relations that has endured. For Syria, the loss of Hatay is often seen as an act of betrayal by France and a painful example of territorial manipulation by colonial powers. For Turkey, the annexation of Hatay was seen as the rectification of an unjust division of the Turkish people and the recovery of a territory historically linked to the Ottoman Empire.

During the Second World War, when France was defeated and occupied by Nazi Germany in 1940, the Vichy government, a collaborationist regime led by Marshal Philippe Pétain, was established. This regime also took control of French overseas territories, including the French mandate in Lebanon. The Vichy government, aligned with the Axis powers, allowed German forces to use the military infrastructure in Lebanon, posing a security risk to the Allies, particularly the British, who were engaged in a military campaign in the Middle East. The Axis presence in Lebanon was seen as a direct threat to British interests, particularly with the proximity of oil fields and strategic transport routes. The British and the Free French Forces, led by General Charles de Gaulle and opposed to the Vichy regime, launched Operation Exporter in 1941. The aim of this military campaign was to take control of Lebanon and Syria and eliminate the presence of Axis forces in the region. After fierce fighting, British troops and the Free French Forces succeeded in taking control of Lebanon and Syria, and the Vichy regime was expelled.

At the end of the war, British pressure and changing international attitudes towards colonialism forced France to reconsider its position in Lebanon. In 1943, Lebanese leaders negotiated with the French authorities to gain independence for the country. Although France initially tried to maintain its influence and even briefly arrested the new Lebanese government, international pressure and popular uprisings eventually led France to recognise Lebanon's independence. 22 November 1943 is celebrated as Lebanon's Independence Day, marking the official end of the French mandate and the birth of Lebanon as a sovereign state. This transition to independence was a key moment for Lebanon and laid the foundations for the country's future as an independent nation.

After gaining independence, Syria moved towards a pan-Arab and nationalist policy, partly in reaction to the mandate era and the challenges posed by the formation of the State of Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Nationalist sentiment was exacerbated by frustration at internal divisions, foreign interference and a sense of humiliation at colonial experiences.

Syria's participation in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war against the newly formed state of Israel was motivated by these nationalist and pan-Arab sentiments, as well as by the pressure of Arab solidarity. However, the defeat of the Arab armies in this war had profound consequences for the region, including Syria. It gave rise to a period of internal political instability, marked by a series of military coups that characterised Syrian politics in the years that followed. The defeat in 1948 and the internal problems that followed exacerbated the Syrian public's distrust of civilian leaders and politicians, who were often perceived as corrupt or ineffective. The army became the most stable and powerful institution in the state, and was the main actor in the frequent changes of governance. Military coups became a common method of changing government, reflecting the country's deep political, ideological and social divisions.

This cycle of instability paved the way for the rise of the Baath Party, which finally took power in 1963. The Ba'ath Party, with its pan-Arab socialist ideology, sought to reform Syrian society and strengthen the state, but also led to a more authoritarian and centralised government, dominated by the military and security apparatus. Syria's internal tensions, combined with its complex relations with its neighbours and regional dynamics, have made the country's contemporary history a period of political turbulence, which finally culminated in the Syrian civil war that began in 2011.

Political instability and the rise of the Baath Party

Baathism, an Arab political ideology that advocates socialism, pan-Arabism and secularism, began to gain ground in the Arab world during the 1950s. In Syria, where pan-Arab sentiments were particularly strong after independence, the idea of Arab unity found favour, particularly following internal political instability. Syria's pan-Arab aspirations led it to seek closer union with Egypt, then led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, a charismatic leader whose popularity extended far beyond Egypt's borders, not least because of his nationalisation of the Suez Canal and his opposition to imperialism. Nasser was seen as the champion of pan-Arabism and had succeeded in promoting a vision of unity and cooperation between the Arab states. In 1958, this aspiration for unity led to the formation of the United Arab Republic (UAR), a political union between Egypt and Syria. This development was hailed as a major step towards Arab unity and raised high hopes for the political future of the Arab world.

However, the union soon showed signs of strain. Although the UAR was presented as a union of equals, in practice the political leadership of Egypt and Nasser became predominant. The RAU's political and economic institutions were largely centralised in Cairo, and Syria began to feel that it was being reduced to the status of an Egyptian province rather than an equal partner in the union. These tensions were exacerbated by differences in the political, economic and social structures of the two countries. Egyptian domination and growing frustration in Syria eventually led to the dissolution of the RAU in 1961, when Syrian military officers led a coup that separated Syria from the union. The RAU experience left an ambivalent legacy: on the one hand, it showed the potential of Arab unity, but on the other, it revealed the practical and ideological challenges to be overcome in order to achieve true political integration between Arab states.

On 28 September 1961, a group of Syrian military officers, dissatisfied with the excessive centralisation of power in Cairo and Egyptian domination within the United Arab Republic (UAR), led a coup d'état that marked the end of the union between Syria and Egypt. The uprising was mainly motivated by nationalist and regionalist sentiments in Syria, where many citizens and politicians felt marginalised and neglected by the RAU government led by Nasser. The dissolution of the RAU exacerbated the political instability already present in Syria, which had experienced a series of coups d'état since its independence in 1946. The separation from Egypt was greeted with relief by many Syrians who were concerned about the loss of their country's sovereignty and autonomy. However, it also created a political vacuum that various groups and factions, including the Baath Party, would seek to exploit. The 1961 coup therefore paved the way for a period of intense political conflict in Syria, which would see the Ba'ath party make its way to power in 1963. Under Baath leadership, Syria would adopt a series of socialist and pan-Arab reforms, while establishing an authoritarian regime that would dominate Syrian political life for several decades. The period following the 1961 coup was marked by tensions between Baathist factions and other political groups, each seeking to impose its vision for the future of Syria.

After a period of political instability and successive coups d'état, Syria experienced a decisive turning point in 1963 when the Ba'ath party came to power. This movement, founded on the principles of pan-Arabism and socialism, aimed to transform Syrian society by promoting a unified Arab identity and implementing far-reaching social and economic reforms. The Baath Party, under the leadership of Michel Aflaq and Salah al-Din al-Bitar, had emerged as a major political force, advocating a vision of socialism adapted to the specific characteristics of the Arab world. Their ideology combined the promotion of a secular state with socialist policies, such as the nationalisation of key industries and land reform, aimed at redistributing land to peasants and modernising agriculture.

In the field of education, the Ba'athist government initiated reforms aimed at increasing literacy and instilling socialist and pan-Arab values. These reforms aimed to forge a new national identity, focusing on Arab history and culture, while promoting science and technology as means of modernisation. At the same time, Syria underwent a period of accelerated secularisation. The Ba'ath party worked to reduce the role of religion in state affairs, striving to create a more ideologically homogenous society while managing the country's religious and ethnic diversity.

However, these reforms have also been accompanied by an increase in authoritarianism. The Ba'ath party consolidated its hold on power, limiting political freedoms and repressing all forms of opposition. Internal tensions within the party and within Syrian society continued to manifest themselves, culminating in the rise of Hafez al-Assad to power in 1970. Under Assad, Syria continued along the path of Arab socialism, but with an even stronger hold by the regime on society and politics. The Baathist period in Syria was thus characterised by a mixture of modernisation and authoritarianism, reflecting the complexities of implementing a socialist and pan-Arab ideology in a context of cultural diversity and internal and external political challenges. This era laid the foundations for Syria's political and social development over the following decades, profoundly influencing the country's contemporary history.

The era of Hafez al-Assad: Consolidation of power

The evolution of the Baath Party in Syria was marked by internal power struggles and ideological divisions, culminating in a coup d'état in 1966. This coup was orchestrated by a more radically socialist faction within the party, which sought to impose a stricter political line more aligned with socialist and pan-Arab principles. This change led to a period of more dogmatic and ideologically rigid governance. The new Baath Party leadership continued to implement socialist reforms, while strengthening state control over the economy and accentuating pan-Arab rhetoric. However, the defeat of Syria and other Arab countries by Israel in the Six-Day War in 1967 dealt a severe blow to the legitimacy of the Ba'ath Party and to the pan-Arab vision in general. The loss of the Golan Heights to Israel and the failure to achieve the objectives of the war led to disillusionment and a questioning of the country's political direction. This period was marked by chaos and increased instability, exacerbating internal tensions in Syria.

Against this backdrop, Hafez al-Assad, then Minister of Defence, seized the opportunity to consolidate his power. In 1970, he led a successful military coup, ousting the radical Baathist leadership and taking control of the government. Assad changed the direction of the Baath Party and the Syrian state, focusing more on stabilising the country and on Syrian nationalism rather than pan-Arabism. Under Assad's leadership, Syria experienced a period of relative stabilisation and consolidation of power. Assad established an authoritarian regime, tightly controlling all aspects of political and social life. He also sought to strengthen the army and the security services, establishing a regime focused on security and the survival of power. Hafez al-Assad's seizure of power in 1970 thus marked a turning point in Syria's modern history, ushering in an era of more centralised and authoritarian governance that would shape the country's future for decades to come.

After taking power in Syria in 1970, Hafez al-Assad quickly realised that he needed a solid social base and a degree of legitimacy to maintain his regime. To consolidate his power, he relied on his home community, the Alawites, a minority sect of Shi'ism. Assad has strategically placed members of the Alawite community in key positions in the army, security services and government administration. This approach has ensured the loyalty of the most important institutions to his regime. While maintaining a pan-Arab rhetoric in official discourse, Assad has centred power around the Syrian nation, thus distancing Syrian politics from the wider ambition of pan-Arabism. He has adopted a pragmatic approach to domestic and foreign policy, seeking to stabilise the country and consolidate his power.

The Assad regime has used divide-and-conquer tactics, similar to those employed by the French during the Mandate, to manage Syria's ethnic and religious diversity. By fragmenting and manipulating different communities, the regime has sought to prevent the emergence of a unified opposition. Political repression has become a hallmark of the regime, with an extensive and effective security apparatus in place to monitor and control society. Despite the purge of many opposition factions, the Assad regime has faced a significant challenge from Islamist groups. These groups, which enjoy a strong social base, particularly among the more conservative Sunni populations, have represented persistent opposition to Assad's secular, Alawite regime. Tension between the government and Islamist groups culminated in the uprising in the city of Hamah in 1982, which was brutally suppressed by the regime. Hafez al-Assad's reign in Syria was therefore characterised by a centralisation of power, a policy of repression and a degree of stabilisation of the country, but also by complex and often conflicting management of the country's socio-political diversity.

The massacre in Hamah in 1982 is one of the darkest and bloodiest episodes in modern Syrian history. This brutal repression was ordered by Hafez al-Assad in response to an insurrection led by the Muslim Brotherhood in the city of Hamah. Hamah, a city with a strong Islamist presence and a bastion of opposition to the secular and Alawite policies of the Assad regime, became the centre of an armed revolt against the government. In February 1982, the Syrian security forces, led by Assad's brother Rifaat al-Assad, surrounded the town and launched a massive military offensive to crush the rebellion. The repression was ruthless and disproportionate. Government forces used aerial bombardments, heavy artillery and ground troops to destroy large parts of the city and eliminate the insurgents. The exact number of casualties remains unclear, but estimates suggest that thousands of people, perhaps as many as 20,000 or more, have been killed. Many civilians lost their lives in what has been described as an act of collective punishment. The Hamah massacre was not just a military operation; it also had a strong symbolic dimension. It was intended to send a clear message to any potential opposition to the Assad regime: the rebellion would be met with overwhelming and ruthless force. The destruction of Hamah served as a stark warning and suppressed dissent in Syria for years. This repression also left deep scars on Syrian society and was a turning point in the way the Assad regime was perceived, both nationally and internationally. The Hamah massacre became a symbol of brutal oppression in Syria and contributed to the image of the Assad regime as one of the most repressive in the Middle East.

Hafez al-Assad's rule in Syria had to navigate the complex waters of religious legitimacy, particularly because of his own membership of the Alawite community, a branch of Shi'ism often viewed with suspicion by the Sunni majority in Syria. To establish his legitimacy and that of his regime in the eyes of the Sunni majority, Assad has had to rely on Sunni religious figures for fatwa roles and other key positions in the religious sphere. These figures were responsible for interpreting Islamic law and providing religious justification for the regime's actions. The position of the Alawites as a religious minority in a predominantly Sunni country has always been a challenge for Assad, who has had to balance the interests and perceptions of the different communities in order to maintain his power. Although Alawites have been placed in key positions in the government and army, Assad has also sought to present himself as a leader of all Syrians, regardless of their religious affiliation.

Contemporary Syria: From Hafez to Bashar al-Assad

When Hafez al-Assad died in 2000, he was succeeded by his son, Bashar al-Assad. Bashar, initially seen as a potential reformer and agent of change, inherited a complex and authoritarian system of governance. Under his leadership, Syria has continued to navigate the challenges posed by its religious and ethnic diversity, as well as internal and external pressures. Bashar al-Assad's reign has been marked by attempts at reform and modernisation, but also by continuity in the consolidation of power and the maintenance of the authoritarian structure inherited from his father. The situation in Syria changed radically with the start of the popular uprising in 2011, which evolved into a complex and devastating civil war involving multiple internal and external actors and having profound repercussions on the region and beyond.

Le Liban

Domination Ottomane et Mosaïque Culturelle (16ème Siècle - Première Guerre Mondiale)

Le Liban, avec son histoire riche et complexe, a été influencé par diverses puissances et cultures au fil des siècles. Depuis le 16ème siècle jusqu'à la fin de la Première Guerre mondiale, le territoire qui est aujourd'hui le Liban était sous le contrôle de l'Empire ottoman. Cette période a vu le développement d'une mosaïque culturelle et religieuse distincte, caractérisée par une diversité ethnique et confessionnelle.

Deux groupes en particulier, les Druzes et les Maronites (une communauté chrétienne orientale), ont joué un rôle central dans l'histoire du Liban. Ces deux communautés ont souvent été en opposition l'une avec l'autre, en partie à cause de leurs différences religieuses et de leur lutte pour le pouvoir politique et social dans la région. Les Druzes, une minorité religieuse qui s'est développée à partir de l'Islam chiite ismaélien, se sont établis principalement dans les montagnes du Liban et de la Syrie. Ils ont maintenu une identité distincte et ont souvent exercé un pouvoir politique et militaire significatif dans leurs régions. Les Maronites, d'autre part, sont une communauté chrétienne orientale en communion avec l'Église catholique romaine. Ils se sont principalement établis dans les montagnes du Liban, où ils ont développé une forte identité culturelle et religieuse. Les Maronites ont également établi des liens étroits avec les puissances européennes, en particulier la France, ce qui a eu une influence significative sur l'histoire et la politique libanaises. La coexistence et parfois la confrontation entre ces communautés, ainsi qu'avec d'autres groupes tels que les sunnites, les chiites et les orthodoxes, ont façonné l'histoire sociopolitique du Liban. Ces dynamiques ont joué un rôle clé dans la formation de l'identité libanaise et ont influencé la structure politique du Liban moderne, notamment le système de partage du pouvoir confessionnel, qui cherche à équilibrer la représentation de ses divers groupes religieux.

Mandat Français et Restructuration Administrative (Après la Première Guerre Mondiale - 1943)

Durant le mandat français au Liban, la France a tenté de jouer un rôle de médiateur entre les différentes communautés religieuses et ethniques du pays, tout en mettant en place une structure administrative qui reflétait et renforçait la diversité du Liban. Avant l'établissement du mandat français, le Mont Liban avait déjà une certaine autonomie sous l'Empire ottoman, particulièrement après l'instauration de la Mutasarrifiyyah en 1861. La Mutasarrifiyyah du Mont Liban était une région autonome avec son propre gouverneur chrétien, créée en réponse aux conflits entre les Maronites chrétiens et les Druzes musulmans qui avaient éclaté dans les années 1840 et 1860. Cette structure visait à apaiser les tensions en assurant une gouvernance plus équilibrée et en offrant une certaine autonomie à la région.

Lorsque la France a pris le contrôle du Liban après la Première Guerre mondiale, elle a hérité de cette structure complexe et a cherché à maintenir l'équilibre entre les différentes communautés. Le mandat français a élargi les frontières du Mont Liban pour inclure des régions avec des populations musulmanes importantes, formant ainsi le Grand Liban en 1920. Cette expansion visait à créer un État libanais plus viable économiquement, mais elle a également introduit de nouvelles dynamiques démographiques et politiques. Le système politique au Liban sous le mandat français était basé sur un modèle de consociationalisme, où le pouvoir était partagé entre les différentes communautés religieuses. Ce système visait à garantir une représentation équitable des principaux groupes religieux du Liban dans l'administration et la politique, et il a jeté les bases du système politique confessionnel qui caractérise le Liban moderne. Cependant, le mandat français n'était pas sans controverse. Les politiques françaises ont parfois été perçues comme favorisant certaines communautés au détriment d'autres, et il y avait une résistance à la domination étrangère. Néanmoins, le mandat a joué un rôle significatif dans la formation de l'État libanais et dans la définition de son identité nationale.

Durant la Conférence de paix de Paris en 1919, qui a suivi la fin de la Première Guerre mondiale, la France a joué un rôle stratégique en influençant le processus de décision concernant l'avenir des territoires du Moyen-Orient, notamment le Liban. La présence de deux délégations libanaises à cette conférence était une manœuvre de la France pour contrer les revendications de Fayçal, le leader du Royaume arabe de Syrie, qui cherchait à établir un État arabe indépendant incluant le Liban.

Fayçal, soutenu par les nationalistes arabes, revendiquait un grand État arabe indépendant qui s'étendrait sur une grande partie du Levant, y compris le Liban. Ces revendications étaient en contradiction directe avec les intérêts français dans la région, qui incluaient l'établissement d'un mandat sur le Liban et la Syrie. Pour contrer l'influence de Fayçal et justifier leur propre mandat sur la région, les Français ont encouragé la formation de délégations libanaises composées de représentants chrétiens maronites et d'autres groupes qui étaient favorables à l'idée d'un Liban sous mandat français. Ces délégations ont été envoyées à Paris pour plaider en faveur de la protection française et pour souligner l'identité distincte du Liban par rapport à la Syrie et aux aspirations panarabes de Fayçal. En présentant ces délégations comme représentatives des aspirations du peuple libanais, la France a cherché à légitimer ses revendications de mandat sur le Liban et à démontrer qu'une partie significative de la population libanaise préférait la protection française à l'intégration dans un État arabe unifié sous la direction de Fayçal. Cette manœuvre a contribué à façonner l'issue de la conférence et a joué un rôle important dans l'établissement des mandats français et britannique au Moyen-Orient, conformément aux accords Sykes-Picot.

Lutte pour l'Indépendance et le Confessionnalisme (1919 - 1943)

La création de l'État libanais moderne en 1921, sous le mandat français, a été marquée par l'adoption d'un système politique communautaire unique, connu sous le nom de "confessionnalisme politique". Ce système visait à gérer la diversité religieuse et ethnique du Liban en allouant le pouvoir politique et les postes gouvernementaux en fonction de la répartition démographique des différentes communautés confessionnelles. Le confessionnalisme libanais a été conçu pour assurer une représentation équitable de toutes les principales communautés religieuses du pays. Selon ce système, les principaux postes de l'État, y compris le Président, le Premier ministre et le Président de l'Assemblée nationale, étaient réservés à des membres de communautés spécifiques : le Président devait être un Maronite chrétien, le Premier ministre un musulman sunnite, et le Président de l'Assemblée un musulman chiite. Cette répartition des postes était basée sur un recensement de la population effectué en 1932.

Bien que conçu pour promouvoir la coexistence pacifique et l'équilibre entre les différentes communautés, ce système a été critiqué pour avoir institutionnalisé les divisions confessionnelles et pour avoir encouragé la politique basée sur l'identité communautaire plutôt que sur les programmes ou les idéologies politiques. De plus, le système était fragile, car il dépendait des données démographiques qui pouvaient changer au fil du temps. Les élites politiques et les dirigeants communautaires, bien qu'initialement favorables à ce système qui leur garantissait une représentation et une influence, ont été de plus en plus frustrés par ses limitations et ses faiblesses. Le système a également été mis sous pression par des facteurs externes, notamment l'afflux de réfugiés palestiniens après la création de l'État d'Israël en 1948 et les idéaux du panarabisme, qui remettaient en question l'ordre politique confessionnel du Liban. Ces facteurs ont contribué à des déséquilibres démographiques et ont accentué les tensions politiques et confessionnelles au sein du pays. Le système confessionnel, bien qu'il ait été une tentative de gérer la diversité du Liban, a finalement été un facteur clé dans l'instabilité politique qui a conduit à la guerre civile libanaise de 1975-1990. Cette guerre a profondément marqué le Liban et a révélé les limites et les défis du système confessionnel dans la gestion de la diversité et de la cohésion nationale.

Guerre Civile Libanaise : Causes et Impact International (1975 - 1990)

La guerre civile libanaise, qui a débuté en 1975, a été influencée par de nombreux facteurs internes et externes, notamment les tensions croissantes liées à la présence palestinienne au Liban. L'arrivée massive de réfugiés et de combattants palestiniens au Liban, particulièrement après les événements de "Septembre Noir" en 1970 en Jordanie, a été un élément déclencheur majeur de la guerre civile. En septembre 1970, le roi Hussein de Jordanie a lancé une campagne militaire pour expulser l'Organisation de libération de la Palestine (OLP) et d'autres groupes armés palestiniens de Jordanie, à la suite de tentatives croissantes de ces groupes de s'immiscer dans les affaires intérieures jordaniennes. Cette campagne, connue sous le nom de "Septembre Noir", a conduit à un afflux important de Palestiniens au Liban, exacerbant les tensions existantes dans le pays. La présence croissante de Palestiniens armés et l'activisme de l'OLP contre Israël à partir du sol libanais ont ajouté une nouvelle dimension au conflit libanais, compliquant davantage la situation politique déjà fragile. Les groupes palestiniens, en particulier dans le sud du Liban, ont souvent été en conflit avec les communautés libanaises locales et ont été impliqués dans des attaques transfrontalières contre Israël.

En réponse à ces attaques et à la présence de l'OLP, Israël a lancé plusieurs opérations militaires au Liban, culminant avec l'invasion du Liban en 1982. L'occupation israélienne du sud du Liban a été motivée par le désir d'Israël de sécuriser ses frontières nord et de démanteler la base d'opérations de l'OLP. La guerre civile libanaise a donc été alimentée par un mélange de tensions internes, de conflits confessionnels, de déséquilibres démographiques et de facteurs externes, y compris les interventions israéliennes et les dynamiques régionales liées au conflit israélo-arabe. Cette guerre, qui a duré jusqu'en 1990, a été dévastatrice pour le Liban, entraînant d'énormes pertes humaines, des déplacements massifs de populations et des destructions généralisées. Elle a profondément transformé la société et la politique libanaises et a laissé des cicatrices qui continuent d'affecter le pays.

Influence Syrienne et Accords de Taëf (1976 - 2005)

La guerre civile libanaise et l'intervention syrienne dans le conflit sont des éléments clés pour comprendre l'histoire récente du Liban. La Syrie, sous la direction de Hafez al-Assad, a joué un rôle complexe et parfois contradictoire dans la guerre civile libanaise. La Syrie, ayant ses propres intérêts géopolitiques au Liban, est intervenue dans le conflit dès 1976. Officiellement, cette intervention était justifiée comme un effort pour stabiliser le Liban et prévenir une escalade du conflit. Cependant, de nombreux observateurs ont noté que la Syrie avait également des ambitions d'expansion et de contrôle sur le Liban, qui était historiquement et culturellement lié à la Syrie. Durant la guerre, la Syrie a soutenu diverses factions et communautés libanaises, souvent en fonction de ses intérêts stratégiques du moment. Cette implication a parfois été perçue comme une tentative de la part de la Syrie d'exercer son influence et de renforcer sa position au Liban. La guerre civile a finalement pris fin avec les Accords de Taëf en 1989, un accord de paix négocié avec le soutien de la Ligue arabe et sous la supervision de la Syrie. Les Accords de Taëf ont redéfini l'équilibre politique confessionnel au Liban, en modifiant le système de partage du pouvoir pour mieux refléter la démographie actuelle du pays. Ils ont également prévu la fin de la guerre civile et l'établissement d'un gouvernement de réconciliation nationale.

Cependant, les accords ont également consolidé l'influence syrienne au Liban. La Syrie a maintenu une présence militaire et une influence politique considérable dans le pays après la guerre, ce qui a été source de tension et de controverse au Liban et dans la région. La présence syrienne au Liban n'a pris fin qu'en 2005, suite à l'assassinat de l'ancien Premier ministre libanais Rafic Hariri, un événement qui a déclenché des protestations massives au Liban et une pression internationale accrue sur la Syrie. La décision de ne pas réaliser de recensement de la population au Liban après la guerre civile reflète les sensibilités autour de la question démographique dans le contexte politique confessionnel libanais. Un recensement pourrait potentiellement perturber l'équilibre délicat sur lequel le système politique libanais est construit, en révélant des changements démographiques susceptibles de remettre en question la répartition actuelle du pouvoir entre les différentes communautés.

Assassinat de Rafiq Hariri et la Révolution du Cèdre (2005)

L'assassinat de Rafiq Hariri, Premier ministre libanais, le 14 février 2005, a été un moment décisif dans l'histoire récente du Liban. Hariri était une figure populaire, connue pour sa politique de reconstruction post-guerre civile et ses efforts pour rétablir Beyrouth en tant que centre financier et culturel. Son assassinat a provoqué une onde de choc à travers le pays et a déclenché des accusations contre la Syrie, soupçonnée d'être impliquée dans cet acte. L'assassinat a déclenché la "Révolution du Cèdre", une série de vastes manifestations pacifiques exigeant la fin de l'influence syrienne au Liban et la vérité sur l'assassinat de Hariri. Ces manifestations, auxquelles ont participé des centaines de milliers de Libanais de toutes confessions, ont mis une pression considérable sur la Syrie. Sous le poids de cette pression populaire et de la condamnation internationale, la Syrie a finalement retiré ses troupes du Liban en avril 2005, mettant fin à près de 30 ans de présence militaire et politique dans le pays.

Le Liban Contemporain : Défis Politiques et Sociaux (2005 - Présent)

Parallèlement, le Hezbollah, un groupe islamiste chiite et une organisation militaire fondée en 1982, est devenu un acteur clé dans la politique libanaise. Le Hezbollah a été fondé avec le soutien de l'Iran dans le contexte de l'invasion israélienne du Liban en 1982 et a grandi pour devenir à la fois un mouvement politique et une milice puissante. Le parti a refusé de se désarmer après la guerre civile, invoquant la nécessité de défendre le Liban contre Israël. Le conflit de 2006 entre Israël et le Hezbollah a davantage renforcé la position du Hezbollah en tant que force majeure dans la résistance arabe contre Israël. Le conflit a commencé lorsque le Hezbollah a capturé deux soldats israéliens, déclenchant une réponse militaire intense d'Israël au Liban. Malgré les destructions massives et les pertes humaines au Liban, le Hezbollah est sorti du conflit avec une image renforcée de résistance contre Israël, gagnant un soutien considérable parmi certaines parties de la population libanaise et dans le monde arabe en général. Ces événements ont considérablement influencé la dynamique politique libanaise, révélant les divisions profondes au sein du pays et les défis persistants pour la stabilité et la souveraineté du Liban. La période post-2005 a été marquée par des tensions politiques continues, des crises économiques et des défis sécuritaires, reflétant la complexité du paysage politique et confessionnel du Liban.

Jordanie

Mandat Britannique et Division Territoriale (Début 20ème siècle - 1922)

Pour comprendre la formation de la Jordanie, il est essentiel de remonter à la période du mandat britannique sur la Palestine après la Première Guerre mondiale. La Grande-Bretagne, en obtenant le mandat sur la Palestine à la suite de la Conférence de San Remo en 1920, s'est retrouvée à la tête d'un territoire complexe et conflictuel. Une des premières actions des Britanniques fut de diviser ce mandat en deux zones distinctes lors de la conférence du Caire en 1922 : d'une part, la Palestine, et d'autre part, les émirats de Transjordanie. Cette division reflétait à la fois des considérations géopolitiques et le désir de répondre aux aspirations des populations locales. Abdallah, l'un des fils du Chérif Hussein de La Mecque, jouait un rôle important dans la région, notamment en menant des révoltes contre les Ottomans. Pour apaiser et contenir son influence, les Britanniques ont décidé de le nommer émir de Transjordanie. Cette décision a été en partie motivée par le désir de stabiliser la région et de créer un allié fiable pour les Britanniques.

La question de l'immigration juive en Palestine était une source majeure de tension durant cette période. Les sionistes, qui aspiraient à la création d'un foyer national juif en Palestine, ont protesté contre la politique britannique interdisant l'immigration juive en Transjordanie, considérant que cela restreignait les possibilités de colonisation juive dans une partie du territoire du mandat.

Indépendance et Formation de l'État Jordanien (1946 - 1948)

Le fleuve Jourdain a joué un rôle déterminant dans la distinction entre la Transjordanie (à l'est du Jourdain) et la Cisjordanie (à l'ouest). Ces termes géographiques ont été utilisés pour décrire les régions situées de part et d'autre du fleuve Jourdain. La formation de la Jordanie en tant qu'État indépendant a été un processus graduel. En 1946, la Transjordanie a obtenu son indépendance de la Grande-Bretagne, et Abdallah est devenu le premier roi du royaume hachémite de Jordanie. La Jordanie, comme la Palestine, a été profondément affectée par les développements régionaux, notamment la création de l'État d'Israël en 1948 et les conflits arabes-israéliens qui ont suivi. Ces événements ont eu un impact considérable sur la politique et la société jordaniennes dans les décennies suivantes.

La Légion arabe a joué un rôle significatif dans l'histoire de la Jordanie et dans le conflit israélo-arabe. Fondée dans les années 1920 sous le mandat britannique, la Légion arabe était une force militaire jordanienne qui a opéré sous la supervision de conseillers militaires britanniques. Cette force a été cruciale pour maintenir l'ordre dans le territoire de la Transjordanie et a servi de base à l'armée jordanienne moderne. À la fin du mandat britannique en 1946, la Transjordanie, sous le règne du roi Abdallah, a obtenu son indépendance, devenant le Royaume hachémite de Jordanie. L'indépendance de la Jordanie a marqué un tournant dans l'histoire du Moyen-Orient, en faisant du pays un acteur clé de la région.

Conflits Israélo-Arabes et Impact sur la Jordanie (1948 - 1950)

En 1948, la déclaration d'indépendance d'Israël a déclenché la première guerre israélo-arabe. Les États arabes voisins, dont la Jordanie, ont refusé de reconnaître la légitimité d'Israël et ont engagé des forces militaires pour s'opposer à l'État nouvellement formé. La Légion arabe jordanienne, considérée comme l'une des forces armées les plus efficaces parmi les pays arabes à cette époque, a joué un rôle majeur dans ce conflit. Durant la guerre de 1948, la Jordanie, sous le commandement du roi Abdallah, a occupé la Cisjordanie, une région à l'ouest du Jourdain qui faisait partie du mandat britannique sur la Palestine. À la fin de la guerre, la Jordanie a annexé officiellement la Cisjordanie, une décision qui a été largement reconnue dans le monde arabe mais pas par la communauté internationale. Cette annexion a inclus Jérusalem-Est, qui a été proclamée capitale de la Jordanie aux côtés d'Amman. L'annexion de la Cisjordanie par la Jordanie a eu d'importantes implications pour les relations israélo-arabes et le conflit palestinien. Elle a également façonné la politique intérieure jordanienne, car la population palestinienne de la Cisjordanie est devenue une partie importante de la société jordanienne. Cette période de l'histoire jordanienne a continué à influencer la politique et les relations internationales du pays dans les décennies suivantes.

La période suivant l'annexion de la Cisjordanie par la Jordanie en 1948 a été marquée par des évolutions politiques et sociales importantes. En 1950, la Jordanie a officiellement annexé la Cisjordanie, une décision qui a eu des conséquences durables sur la composition démographique et politique du pays. Suite à cette annexion, la moitié des sièges du parlement jordanien a été allouée à des députés palestiniens, reflétant la nouvelle réalité démographique de la Jordanie unifiée, qui comprenait désormais une importante population palestinienne. Cette intégration politique des Palestiniens en Jordanie a souligné l'ampleur de l'annexion de la Cisjordanie et a été vue par certains comme un effort pour légitimer le contrôle jordanien sur le territoire. Cependant, ce mouvement a également suscité des tensions, tant au sein de la population palestinienne que parmi les nationalistes palestiniens, qui aspiraient à l'indépendance et à la création d'un État palestinien distinct.

Des rumeurs d'accords secrets entre la Jordanie et Israël concernant des questions de souveraineté et de territoire ont alimenté le mécontentement parmi les nationalistes palestiniens. En 1951, le roi Abdallah, qui avait été un acteur clé de l'annexion de la Cisjordanie et avait cherché à maintenir de bonnes relations avec les Israéliens, a été assassiné à Jérusalem par un nationaliste palestinien. Cet assassinat a souligné les divisions profondes et les tensions politiques relatives à la question palestinienne. La guerre des Six Jours en 1967 a été un autre tournant majeur pour la Jordanie et la région. Israël a capturé la Cisjordanie, Jérusalem-Est, et d'autres territoires lors de ce conflit, mettant fin au contrôle jordanien sur ces régions. Cette perte a eu un impact profond sur la Jordanie, tant sur le plan politique que démographique, et a exacerbé la question palestinienne, qui est restée un enjeu central dans les affaires intérieures et la politique étrangère de la Jordanie. La guerre de 1967 a également contribué à l'émergence de l'Organisation de libération de la Palestine (OLP) comme le principal représentant des Palestiniens et a influencé la trajectoire du conflit israélo-arabe dans les années suivantes.

Règne du Roi Hussein et Défis Internes (1952 - 1999)

Le roi Hussein de Jordanie, petit-fils du roi Abdallah, a régné sur le pays de 1952 jusqu'à sa mort en 1999. Son règne a été marqué par des défis majeurs, dont la question de la population palestinienne en Jordanie et les ambitions panarabes du roi.

Le roi Hussein a hérité d'une situation complexe avec une population palestinienne importante en Jordanie, résultant de l'annexion de la Cisjordanie en 1948 et de l'afflux de réfugiés palestiniens après la création d'Israël et la guerre des Six Jours en 1967. La gestion de cette question palestinienne est restée un défi majeur tout au long de son règne, avec des tensions politiques et sociales internes croissantes. L'un des moments les plus critiques de son règne a été la crise de "Septembre Noir" en 1970. Face à une montée en puissance des combattants palestiniens de l'OLP en Jordanie, qui menaçait la souveraineté et la stabilité du royaume, le roi Hussein a ordonné une intervention militaire brutale pour reprendre le contrôle des camps de réfugiés et des villes où l'OLP était fortement présente. Cette intervention a abouti à l'expulsion de l'OLP et de ses combattants du territoire jordanien, qui ont ensuite établi leur quartier général au Liban.

Malgré sa participation aux guerres israélo-arabes, notamment la guerre du Kippour en 1973, le roi Hussein a maintenu des relations discrètes mais significatives avec Israël. Ces relations, souvent en désaccord avec les positions d'autres États arabes, étaient motivées par des considérations stratégiques et sécuritaires. La Jordanie et Israël partageaient des préoccupations communes, notamment en ce qui concerne la stabilité régionale et la question palestinienne. Le roi Hussein a finalement joué un rôle clé dans les efforts de paix au Moyen-Orient. En 1994, la Jordanie a signé un traité de paix avec Israël, devenant le deuxième pays arabe, après l'Égypte, à normaliser officiellement les relations avec Israël. Ce traité a marqué une étape importante dans les relations israélo-arabes et a reflété la volonté du roi Hussein de rechercher une résolution pacifique au conflit israélo-arabe, malgré les défis et les controverses que cela impliquait.

Le Roi Abdallah II et la Jordanie Moderne (1999 - Présent)

À la mort du roi Hussein de Jordanie en 1999, son fils, Abdallah II, lui a succédé sur le trône. L'accession d'Abdallah II au pouvoir a marqué le début d'une nouvelle ère pour la Jordanie, bien que le nouveau roi ait hérité de nombreux défis politiques, économiques et sociaux de son père. Abdallah II, éduqué à l'étranger et ayant une expérience militaire, a pris la tête d'un pays confronté à des défis internes complexes, notamment la gestion des relations avec la population palestinienne, l'équilibre entre les pressions démocratiques et la stabilité du royaume, et les problèmes économiques persistants. Sur le plan international, la Jordanie, sous son règne, a continué à jouer un rôle important dans les questions régionales, notamment le conflit israélo-arabe et les crises dans les pays voisins. Le roi Abdallah II a poursuivi les efforts de son père pour moderniser le pays et améliorer l'économie. Il a également cherché à promouvoir la Jordanie en tant qu'intermédiaire et médiateur dans les conflits régionaux, tout en maintenant des relations étroites avec les pays occidentaux, en particulier les États-Unis.

La politique extérieure d'Abdallah II a été marquée par un équilibre entre le maintien de relations solides avec les pays occidentaux et la navigation dans les dynamiques complexes du Moyen-Orient. La Jordanie, sous son règne, a continué de jouer un rôle actif dans les efforts de paix au Moyen-Orient et a été confrontée à l'impact des crises dans les pays voisins, notamment l'Irak et la Syrie. Sur le plan interne, Abdallah II a fait face à des appels à des réformes politiques et économiques plus importantes. Les soulèvements du Printemps arabe en 2011 ont également eu un impact sur la Jordanie, bien que le pays ait réussi à éviter l'instabilité à grande échelle observée dans d'autres parties de la région. Le roi a répondu à certains de ces défis par des réformes politiques progressives et des efforts pour améliorer l'économie du pays.

La trajectoire historique des Hachémites, qui ont joué un rôle crucial dans les événements du Moyen-Orient au début du 20ème siècle, est marquée par des promesses non tenues et des ajustements politiques majeurs. La famille hachémite, originaire de la région du Hedjaz en Arabie, a été au cœur des ambitions arabes pour l'indépendance et l'unité durant et après la Première Guerre mondiale. Leurs aspirations à un grand État arabe unifié ont été encouragées, puis déçues par les puissances européennes, en particulier la Grande-Bretagne.

Le roi Hussein bin Ali, le patriarche des Hachémites, avait aspiré à la création d'un grand royaume arabe s'étendant sur une grande partie du Moyen-Orient. Cependant, les accords Sykes-Picot de 1916 et la Déclaration Balfour de 1917, ainsi que d'autres développements politiques, ont progressivement réduit ces aspirations. Finalement, les Hachémites n'ont régné que sur la Transjordanie (la Jordanie moderne) et l'Irak, où un autre fils de Hussein, Fayçal, est devenu roi. En ce qui concerne la Palestine, la Jordanie, sous le règne du roi Hussein, a eu une implication importante jusqu'aux Accords d'Oslo dans les années 1990. Après la guerre des Six Jours en 1967 et la perte de la Cisjordanie par la Jordanie au profit d'Israël, le roi Hussein a continué à revendiquer la souveraineté sur le territoire palestinien, malgré l'absence de contrôle effectif.

Cependant, avec les Accords d'Oslo en 1993, qui ont établi une reconnaissance mutuelle entre Israël et l'Organisation de libération de la Palestine (OLP) et ont jeté les bases de l'autonomie palestinienne, la Jordanie a dû réévaluer sa position. En 1988, le roi Hussein avait déjà renoncé officiellement à toutes les revendications jordaniennes sur la Cisjordanie en faveur de l'OLP, reconnaissant le droit du peuple palestinien à l'autodétermination. Les Accords d'Oslo ont consolidé cette réalité, confirmant l'OLP comme représentant légitime du peuple palestinien et marginalisant davantage le rôle de la Jordanie dans les affaires palestiniennes. Les Accords d'Oslo ont donc marqué la fin des ambitions jordaniennes sur la Palestine, orientant le processus de paix vers une négociation directe entre Israéliens et Palestiniens, avec la Jordanie et d'autres acteurs régionaux jouant un rôle de soutien plutôt que de protagonistes principaux.

Jordanie et Relations Internationales : Alliance Stratégique avec les États-Unis

La Jordanie, depuis sa création en tant qu'État indépendant en 1946, a joué un rôle stratégique dans la politique du Moyen-Orient, équilibrant habilement les relations internationales, notamment avec les États-Unis. Cette relation privilégiée avec Washington a été essentielle pour la Jordanie, non seulement en termes d'aide économique et militaire, mais aussi en tant que soutien diplomatique dans une région souvent marquée par l'instabilité et les conflits. L'aide économique et militaire américaine a été un pilier du développement et de la sécurité de la Jordanie. Les États-Unis ont fourni une assistance substantielle pour renforcer les capacités défensives de la Jordanie, soutenir son développement économique et l'aider à gérer les crises humanitaires, comme l'afflux massif de réfugiés syriens et irakiens. Cette aide a permis à la Jordanie de maintenir sa stabilité intérieure et de jouer un rôle actif dans la promotion de la paix et de la sécurité régionales. Sur le plan militaire, la coopération entre la Jordanie et les États-Unis a été étroite et fructueuse. Les exercices militaires conjoints et les programmes de formation ont renforcé les liens entre les deux pays et ont amélioré la capacité de la Jordanie à contribuer à la sécurité régionale. Cette coopération militaire est également un élément crucial pour la Jordanie dans le contexte de la lutte contre le terrorisme et l'extrémisme. Diplomatiquement, la Jordanie a souvent agi en tant qu'intermédiaire dans les conflits régionaux, un rôle qui correspond aux intérêts des États-Unis dans la région. La Jordanie a été impliquée dans les efforts de paix israélo-palestiniens et a joué un rôle de modérateur dans les crises en Syrie et en Irak. La position géographique de la Jordanie, sa stabilité relative et ses relations avec les États-Unis en font un acteur clé dans les efforts de médiation et de résolution des conflits dans la région.

La relation entre la Jordanie et les États-Unis n'est pas seulement une alliance stratégique; elle est aussi le reflet d'une compréhension partagée des enjeux de la région. Les deux pays partagent des objectifs communs en matière de lutte contre le terrorisme, de promotion de la stabilité régionale et de recherche de solutions diplomatiques aux conflits. Cette relation est donc essentielle pour la Jordanie, lui permettant de naviguer dans les défis complexes du Moyen-Orient tout en bénéficiant du soutien d'une puissance mondiale majeure.

Irak

Formation de l'État Irakien (Post-Première Guerre mondiale)

La formation de l'Irak en tant qu'État moderne est une conséquence directe de la dissolution de l'Empire ottoman à la suite de la Première Guerre mondiale. L'Irak, tel que nous le connaissons aujourd'hui, est né de la fusion de trois provinces ottomanes historiques : Mossoul, Bagdad et Bassora. Cette fusion, orchestrée par les puissances coloniales, en particulier la Grande-Bretagne, a façonné non seulement les frontières de l'Irak mais aussi sa dynamique interne complexe.

La province de Mossoul, située dans le nord de l'Irak actuel, était une région stratégique, notamment en raison de ses riches réserves pétrolières. La composition ethnique de Mossoul, avec une présence significative de Kurdes, a ajouté une dimension supplémentaire à la complexité politique de l'Irak. Après la guerre, le statut de Mossoul a fait l'objet d'un débat international, les Turcs et les Britanniques revendiquant chacun la région. Finalement, la Société des Nations a tranché en faveur de l'Irak, intégrant ainsi Mossoul dans le nouvel État. Le vilayet de Bagdad, au centre, était le cœur historique et culturel de la région. Bagdad, une ville avec une riche histoire remontant à l'ère des califats, a continué à jouer un rôle central dans la vie politique et culturelle de l'Irak. La diversité ethnique et religieuse de la province de Bagdad a été un facteur clé dans les dynamiques politiques de l'Irak moderne. Quant à la province de Bassora, dans le sud, cette région majoritairement peuplée d'Arabes chiites, a été un important centre commercial et portuaire. Les liens de Bassora avec le Golfe Persique et le monde arabe ont été cruciaux pour l'économie irakienne et ont influencé les relations extérieures de l'Irak.

La fusion de ces trois provinces distinctes en un seul État sous le mandat britannique n'a pas été sans difficultés. La gestion des tensions ethniques, religieuses et tribales a été un défi constant pour les dirigeants irakiens. L'importance stratégique de l'Irak a été renforcée par la découverte de pétrole, attirant l'attention des puissances occidentales et influençant profondément le développement politique et économique du pays. Les décisions prises pendant et après la période du mandat britannique ont posé les bases des complexités politiques et sociales de l'Irak, qui ont continué à se manifester tout au long de son histoire moderne, y compris pendant le règne de Saddam Hussein et au-delà. La formation de l'Irak, un mélange de diverses régions et groupes, a été un facteur clé dans les nombreux défis auxquels le pays a été confronté dans le siècle suivant.

Influence Britannique et Intérêts Pétroliers (Début 20ème siècle)

La fascination de la Grande-Bretagne pour l'Irak dans la première moitié du 20ème siècle s'inscrit dans le cadre plus large de la politique impériale britannique, où la géostratégie et les ressources naturelles jouaient un rôle prépondérant. L'Irak, avec son accès direct au Golfe Persique et sa proximité avec la Perse riche en pétrole, est rapidement devenu un territoire d'intérêt majeur pour la Grande-Bretagne, qui cherchait à étendre son influence au Moyen-Orient. L'importance stratégique de l'Irak était liée à sa position géographique, offrant un accès au Golfe Persique, une voie d'eau cruciale pour le commerce et les communications maritimes. Ce contrôle offrait à la Grande-Bretagne un avantage dans la sécurisation des routes commerciales et maritimes vitales, en particulier en lien avec son empire colonial en Inde et au-delà. Le pétrole, devenu une ressource stratégiquement vitale au début du 20ème siècle, a accentué l'intérêt britannique pour l'Irak et la région environnante. La découverte de pétrole en Perse (Iran actuel) par la Anglo-Persian Oil Company (qui deviendra plus tard British Petroleum, ou BP) a mis en lumière le potentiel pétrolier de la région. La Grande-Bretagne, soucieuse de sécuriser ses approvisionnements en pétrole pour sa marine et son industrie, a vu dans l'Irak un territoire clé pour ses intérêts énergétiques.

Le mandat britannique en Irak, établi par la Société des Nations après la Première Guerre mondiale, a donné à la Grande-Bretagne un contrôle considérable sur la formation de l'État irakien. Cependant, cette période a été marquée par des tensions et des résistances, comme en témoigne la révolte irakienne de 1920, une réaction significative à la domination britannique et aux tentatives d'implanter des structures administratives et politiques étrangères. Les actions britanniques en Irak étaient guidées par une combinaison d'objectifs impériaux et de nécessités pratiques. Alors que le 20ème siècle progressait, l'Irak est devenu un enjeu de plus en plus complexe dans la politique britannique, surtout avec l'émergence du nationalisme arabe et la montée des revendications pour l'indépendance. Le rôle de la Grande-Bretagne en Irak, et plus largement au Moyen-Orient, a donc été un mélange de stratégie impériale, de gestion des ressources naturelles et de réponse aux dynamiques politiques en constante évolution de la région.

Rôle de Mossoul et Diversité Ethnique (Début 20ème siècle)

La région de Mossoul, dans le nord de l'Irak, a toujours été d'une importance cruciale dans le contexte historique et politique du Moyen-Orient. Sa signification est due à plusieurs facteurs clés qui en ont fait un territoire convoité au fil des siècles, notamment par la Grande-Bretagne durant l'ère coloniale. La découverte de pétrole dans la région de Mossoul a été un tournant majeur. Au début du 20ème siècle, alors que l'importance du pétrole comme ressource stratégique mondiale devenait de plus en plus évidente, Mossoul est apparue comme un territoire d'une immense valeur économique. Les réserves pétrolières substantielles de la région ont attiré l'attention des puissances impériales, particulièrement de la Grande-Bretagne, qui cherchait à sécuriser les sources de pétrole pour ses besoins industriels et militaires. Cette richesse en hydrocarbures a non seulement stimulé l'intérêt international pour Mossoul, mais a également joué un rôle déterminant dans la formation de la politique et de l'économie irakiennes au cours du siècle suivant. En outre, la position géographique de Mossoul, à proximité des sources des fleuves Tigre et Euphrate, lui confère une importance stratégique particulière. Le contrôle des sources d'eau dans cette région aride est vital pour l'agriculture, l'économie et la vie quotidienne. Cette importance géographique a fait de Mossoul un enjeu dans les relations internationales et les dynamiques régionales, en particulier dans le contexte des tensions liées à la répartition de l'eau dans la région. Le contrôle de Mossoul était également perçu comme essentiel pour la stabilité de l'ensemble de l'Irak. En raison de sa diversité ethnique et culturelle, avec une population composée de Kurdes, d'Arabes, de Turkmènes, d'Assyriens et d'autres groupes, la région a été un carrefour culturel et politique important. La gestion de cette diversité et l'intégration de Mossoul dans l'État irakien ont été des défis constants pour les gouvernements irakiens successifs. Le maintien de la stabilité dans la région du nord était crucial pour la cohésion et l'unité nationales de l'Irak.

Contribution de Gertrude Bell et Fondations de l'Irak Moderne (Début 20ème siècle)

La contribution de Gertrude Bell à la formation de l'Irak moderne est un exemple éloquent de l'influence occidentale dans la redéfinition des frontières et des identités nationales au Moyen-Orient au début du 20ème siècle. Bell, une archéologue et administratrice coloniale britannique, a joué un rôle crucial dans la création de l'État irakien, notamment en préconisant l'utilisation du terme « Irak », un nom d'origine arabe, au lieu de « Mésopotamie », d'origine grecque. Ce choix symbolisait une reconnaissance de l'identité arabe de la région, par opposition à une désignation imposée par des puissances étrangères. Cependant, comme l'a souligné Pierre-Jean Luisard dans son analyse de la question irakienne, les fondations de l'Irak moderne ont également été le berceau de problèmes futurs. La structure de l'Irak, conçue et mise en œuvre par des puissances coloniales, a réuni sous un même état des groupes ethniques et religieux divers, créant ainsi un terrain propice à des tensions et des conflits persistants. La domination des sunnites, souvent minoritaires, sur les chiites, majoritaires, a engendré des tensions sectaires et des conflits, exacerbés par des politiques discriminatoires et des différences idéologiques. De plus, la marginalisation des Kurdes, un groupe ethnique important dans le nord de l'Irak, a alimenté des revendications d'autonomie et de reconnaissance, souvent réprimées par le gouvernement central.

Ces tensions internes ont été exacerbées sous le régime de Saddam Hussein, qui a régi l'Irak d'une main de fer, exacerbant les divisions sectaires et ethniques. La guerre Iran-Irak (1980-1988), la campagne d'Anfal contre les Kurdes, et l'invasion du Koweït en 1990 sont des exemples de la façon dont les politiques internes et externes de l'Irak ont été influencées par ces dynamiques de pouvoir. L'invasion de l'Irak en 2003 par une coalition menée par les États-Unis et la chute de Saddam Hussein ont ouvert une nouvelle période de conflit et d'instabilité, révélant la fragilité des fondations sur lesquelles l'État irakien avait été construit. Les années qui ont suivi ont été marquées par une violence sectaire accrue, des luttes de pouvoir internes et l'émergence de groupes extrémistes comme l'État islamique, qui ont profité du vide politique et de la désintégration de l'ordre étatique. L'histoire de l'Irak est celle d'un État façonné par des influences étrangères et confronté à des défis internes complexes. La contribution de Gertrude Bell, bien que significative dans la formation de l'Irak, s'inscrit dans un contexte plus vaste de construction nationale et de conflits qui ont continué à façonner le pays bien au-delà de sa fondation.

Stratégie de 'Diviser pour Régner' et Domination Sunnite (Début 20ème siècle)

La méthode coloniale adoptée par la Grande-Bretagne dans la création et la gestion de l'Irak est un exemple classique de la stratégie de "diviser pour régner", qui a eu des répercussions profondes sur la structure politique et sociale de l'Irak. Selon cette approche, les puissances coloniales favorisaient souvent une minorité au sein de la société pour la maintenir au pouvoir, assurant ainsi sa dépendance et sa loyauté envers la métropole, tout en affaiblissant l'unité nationale. Dans le cas de l'Irak, les Britanniques ont installé la minorité sunnite au pouvoir, malgré le fait que les chiites constituaient la majorité de la population. En 1920, Fayçal Ier, un membre de la famille royale hachémite, a été installé comme le souverain de l'Irak nouvellement formé. Fayçal, bien qu'ayant des racines dans la Péninsule Arabique, a été choisi par les Britanniques pour sa légitimité panarabe et sa capacité présumée à unifier les divers groupes ethniques et religieux sous son règne. Cependant, cette décision a exacerbé les tensions sectaires et ethniques dans le pays. Les chiites et les Kurdes, se sentant marginalisés et exclus du pouvoir politique, ont rapidement manifesté leur mécontentement. Dès 1925, des soulèvements chiites et kurdes ont éclaté en réponse à cette marginalisation et aux politiques mises en œuvre par le gouvernement dominé par les sunnites. Ces contestations ont été violemment réprimées, parfois avec l'aide de la Royal Air Force britannique, dans le but de stabiliser l'État et de maintenir le contrôle colonial. L'utilisation de la force pour mater les révoltes chiites et kurdes a posé les bases d'une instabilité persistante en Irak. La domination sunnite, soutenue par les Britanniques, a engendré un ressentiment durable parmi les populations chiites et kurdes, contribuant à des cycles de rébellion et de répression qui ont marqué l'histoire irakienne tout au long du 20ème siècle. Cette dynamique a également alimenté un sentiment nationaliste parmi les chiites et les Kurdes, renforçant leur aspiration à une plus grande autonomie, voire à l'indépendance, en particulier dans la région kurde du nord de l'Irak.

Indépendance et Influence Britannique Continuée (1932)

L'accession de l'Irak à l'indépendance en 1932 représente un moment charnière dans l'histoire du Moyen-Orient, soulignant la complexité de la décolonisation et l'influence continue des puissances coloniales. L'Irak est devenu le premier État, créé de toutes pièces par un mandat de la Société des Nations à la suite de la Première Guerre mondiale, à obtenir formellement son indépendance. Cet événement a marqué une étape importante dans l'évolution de l'Irak de protectorat britannique à État souverain. L'adhésion de l'Irak à la Société des Nations en 1932 a été saluée comme un signe de son statut de nation indépendante et souveraine. Cependant, cette indépendance était en pratique entravée par le maintien d'une influence britannique considérable sur les affaires intérieures irakiennes. Bien que l'Irak ait officiellement obtenu sa souveraineté, les Britanniques ont continué à exercer un contrôle indirect sur le pays.

Ce contrôle s'exprimait notamment dans l'administration gouvernementale irakienne, où chaque ministre irakien avait un assistant britannique. Ces assistants, souvent des administrateurs expérimentés, avaient un rôle de conseil, mais leur présence symbolisait aussi la mainmise britannique sur la politique irakienne. Cette situation a créé un environnement où la souveraineté irakienne était en partie entravée par l'influence et les intérêts britanniques. Cette période de l'histoire irakienne a également été marquée par des tensions internes et des défis politiques. Le gouvernement irakien, bien que souverain, devait naviguer dans un paysage complexe de divisions ethniques et religieuses, tout en gérant les attentes et les pressions des anciennes puissances coloniales. Cette dynamique a contribué à des périodes d'instabilité et à des conflits internes, reflétant les difficultés inhérentes à la transition de l'Irak de mandat à nation indépendante. L'indépendance de l'Irak en 1932, bien qu'étant un jalon important, n'a donc pas mis fin à l'influence étrangère dans le pays. Au contraire, elle a marqué le début d'une nouvelle phase de relations internationales et de défis intérieurs pour l'Irak, façonnant son développement politique et social dans les décennies suivantes.

Coup d'État de 1941 et Intervention Britannique (1941)

En 1941, l'Irak a été le théâtre d'un événement critique qui a illustré la fragilité de son indépendance et la persistance de l'influence britannique dans le pays. Ce fut l'année du coup d'État mené par Rashid Ali al-Gaylani, qui a déclenché une série d'événements aboutissant à une intervention militaire britannique. Rashid Ali, qui avait déjà occupé le poste de Premier ministre, a mené un coup d'État contre le gouvernement pro-britannique en place. Ce coup d'État a été motivé par divers facteurs, notamment le nationalisme arabe, l'opposition à la présence et à l'influence britanniques en Irak, et les sentiments anti-coloniaux croissants parmi certaines factions de l'élite politique et militaire irakienne.

La prise de pouvoir par Rashid Ali a été perçue comme une menace directe par la Grande-Bretagne, notamment en raison de la position stratégique de l'Irak pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. L'Irak, avec son accès au pétrole et sa position géographique, était crucial pour les intérêts britanniques dans la région, en particulier dans le contexte de la guerre contre les puissances de l'Axe. En réponse au coup d'État, la Grande-Bretagne est rapidement intervenue militairement. Les forces britanniques, craignant que l'Irak ne tombe sous l'influence de l'Axe ou ne perturbe les voies de ravitaillement et d'accès au pétrole, ont lancé une campagne pour renverser Rashid Ali et restaurer un gouvernement favorable aux Britanniques. L'opération a été rapide et décisive, mettant fin au bref règne de Rashid Ali. À la suite de cette intervention, la Grande-Bretagne a placé un nouveau roi au pouvoir, réaffirmant ainsi son influence sur la politique irakienne. Cette période a souligné la vulnérabilité de l'Irak aux interventions étrangères et a mis en évidence les limites de son indépendance souveraine. L'intervention britannique de 1941 a également eu des répercussions durables sur la politique irakienne, alimentant un sentiment anti-britannique et anti-colonial qui a continué à influencer les événements politiques futurs dans le pays.

Irak pendant la Guerre Froide et Pacte de Bagdad (1955)

L'histoire de l'Irak pendant la Guerre froide est un exemple de la manière dont les intérêts géopolitiques des superpuissances ont continué à influencer et façonner la politique interne et externe des pays de la région. Durant cette période, l'Irak est devenu un acteur clé dans le cadre des stratégies de "containment" menées par les États-Unis contre l'Union Soviétique.

En 1955, l'Irak a joué un rôle majeur dans la formation du Pacte de Bagdad, une alliance militaire et politique initiée par les États-Unis. Ce pacte, aussi connu sous le nom de Pacte du Moyen-Orient, visait à établir un cordon de sécurité dans la région pour contrer l'influence et l'expansion de l'Union Soviétique. Outre l'Irak, le pacte incluait la Turquie, l'Iran, le Pakistan et le Royaume-Uni, formant ainsi un front uni contre le communisme dans une région stratégiquement importante. Le Pacte de Bagdad était en accord avec la politique de "containment" des États-Unis, qui cherchait à limiter l'expansion soviétique à travers le monde. Cette politique était motivée par la perception d'une menace soviétique croissante et la volonté d'empêcher la propagation du communisme, en particulier dans des zones stratégiques comme le Moyen-Orient, riche en ressources pétrolières.

L'implication de l'Irak dans le Pacte de Bagdad a cependant eu des implications internes. Cette alliance avec les puissances occidentales a été controversée au sein de la population irakienne et a exacerbé les tensions politiques internes. Le pacte était perçu par beaucoup comme une continuation de l'ingérence étrangère dans les affaires irakiennes et a alimenté le sentiment nationaliste et anti-occidental parmi certaines factions. En 1958, l'Irak a connu un coup d'État qui a renversé la monarchie et a établi la République d'Irak. Ce coup d'État a été largement motivé par des sentiments anti-occidentaux et par l'opposition à la politique étrangère pro-occidentale de la monarchie. Après le coup d'État, l'Irak s'est retiré du Pacte de Bagdad, marquant un changement significatif dans sa politique étrangère et soulignant la complexité de sa position géopolitique pendant la Guerre froide.

Révolution de 1958 et Montée du Baasisme (1958)

La révolution de 1958 en Irak a été un tournant décisif dans l'histoire moderne du pays, marquant la fin de la monarchie et l'établissement de la République. Cette période de changement politique et social profond en Irak coïncidait avec des développements politiques majeurs dans d'autres parties du monde arabe, en particulier la formation de la République arabe unie (RAU) par l'Égypte et la Syrie. Abdel Karim Kassem, un officier de l'armée irakienne, a joué un rôle clé dans le coup d'État de 1958 qui a renversé la monarchie hachémite en Irak. Après la révolution, Kassem est devenu le premier Premier ministre de la République d'Irak. Sa prise de pouvoir a été accueillie par un large soutien populaire, car beaucoup voyaient en lui un leader capable de mener l'Irak vers une ère de réformes et d'indépendance accrue vis-à-vis des influences étrangères. En parallèle, en 1958, l'Égypte et la Syrie ont fusionné pour former la République arabe unie, un effort d'unification panarabe sous la direction du président égyptien Gamal Abdel Nasser. La RAU représentait une tentative d'unité politique entre les nations arabes, fondée sur le nationalisme arabe et l'anti-impérialisme. Cependant, Abdel Karim Kassem a choisi de ne pas rejoindre la RAU. Il avait ses propres visions pour l'Irak, qui différaient du modèle de Nasser.

Kassem s'est concentré sur la consolidation du pouvoir en Irak et a cherché à renforcer son soutien interne en se rapprochant de groupes souvent marginalisés dans la société irakienne, notamment les Kurdes et les chiites. Sous son régime, l'Irak a connu une période de réformes sociales et économiques. Kassem a notamment promulgué des réformes agraires et a travaillé à la modernisation de l'économie irakienne. Cependant, son gouvernement a également été marqué par des tensions politiques et des conflits. La politique de Kassem envers les Kurdes et les chiites, bien que visant à l'inclusion, a également suscité des tensions avec d'autres groupes et puissances régionales. De plus, son régime a été confronté à des défis de stabilité et à des oppositions internes, y compris des tentatives de coup d'État et des conflits avec des factions politiques rivales.

La période post-révolutionnaire en Irak, au début des années 1960, a été marquée par des changements politiques rapides et souvent violents, avec l'émergence du baasisme comme force politique significative. Abdel Karim Kassem, après avoir dirigé l'Irak depuis la révolution de 1958, a été renversé et tué en 1963 lors d'un coup d'État. Ce coup d'État a été orchestré par un groupe de nationalistes arabes et de membres du parti Baas, une organisation politique panarabe socialiste. Le parti Baas, fondé en Syrie, avait gagné en influence dans plusieurs pays arabes, y compris en Irak, et prônait l'unité arabe, le socialisme et la laïcité. Abdel Salam Aref, qui a remplacé Kassem à la tête de l'Irak, était un membre du parti Baas et avait des opinions politiques différentes de celles de son prédécesseur. Contrairement à Kassem, Aref était favorable à l'idée de la République arabe unie et soutenait le concept d'unité panarabe. Son accession au pouvoir a marqué un changement significatif dans la politique irakienne, avec un mouvement vers des politiques plus alignées sur les idéaux baasistes.

La mort d'Abdel Salam Aref dans un accident d'hélicoptère en 1966 a conduit à une autre transition de pouvoir. Son frère, Abdul Rahman Aref, lui a succédé en tant que président. La période de gouvernance des frères Aref a été une époque où le baasisme a commencé à prendre pied en Irak, bien que leur régime ait également été marqué par des instabilités et des luttes de pouvoir internes. Le baasisme en Irak, bien qu'ayant des origines communes avec le baasisme syrien, a développé ses propres caractéristiques et dynamiques. Les gouvernements d'Abdel Salam Aref et d'Abdul Rahman Aref ont été confrontés à divers défis, y compris des tensions internes au sein du parti Baas et des oppositions de différents groupes sociaux et politiques. Ces tensions ont finalement conduit à un autre coup d'État en 1968, mené par le secteur irakien du parti Baas, qui a vu l'ascension de figures telles que Saddam Hussein dans les rangs du leadership irakien.

Règne de Saddam Hussein et Guerre Iran-Irak (1979 - 1988)

L'ascension de Saddam Hussein au pouvoir en 1979 a marqué une nouvelle ère dans l'histoire politique et sociale de l'Irak. En tant que figure dominante du parti Baas, Saddam Hussein a entrepris une série de réformes et de politiques visant à renforcer le contrôle de l'État et à moderniser la société irakienne, tout en consolidant son propre pouvoir. L'un des aspects clés de la gouvernance de Saddam Hussein a été le processus d'étatisation de la tribu, une stratégie qui visait à intégrer les structures tribales traditionnelles dans l'appareil étatique. Cette approche avait pour objectif de gagner le soutien des tribus, notamment des Tiplit, en les impliquant dans les structures gouvernementales et en leur accordant certains privilèges. En échange, ces tribus fournissaient un soutien crucial à Saddam Hussein, renforçant ainsi son régime.

Parallèlement à cette politique tribale, Saddam Hussein a lancé des programmes ambitieux de modernisation dans divers secteurs tels que l'éducation, l'économie et le logement. Ces programmes visaient à transformer l'Irak en une nation moderne et développée. Un élément majeur de cette modernisation a été la nationalisation de l'industrie pétrolière irakienne, ce qui a permis au gouvernement de contrôler une ressource vitale et de financer ses initiatives de développement. Cependant, malgré ces efforts de modernisation, l'économie irakienne sous Saddam Hussein a été largement basée sur un système clientéliste. Ce système clientéliste impliquait la distribution de faveurs, de ressources et de postes gouvernementaux à des individus et des groupes en échange de leur soutien politique. Cette approche a créé une dépendance envers le régime et a contribué à l'entretien d'un réseau de loyauté envers Saddam Hussein. Bien que les initiatives de Saddam Hussein aient entraîné certains développements économiques et sociaux, elles ont également été accompagnées de répression politique et de violations des droits humains. La consolidation du pouvoir de Saddam Hussein s'est souvent faite au détriment de la liberté politique et de l'opposition, ce qui a conduit à des tensions internes et à des conflits.

La guerre Iran-Irak, qui a débuté en 1980 et s'est poursuivie jusqu'en 1988, est l'un des conflits les plus sanglants et les plus destructeurs du 20ème siècle. Déclenchée par Saddam Hussein, cette guerre a eu des conséquences profondes tant pour l'Irak que pour l'Iran, ainsi que pour la région dans son ensemble. Saddam Hussein, cherchant à exploiter la vulnérabilité apparente de l'Iran dans le sillage de la Révolution islamique de 1979, a lancé une offensive contre l'Iran. Il craignait que la révolution dirigée par l'Ayatollah Khomeini ne se propage à l'Irak, en particulier parmi la majorité chiite du pays, et ne déstabilise son régime baasiste à dominante sunnite. De plus, Saddam Hussein visait à établir la dominance régionale de l'Irak et à contrôler des territoires riches en pétrole, en particulier dans la région frontalière de Shatt al-Arab. La guerre a rapidement escaladé en un conflit prolongé et coûteux, caractérisé par des combats de tranchées, des attaques chimiques et des souffrances humaines massives. Plus d’un demi-million de soldats ont été tués des deux côtés, et des millions de personnes ont été affectées par les destructions et les déplacements.

Sur le plan régional, la guerre a conduit à des alliances complexes. La Syrie, dirigée par Hafez al-Assad, a choisi de soutenir l'Iran, malgré les différences idéologiques, en partie à cause de la rivalité syro-irakienne. L'Iran a également reçu le soutien du Hezbollah, une organisation militante chiite basée au Liban. Ces alliances ont reflété les divisions politiques et sectaires croissantes dans la région. La guerre s'est finalement terminée en 1988, sans vainqueur clair. Le cessez-le-feu, négocié sous les auspices des Nations Unies, a laissé les frontières largement inchangées et aucune réparation significative n'a été accordée. Le conflit a laissé les deux pays gravement affaiblis et endettés, et a posé les bases de futurs conflits dans la région, notamment l'invasion du Koweït par l'Irak en 1990 et les interventions ultérieures des États-Unis et de leurs alliés dans la région.

La fin de la guerre Iran-Irak en 1988 a été un moment crucial, marquant la fin de huit années de conflit acharné et de souffrances humaines considérables. L'Iran, sous la direction de l'Ayatollah Khomeini, a finalement accepté la résolution 598 du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies, qui appelait à un cessez-le-feu immédiat et à une fin des hostilités entre les deux pays. La décision de l'Iran d'accepter le cessez-le-feu a été prise dans un contexte de difficultés croissantes sur le front intérieur et d'une situation militaire de plus en plus défavorable. Malgré les efforts initiaux pour résister à l'agression irakienne et faire des gains territoriaux, l'Iran a été soumis à des pressions économiques et militaires énormes, exacerbées par l'isolement international et les coûts humains et matériels du conflit prolongé.

Un élément particulièrement troublant de la guerre a été l'utilisation par l'Irak d'armes chimiques, une tactique qui a marqué une escalade dramatique dans la violence du conflit. Les forces irakiennes ont utilisé des armes chimiques à plusieurs reprises contre les forces iraniennes et même contre leur propre population kurde, comme lors du tristement célèbre massacre d'Halabja en 1988, où des milliers de civils kurdes ont été tués par des gaz toxiques. L'utilisation d'armes chimiques par l'Irak a été largement condamnée sur la scène internationale et a contribué à l'isolement diplomatique du régime de Saddam Hussein. Le cessez-le-feu de 1988 a mis fin à l'un des conflits les plus sanglants de la seconde moitié du 20ème siècle, mais il a laissé derrière lui des pays dévastés et une région profondément marquée par les séquelles de la guerre. Ni l'Iran ni l'Irak n'ont réussi à atteindre les objectifs ambitieux qu'ils s'étaient fixés au début du conflit, et la guerre a finalement été caractérisée par son inutilité tragique et ses coûts humains énormes.

Invasion du Koweït et Guerre du Golfe (1990 - 1991)

L'invasion du Koweït par l'Irak en 1990, sous le commandement de Saddam Hussein, a déclenché une série d'événements majeurs sur la scène internationale, conduisant à la Guerre du Golfe de 1991. Cette invasion a été motivée par plusieurs facteurs, dont des revendications territoriales, des disputes sur la production de pétrole et des tensions économiques. Saddam Hussein a justifié l'invasion en revendiquant le Koweït comme faisant historiquement partie de l'Irak. Il a également exprimé des griefs concernant la production de pétrole du Koweït, qu'il accusait de dépasser les quotas de l'OPEP, contribuant ainsi à la baisse des prix du pétrole et affectant l'économie irakienne, déjà affaiblie par la longue guerre avec l'Iran. La réponse internationale à l'invasion a été rapide et ferme. Le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies a condamné l'invasion et a imposé un embargo économique strict contre l'Irak. Par la suite, une coalition de forces internationales, dirigée par les États-Unis, s'est formée pour libérer le Koweït. Bien que l'opération ait été sanctionnée par l'ONU, elle a été largement perçue comme étant dominée par les États-Unis, en raison de leur rôle de leader et de leur contribution militaire significative.

La Guerre du Golfe, qui a débuté en janvier 1991, a été brève mais intense. La campagne aérienne massive et l'opération terrestre subséquente ont rapidement expulsé les forces irakiennes du Koweït. Cependant, l'embargo imposé à l'Irak a eu des conséquences dévastatrices pour la population civile irakienne. Les sanctions économiques, combinées à la destruction des infrastructures lors de la guerre, ont entraîné une grave crise humanitaire en Irak, avec des pénuries de nourriture, de médicaments et d'autres fournitures essentielles. L'invasion du Koweït par l'Irak et la Guerre du Golfe qui a suivi ont eu des répercussions importantes sur la région et sur les relations internationales. L'Irak s'est retrouvé isolé sur la scène internationale, et Saddam Hussein a été confronté à des défis internes et externes accrus. Cette période a également marqué un tournant dans la politique des États-Unis au Moyen-Orient, renforçant leur présence militaire et politique dans la région.

Impact de l'Attaque du 11 Septembre et Invasion Américaine (2003)

La période post-11 septembre 2001 a marqué un tournant significatif dans la politique étrangère des États-Unis, en particulier en ce qui concerne l'Irak. Sous la présidence de George W. Bush, l'Irak a été de plus en plus perçu comme faisant partie de ce que Bush a décrit comme "l'axe du Mal", une expression qui a alimenté l'imaginaire public et politique américain dans le contexte de la lutte contre le terrorisme international. Bien que l'Irak n'ait pas été directement impliqué dans les attentats du 11 septembre, l'administration Bush a mis en avant la théorie selon laquelle l'Irak de Saddam Hussein possédait des armes de destruction massive (ADM) et représentait une menace pour la sécurité mondiale. Cette perception a été utilisée pour justifier l'invasion de l'Irak en 2003, une décision qui a été largement controversée, en particulier après qu'il a été révélé que l'Irak ne possédait pas d'armes de destruction massive.

L'invasion et l'occupation subséquente de l'Irak par les forces dirigées par les États-Unis ont entraîné le renversement de Saddam Hussein, mais ont également conduit à des conséquences imprévues et à une instabilité à long terme. Une des politiques les plus critiquées de l'administration américaine en Irak a été la "débaasification", qui visait à éradiquer l'influence du parti Baas de Saddam Hussein. Cette politique a inclus la dissolution de l'armée irakienne et le démantèlement de nombreuses structures administratives et gouvernementales. Cependant, la débaasification a créé un vide de pouvoir et a exacerbé les tensions sectaires et ethniques en Irak. De nombreux anciens membres de l'armée et du parti Baas, soudainement privés de leur emploi et de leur statut, se sont retrouvés marginalisés et ont parfois rejoint des groupes insurgés. Cette situation a contribué à l'émergence et à la montée en puissance de groupes djihadistes comme Al-Qaïda en Irak, qui deviendra plus tard l'État islamique en Irak et au Levant (EIIL), connu sous le nom de Daesh. Le chaos et l'instabilité qui ont suivi l'invasion américaine ont été des facteurs clés dans la montée du nouveau djihadisme représenté par Daesh, qui a exploité le vide politique, les tensions sectaires et l'insécurité pour étendre son influence. L'intervention américaine en Irak, bien qu'initialement présentée comme un effort pour apporter la démocratie et la stabilité, a eu des conséquences profondes et durables, plongeant le pays dans une période de conflit, de violence et d'instabilité qui a persisté pendant de nombreuses années.

Le retrait des troupes américaines d'Irak en 2009 a marqué une nouvelle phase dans l'histoire politique du pays, caractérisée par une montée en puissance des groupes chiites et des changements dans la dynamique du pouvoir. Après des décennies de marginalisation sous le régime baasiste dominé par les sunnites, la majorité chiite d'Irak a gagné en influence politique suite à la chute de Saddam Hussein et au processus de reconstruction politique qui a suivi l'invasion américaine de 2003. Avec l'établissement d'un gouvernement plus représentatif et l'organisation d'élections démocratiques, les partis politiques chiites, qui avaient été réprimés sous le régime de Saddam Hussein, ont gagné un rôle prépondérant dans le nouveau paysage politique irakien. Des figures politiques chiites, souvent soutenues par l'Iran, ont commencé à occuper des postes clés au sein du gouvernement, reflétant ainsi le changement démographique et politique du pays.

Cependant, ce changement de pouvoir a également conduit à des tensions et des conflits. Les communautés sunnites et kurdes, qui avaient occupé des positions de pouvoir sous le régime de Saddam Hussein ou avaient cherché l'autonomie, comme dans le cas du Kurdistan irakien, se sont retrouvées marginalisées dans le nouvel ordre politique. Cette marginalisation, combinée à la dissolution de l'armée irakienne et à d'autres politiques mises en œuvre après l'invasion, a créé un sentiment d'aliénation et de frustration parmi ces groupes. La marginalisation des sunnites, en particulier, a contribué à un climat d'insécurité et de mécontentement, créant un terrain fertile pour l'insurrection et le terrorisme. Des groupes comme Al-Qaïda en Irak, et plus tard l'État islamique (Daesh), ont tiré parti de ces divisions pour recruter des membres et étendre leur influence, menant à une période de violence et de conflit sectaire intense.

Israël

Débuts du Sionisme et la Déclaration Balfour

La création de l'État d'Israël en 1948 est un événement historique majeur qui a été interprété de différentes manières, reflétant les complexités et les tensions inhérentes à cette période de l'histoire. D'un côté, cette création peut être vue comme une consécration des efforts diplomatiques et politiques, marquée par des décisions clés au niveau international. D'un autre côté, elle est perçue comme l'aboutissement d'une lutte nationale, portée par le mouvement sioniste et les aspirations à l'autodétermination du peuple juif.

La Déclaration Balfour de 1917, dans laquelle le gouvernement britannique soutenait l'établissement en Palestine d'un foyer national pour le peuple juif, a jeté les bases de la création d'Israël. Cette déclaration, bien qu'elle fût une promesse plutôt qu'un engagement juridiquement contraignant, a été un moment clé dans la reconnaissance internationale des aspirations sionistes. Le mandat britannique sur la Palestine, établi après la Première Guerre mondiale, a ensuite servi de cadre administratif pour la région, bien que les tensions entre les communautés juives et arabes aient augmenté pendant cette période. Le plan de partage de la Palestine proposé par l'ONU en 1947, qui envisageait la création de deux États indépendants, juif et arabe, avec Jérusalem sous contrôle international, a été un autre moment décisif. Bien que ce plan ait été accepté par les dirigeants juifs, il a été rejeté par les parties arabes, menant à un conflit ouvert après le retrait britannique de la région.

La guerre d'indépendance d'Israël, qui a suivi la proclamation de l'État d'Israël en mai 1948 par David Ben-Gourion, premier Premier ministre d'Israël, a été marquée par des combats acharnés contre les armées de plusieurs pays arabes voisins. Cette guerre a été une lutte pour l'existence et la souveraineté pour les Israéliens et un moment tragique de perte et de déplacement pour les Palestiniens, un événement connu sous le nom de Nakba (la catastrophe). La fondation d'Israël a ainsi été accueillie avec jubilation par de nombreux Juifs à travers le monde, en particulier dans le contexte de la persécution subie pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale et l'Holocauste. Pour les Palestiniens et beaucoup dans le monde arabe, cependant, 1948 est synonyme de perte et de début d'un long conflit. La création d'Israël a donc été un événement pivot, non seulement pour les habitants de la région, mais aussi dans le contexte plus large des relations internationales, influençant profondément la politique du Moyen-Orient dans les décennies suivantes.

La Déclaration Balfour, rédigée le 2 novembre 1917, est un document crucial pour comprendre les origines de l'État d'Israël et du conflit israélo-palestinien. Rédigée par Arthur James Balfour, le ministre des Affaires étrangères britannique de l'époque, cette déclaration a été adressée à Lord Rothschild, un leader de la communauté juive britannique, pour transmission à la Fédération sioniste de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande. Le texte de la Déclaration Balfour promettait le soutien du gouvernement britannique à l'établissement en Palestine d'un "foyer national pour le peuple juif", tout en stipulant que cela ne devrait pas porter préjudice aux droits civils et religieux des communautés non juives existantes dans le pays, ni aux droits et au statut politique dont jouissent les Juifs dans tout autre pays. Cependant, les populations non-juives de Palestine n'étaient pas explicitement nommées dans le document, ce qui a été interprété comme une omission significative. Les raisons derrière la Déclaration Balfour étaient multiples et complexes, impliquant à la fois des considérations diplomatiques et stratégiques britanniques durant la Première Guerre mondiale. Parmi ces motivations figuraient le désir de gagner le soutien juif pour les efforts de guerre alliés, particulièrement en Russie où la Révolution bolchevique avait créé des incertitudes, et l'intérêt stratégique pour la Palestine en tant que région clé proche du Canal de Suez, vital pour l'Empire britannique. L'émission de la Déclaration Balfour a marqué un tournant dans l'histoire de la région, car elle a été interprétée par les sionistes comme un soutien international à leur aspiration à un foyer national en Palestine. Pour les Palestiniens arabes, en revanche, elle a été vue comme une trahison et une menace à leurs revendications territoriales et nationales. Cette dichotomie de perceptions a jeté les bases des tensions et du conflit qui ont suivi dans la région.

Le contexte historique du conflit israélo-palestinien est complexe et s'étend bien avant la Déclaration Balfour de 1917. La présence juive à Jérusalem et dans d'autres parties de la Palestine historique remonte à des millénaires, bien que la démographie et la composition de la population aient fluctué au fil du temps en raison de divers événements historiques, y compris des périodes d'exil et de diaspora. Au cours des années 1800 et plus particulièrement dans les années 1830, un mouvement migratoire significatif de Juifs vers la Palestine a commencé, en partie en réponse aux persécutions et aux pogroms dans l'Empire russe et d'autres parties de l'Europe. Cette migration, souvent considérée comme faisant partie des premières Aliyahs (montées) dans le cadre du mouvement sioniste naissant, était motivée par le désir de retourner à la terre ancestrale juive et de reconstruire une présence juive en Palestine.

Un aspect important de ce renouveau juif était l'Askala ou la Haskala (la Renaissance juive), un mouvement parmi les Juifs européens, en particulier les Ashkénazes, visant à moderniser la culture juive et à s'intégrer dans la société européenne. Ce mouvement a encouragé l'éducation, l'adoption de langues et de coutumes locales, tout en promouvant une identité juive renouvelée et dynamique. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, souvent cité comme le père de l'hébreu moderne, a joué un rôle crucial dans la renaissance de l'hébreu comme langue vivante. Son travail a été essentiel pour le renouveau culturel et national juif, donnant à la communauté juive en Palestine un moyen unificateur de communication et renforçant leur identité culturelle distincte.

Ces développements culturels et migratoires ont contribué à poser les bases du sionisme politique, un mouvement nationaliste visant à établir un foyer national juif en Palestine. Le sionisme a gagné en popularité à la fin du 19ème siècle, en partie en réponse aux persécutions antisémites en Europe et à l'aspiration à l'autodétermination. La migration juive vers la Palestine au 19ème et au début du 20ème siècle a coïncidé avec la présence de longue date des communautés arabes palestiniennes, conduisant à des changements démographiques et à des tensions croissantes dans la région. Ces tensions, exacerbées par les politiques du mandat britannique et les événements internationaux, ont finalement conduit au conflit israélo-palestinien que nous connaissons aujourd'hui.

L'histoire du mouvement sioniste et de l'émergence de l'idée d'un foyer national juif est étroitement liée à la diaspora juive en Europe et aux États-Unis à la fin du 19ème et au début du 20ème siècle. Cette période a été marquée par un renouveau de la pensée juive et une prise de conscience croissante des défis auxquels faisait face la communauté juive en Europe, notamment l'antisémitisme. Léon Pinsker, un médecin et intellectuel juif russe, a été une figure clé dans les premiers stades du sionisme. Influencé par les pogroms et les persécutions antisémites en Russie, Pinsker a écrit "Auto-Émancipation" en 1882, un pamphlet qui plaidait pour la nécessité d'une patrie nationale pour les Juifs. Pinsker croyait que l'antisémitisme était un phénomène permanent et inévitable en Europe et que la seule solution pour le peuple juif était l'autonomie dans leur propre territoire. Théodore Herzl, un journaliste et écrivain austro-hongrois, est souvent considéré comme le père du sionisme politique moderne. Profondément affecté par l'affaire Dreyfus en France, où un officier juif, Alfred Dreyfus, a été faussement accusé d'espionnage dans un climat d'antisémitisme flagrant, Herzl en est venu à la conclusion que l'assimilation ne protégerait pas les Juifs de la discrimination et de la persécution. Cette affaire a été un catalyseur pour Herzl, le conduisant à écrire "L'État des Juifs" en 1896, dans lequel il argumentait en faveur de la création d'un État juif. Contrairement à l'idée reçue, Herzl n'a pas spécifiquement envisagé de fonder le foyer national juif en France, mais plutôt en Palestine ou, à défaut, dans un autre territoire offert par une puissance coloniale. L'idée de Herzl était de trouver un lieu où les Juifs pourraient s'établir en tant que nation souveraine et vivre librement, loin de l'antisémitisme européen. Herzl a été le moteur derrière le Premier Congrès sioniste à Bâle en 1897, qui a jeté les bases du mouvement sioniste en tant qu'organisation politique. Ce congrès a rassemblé des délégués juifs de diverses origines pour discuter de la création d'un foyer national juif en Palestine.

L'Antisémitisme et les Migrations Juives

L'histoire de l'antisémitisme est longue et complexe, et elle est profondément enracinée dans les croyances religieuses et socio-économiques européennes, en particulier durant le Moyen Âge. Un des aspects les plus marquants de l'antisémitisme historique est la notion de "peuple déicide", une accusation selon laquelle les Juifs seraient collectivement responsables de la mort de Jésus-Christ. Cette idée a été largement promulguée dans la chrétienté européenne et a servi de justification à diverses formes de persécution et de discrimination envers les Juifs au cours des siècles. Cette croyance a contribué à la marginalisation des Juifs et à leur représentation comme "autres" ou étrangers au sein de la société chrétienne.

Au Moyen Âge, les restrictions imposées aux Juifs dans le domaine professionnel et social ont eu un impact significatif sur leur place dans la société. En raison des lois et des restrictions de l'Église, les Juifs étaient souvent empêchés de posséder des terres ou d'exercer certaines professions. Par exemple, dans de nombreuses régions, ils ne pouvaient pas être membres de guildes, ce qui limitait leurs opportunités dans le commerce et l'artisanat. Ces restrictions ont conduit beaucoup de Juifs à se tourner vers des métiers comme le prêt d'argent, une activité souvent interdite aux chrétiens en raison de l'interdiction de l'usure par l'Église. Bien que cette activité ait fourni une niche économique nécessaire, elle a également renforcé certains stéréotypes négatifs et a contribué à l'antisémitisme économique. Les Juifs étaient parfois perçus comme des usuriers et associés à l'avarice, ce qui exacerbait la méfiance et l'hostilité à leur égard. En outre, les Juifs étaient souvent confinés dans des quartiers spécifiques, connus sous le nom de ghettos, ce qui limitait leur interaction avec la population chrétienne et renforçait leur isolement. Cette ségrégation, combinée à l'antisémitisme religieux et économique, a créé un environnement dans lequel les persécutions, telles que les pogroms, pouvaient se produire. L'antisémitisme médiéval, enraciné dans des croyances religieuses et renforcé par des structures socio-économiques, a donc jeté les bases de siècles de discrimination et de persécution envers les Juifs en Europe. Cette histoire douloureuse a été l'un des facteurs qui ont alimenté les aspirations sionistes pour un foyer national sûr et souverain.

L'évolution de l'antisémitisme au 19ème siècle représente un tournant significatif, où les préjugés et la discrimination à l'encontre des Juifs ont commencé à se fonder davantage sur des notions raciales que sur des différences religieuses ou culturelles. Ce changement a marqué la naissance de ce que l'on appelle l'antisémitisme "moderne", qui a posé les bases idéologiques de l'antisémitisme du 20ème siècle, y compris l'Holocauste. Dans la période pré-moderne, l'antisémitisme était principalement ancré dans des différences religieuses, avec des accusations de déicide et des stéréotypes négatifs associés aux Juifs en tant que groupe religieux. Cependant, avec les Lumières et l'émancipation des Juifs dans de nombreux pays européens au 19ème siècle, l'antisémitisme a commencé à prendre une nouvelle forme. Cette forme "moderne" d'antisémitisme était caractérisée par la croyance en l'existence de races distinctes avec des caractéristiques biologiques et morales inhérentes. Les Juifs étaient ainsi perçus non seulement comme une communauté religieuse distincte, mais aussi comme une "race" à part, avec des traits héréditaires et des comportements présumés qui les rendaient différents et, aux yeux des antisémites, inférieurs ou dangereux pour la société.

Cette idéologie raciale a été renforcée par divers écrits et théories pseudoscientifiques, y compris ceux de personnalités comme Houston Stewart Chamberlain, un théoricien racial influent dont les idées ont contribué à la théorie raciale nazie. L'antisémitisme racial a trouvé son expression la plus extrême dans l'idéologie nazie, qui a utilisé des théories racistes pour justifier la persécution et l'extermination systématique des Juifs pendant l'Holocauste. La transition de l'antisémitisme religieux vers un antisémitisme racial au 19ème siècle a donc été un développement crucial, alimentant des formes de discrimination et de persécution plus intenses et systématiques contre les Juifs. Cette évolution a également contribué à l'urgence ressentie par le mouvement sioniste pour la création d'un État-nation juif où les Juifs pourraient vivre en sécurité et être libres de telles persécutions.

Le Mouvement Sioniste et l'Établissement en Palestine

La fin du 19ème siècle a été une période cruciale pour le peuple juif et a marqué un tournant décisif dans l'histoire du sionisme, un mouvement qui allait finalement conduire à la création de l'État d'Israël. Cette époque a été caractérisée par une combinaison de réponse aux persécutions antisémites en Europe et d'un désir croissant d'autodétermination et de retour à la terre ancestrale. Le mouvement Hovevei Zion (Les Amants de Sion) a joué un rôle fondamental dans les premières étapes du sionisme. Formé par des Juifs principalement d'Europe de l'Est, ce mouvement visait à encourager l'immigration juive en Palestine et à établir une base pour la communauté juive dans la région. Inspirés par les pogroms et les discriminations en Russie et ailleurs, les membres de Hovevei Zion ont mis en œuvre des projets d'agriculture et d'établissement, jetant ainsi les bases d'un renouveau juif en Palestine. Cependant, c'est le premier Congrès sioniste, organisé par Theodor Herzl en 1897 à Bâle, en Suisse, qui a marqué un jalon historique. Herzl, un journaliste austro-hongrois profondément affecté par l'antisémitisme qu'il avait observé, notamment lors de l'affaire Dreyfus en France, a compris la nécessité d'un foyer national juif. Le Congrès de Bâle a rassemblé des délégués juifs de divers pays et a servi de plateforme pour articuler et propager l'idée sioniste. Le résultat le plus notable de ce congrès a été la formulation du Programme de Bâle, qui appelait à l'établissement d'un foyer national pour le peuple juif en Palestine. Ce congrès a également abouti à la création de l'Organisation sioniste mondiale, chargée de promouvoir l'objectif sioniste. Sous la direction de Herzl, le mouvement sioniste a gagné en légitimité et en soutien international, malgré les défis et les controverses. La vision de Herzl, bien que largement symbolique à l'époque, a fourni un cadre et une direction pour les aspirations juives, transformant une idée en un mouvement politique tangible. La période de la fin du 19ème siècle a été essentielle dans la formation du mouvement sioniste et a posé les jalons pour les événements futurs qui mèneraient à la création de l'État d'Israël. Elle reflète une période où les défis historiques rencontrés par les Juifs en Europe ont convergé avec un désir renouvelé d'autodétermination, façonnant ainsi le cours de l'histoire juive et du Moyen-Orient.

Le début du 20ème siècle a été une période significative de développement et de transformation pour la communauté juive en Palestine, marquée par une augmentation de l'immigration juive et la création de nouvelles structures sociales et urbaines. Entre 1903 et 1914, une période connue sous le nom de "Seconde Aliyah", environ 30 000 Juifs, principalement originaires de l'Empire russe, ont immigré en Palestine. Cette vague d'immigration a été motivée par une combinaison de facteurs, notamment les persécutions antisémites dans l'Empire russe et l'aspiration sioniste à établir un foyer national juif. Cette période a vu la création de la ville de Tel-Aviv en 1909, qui est devenue un symbole du renouveau juif et du sionisme. Tel-Aviv a été conçue comme une ville moderne, planifiée dès le départ pour être un centre urbain pour la communauté juive en croissance. L'un des développements les plus innovants de cette période a été la création des Kibboutzim. Les Kibboutzim étaient des collectivités agricoles basées sur des principes de propriété collective et de travail communautaire. Ils ont joué un rôle crucial dans l'établissement des Juifs en Palestine, en fournissant non seulement des moyens de subsistance, mais aussi en contribuant à la défense et à la sécurité des communautés juives. Leur importance allait au-delà de l'agriculture, car ils ont servi de centres pour la culture, l'éducation et le sionisme social.

La période entre 1921 et 1931 a vu une nouvelle vague d'immigration, connue sous le nom de "Troisième Aliyah", au cours de laquelle environ 150 000 Juifs sont arrivés en Palestine. Cette augmentation significative de la population juive a été en partie stimulée par la montée de l'antisémitisme en Europe, notamment en Pologne et en Russie, ainsi que par les politiques britanniques en Palestine. Ces immigrants ont apporté avec eux des compétences variées, contribuant ainsi au développement économique et social de la région. L'immigration juive pendant cette période a été un facteur clé dans la configuration démographique de la Palestine, menant à des changements sociaux et économiques substantiels. Elle a également exacerbé les tensions avec les communautés arabes palestiniennes, qui voyaient cette immigration croissante comme une menace pour leurs revendications territoriales et démographiques. Ces tensions se sont finalement intensifiées, conduisant à des conflits et des troubles dans les années et décennies suivantes.

La période suivant la Déclaration Balfour en 1917 a été marquée par une augmentation significative des tensions et des conflits entre les communautés juives et arabes en Palestine. La déclaration, qui exprimait le soutien du gouvernement britannique à l'établissement en Palestine d'un foyer national pour le peuple juif, a été accueillie avec enthousiasme par de nombreux Juifs mais a suscité de l'opposition et de l'animosité parmi la population arabe palestinienne. Ces tensions se sont manifestées dans une série de confrontations et de violences entre les deux communautés. Les années 1920 et 1930 ont été témoins de plusieurs épisodes de violence, y compris des émeutes et des massacres, où les deux côtés ont subi des pertes. Ces incidents reflétaient la montée des tensions nationalistes des deux côtés et la lutte pour le contrôle et l'avenir de la Palestine.

En réponse à ces tensions croissantes et à la nécessité perçue de se défendre contre les attaques, la communauté juive en Palestine a formé la Haganah en 1920. La Haganah, qui signifie "défense" en hébreu, était initialement une organisation de défense clandestine destinée à protéger les communautés juives des attaques arabes. Elle a été fondée par un groupe de représentants des colonies juives et des organisations sionistes en réponse aux émeutes de Jérusalem de 1920. La Haganah a évolué au fil du temps, passant d'une force de défense locale à une organisation militaire plus structurée. Bien qu'elle ait été principalement défensive dans ses premières années, la Haganah a développé une capacité militaire plus robuste, y compris la formation de forces d'élite et l'acquisition d'armes, en prévision d'un conflit plus large avec les communautés arabes et les pays voisins. La formation de la Haganah a été un développement crucial dans l'histoire du mouvement sioniste et a joué un rôle important dans les événements qui ont conduit à la création de l'État d'Israël en 1948. La Haganah a constitué le noyau de ce qui allait devenir plus tard les Forces de défense israéliennes (FDI), l'armée officielle de l'État d'Israël.

La collaboration des milieux sionistes avec les puissances mandataires, en particulier la Grande-Bretagne, qui avait reçu le mandat de la Société des Nations pour gouverner la Palestine après la Première Guerre mondiale, a joué un rôle important dans l'évolution du conflit israélo-palestinien. Cette coopération a été cruciale pour les progrès du mouvement sioniste, mais elle a également alimenté les tensions et la colère parmi la population arabe palestinienne. La relation entre les sionistes et les autorités mandataires britanniques était complexe et parfois conflictuelle, mais les sionistes ont cherché à utiliser cette relation pour promouvoir leurs objectifs en Palestine. Les efforts sionistes pour établir un foyer national juif étaient souvent vus par les Arabes palestiniens comme étant soutenus, ou du moins tolérés, par les Britanniques, ce qui a exacerbé les tensions et la méfiance.

Un aspect important de la stratégie sioniste pendant la période mandataire a été l'achat de terres en Palestine. L'Agence Juive, établie en 1929, a joué un rôle clé dans cette stratégie. L'Agence Juive était une organisation qui représentait la communauté juive auprès des autorités britanniques et coordonnait les divers aspects du projet sioniste en Palestine, notamment l'immigration, l'établissement de colonies, l'éducation et, de manière cruciale, l'achat de terres. L'acquisition de terres par des Juifs en Palestine a été une source majeure de conflit, car elle a souvent entraîné le déplacement de populations arabes locales. Les Arabes palestiniens voyaient l'achat de terres et l'immigration juive comme une menace pour leur présence et leur avenir dans la région. Ces transactions foncières ont non seulement changé la composition démographique et le paysage de la Palestine, mais ont également contribué à l'intensification du sentiment nationaliste parmi les Arabes palestiniens.

L'année 1937 a marqué un tournant dans la gestion britannique du mandat de la Palestine et a révélé les premiers signes d'un désengagement britannique face à l'escalade des tensions et des violences entre les communautés juive et arabe. La complexité et l'intensité du conflit israélo-palestinien ont défié les efforts britanniques pour maintenir la paix et l'ordre, conduisant à une reconnaissance croissante de l'impossibilité de satisfaire à la fois les aspirations sionistes et les revendications arabes palestiniennes.

En 1937, la Commission Peel, une commission d'enquête britannique, a publié son rapport recommandant pour la première fois la partition de la Palestine en deux États distincts, un juif et un arabe, avec Jérusalem sous contrôle international. Cette proposition était une réponse à l'escalade de la violence, en particulier pendant la Grande Révolte Arabe de 1936-1939, une insurrection massive des Arabes palestiniens contre la domination britannique et l'immigration juive. Le plan de partage proposé par la Commission Peel a été rejeté par les deux côtés pour différentes raisons. Les leaders arabes palestiniens ont refusé le plan car il impliquait la reconnaissance d'un État juif en Palestine. D'autre part, bien que certains dirigeants sionistes aient envisagé le plan comme une étape vers un État juif plus vaste, d'autres l'ont rejeté parce qu'il ne répondait pas à leurs attentes territoriales.

Cette période a également été marquée par l'émergence de groupes extrémistes des deux côtés. Du côté juif, des groupes tels que l'Irgoun et le Lehi (aussi connu sous le nom de Stern Gang) ont commencé à mener des opérations militaires contre les Arabes palestiniens et les Britanniques, y compris des attentats. Ces groupes ont adopté une approche plus militante que la Haganah, l'organisation de défense principale de la communauté juive, dans la poursuite de l'objectif sioniste. Du côté arabe, la violence s'est également intensifiée, avec des attaques contre des Juifs et des intérêts britanniques. La révolte arabe a été un signe de l'opposition croissante à la fois à la politique britannique et à l'immigration juive. L'incapacité de la Grande-Bretagne à résoudre le conflit et les réponses extrémistes des deux côtés ont créé un climat de plus en plus instable et violent, posant les bases pour les conflits futurs et compliquant davantage les efforts pour trouver une solution pacifique et durable à la question de la Palestine.

Plan de Partage de l'ONU et la Guerre d'Indépendance

En 1947, face à l'escalade continue des tensions et des violences en Palestine mandataire, les Nations Unies ont proposé un nouveau plan de partage, dans une tentative de résoudre le conflit israélo-palestinien. Ce plan, recommandé par la résolution 181 de l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies, envisageait la division de la Palestine en deux États indépendants, l'un juif et l'autre arabe, avec Jérusalem placée sous un régime international spécial. Selon le plan de partage de l'ONU, la Palestine serait divisée de manière à donner à chaque État une majorité de sa population respective. La région de Jérusalem, comprenant également Bethléem, serait établie comme un corpus separatum sous administration internationale, en raison de son importance religieuse et historique pour les Juifs, les Chrétiens et les Musulmans. Cependant, le plan de partage de l'ONU a été rejeté par la majorité des dirigeants et des peuples arabes. Les Arabes palestiniens et les États arabes voisins ont estimé que le plan ne respectait pas leurs revendications nationales et territoriales, et qu'il était injuste en termes de répartition des terres, étant donné que la population juive était alors une minorité en Palestine. Ils ont vu le plan comme une continuation de la politique pro-sioniste des puissances occidentales et comme une violation de leur droit à l'autodétermination.

La communauté juive en Palestine, représentée par l'Agence juive, a accepté le plan, le considérant comme une opportunité historique pour la création d'un État juif. Pour les Juifs, le plan représentait une reconnaissance internationale de leurs aspirations nationales et un pas crucial vers l'indépendance. Le rejet du plan de partage par les Arabes a mené à une intensification des conflits et des affrontements dans la région. La période qui a suivi a été marquée par une escalade de la violence, aboutissant à la guerre de 1948, également connue sous le nom de guerre d'indépendance d'Israël ou de Nakba (catastrophe) pour les Palestiniens. Cette guerre a abouti à la création de l'État d'Israël en mai 1948 et au déplacement de centaines de milliers de Palestiniens, marquant le début d'un conflit prolongé qui persiste jusqu'à aujourd'hui.

La déclaration d'indépendance de l'État d'Israël en mai 1948 et les événements qui ont suivi représentent un chapitre crucial dans l'histoire du Moyen-Orient, ayant des répercussions majeures sur le plan politique, social et militaire. L'expiration du mandat britannique en Palestine a créé un vide politique que les dirigeants juifs, sous la houlette de David Ben-Gourion, ont cherché à combler en proclamant l'indépendance d'Israël. Cette déclaration, faite en réponse au plan de partage des Nations Unies de 1947, a marqué la concrétisation des aspirations sionistes mais a également été le catalyseur d'un conflit armé majeur dans la région. L'intervention militaire des pays arabes voisins, dont la Transjordanie, l'Égypte et la Syrie, visait à contrecarrer la création de l'État juif et à soutenir les revendications des Palestiniens arabes. Ces pays, unis par leur opposition à la création d'Israël, envisageaient d'éliminer l'État naissant et de redéfinir la géographie politique de la Palestine. Cependant, malgré leur supériorité numérique initiale, les forces arabes ont été progressivement repoussées par une armée israélienne de plus en plus organisée et efficace.

Le soutien indirect de l'Union soviétique à Israël, principalement sous la forme de livraisons d'armes via les pays satellites d'Europe de l'Est, a joué un rôle dans le renversement des rapports de force sur le terrain. Ce soutien soviétique était motivé moins par une affection pour Israël que par un désir de diminuer l'influence britannique dans la région, dans le contexte de la rivalité croissante de la Guerre froide. La série d'accords de cessez-le-feu qui ont mis fin à la guerre en 1949 a laissé Israël avec un territoire substantiellement plus grand que celui alloué par le plan de partage de l'ONU. La guerre a eu des conséquences profondément tragiques, notamment le déplacement massif de Palestiniens arabes, qui a engendré des questions de réfugiés et de droits qui continuent de hanter le processus de paix. La guerre d'indépendance a également solidifié la position d'Israël en tant qu'acteur central dans la région, marquant le début d'un conflit israélo-arabe qui persiste jusqu'à aujourd'hui.

La Guerre des Six Jours, qui a eu lieu en juin 1967, est un autre moment décisif dans l'histoire du conflit israélo-arabe. Ce conflit, qui a opposé Israël à l'Égypte, la Jordanie, la Syrie et, dans une moindre mesure, le Liban, a abouti à des changements géopolitiques majeurs dans la région. La guerre a débuté le 5 juin 1967 lorsque Israël, face à ce qu'il percevait comme une menace imminente de la part des armées arabes alignées à ses frontières, a lancé une série de frappes aériennes préventives contre l'Égypte. Ces frappes ont rapidement détruit la majorité de l'armée de l'air égyptienne au sol, donnant à Israël un avantage aérien crucial. Dans les jours suivants, Israël a étendu ses opérations militaires contre la Jordanie et la Syrie. Le conflit s'est déroulé rapidement, avec des victoires israéliennes sur plusieurs fronts. En six jours de combats intenses, Israël a réussi à capturer la bande de Gaza et la péninsule du Sinaï de l'Égypte, la Cisjordanie (y compris Jérusalem-Est) de la Jordanie, et le plateau du Golan de la Syrie. Ces gains territoriaux ont triplé la taille du territoire sous contrôle israélien. La Guerre des Six Jours a eu des conséquences profondes et durables pour la région. Elle a marqué un tournant dans le conflit israélo-arabe, renforçant la position militaire et stratégique d'Israël tout en exacerbant les tensions avec ses voisins arabes. La guerre a également eu des implications importantes pour la population palestinienne, car l'occupation israélienne de la Cisjordanie et de Gaza a posé de nouvelles dynamiques et défis pour la question palestinienne. En outre, la perte de la bande de Gaza, de la Cisjordanie et du plateau du Golan a été un coup dur pour les pays arabes concernés, en particulier l'Égypte et la Syrie, et a contribué à une atmosphère de désillusion et de désespoir parmi les Arabes. La guerre a également jeté les bases de futurs conflits et négociations, y compris les efforts pour un processus de paix durable entre Israël et ses voisins.

La Guerre du Kippour et les Accords de Camp David

La Guerre du Kippour, qui a éclaté en octobre 1973, constitue un jalon crucial dans l'histoire des conflits israélo-arabes. Cette guerre, déclenchée par une attaque surprise conjointe de l'Égypte et de la Syrie contre Israël, a eu lieu le jour du Yom Kippour, le jour le plus sacré du calendrier juif, ce qui a accentué son impact psychologique sur la population israélienne. L'attaque égyptienne et syrienne était une tentative de reprendre les territoires perdus lors de la Guerre des Six Jours en 1967, notamment la péninsule du Sinaï et le plateau du Golan. La guerre a débuté par des succès significatifs pour les forces égyptiennes et syriennes, remettant en cause la perception de la suprématie militaire israélienne. Cependant, Israël, sous la direction de la Première ministre Golda Meir et du ministre de la Défense Moshe Dayan, a rapidement mobilisé ses forces pour une contre-offensive efficace.

Cette guerre a eu des répercussions majeures. La Guerre du Kippour a obligé Israël à réévaluer ses stratégies militaires et de sécurité. La surprise initiale de l'attaque a mis en évidence des lacunes dans les renseignements militaires israéliens et a conduit à des changements significatifs dans la préparation et la doctrine de défense d'Israël. Sur le plan diplomatique, la guerre a agi comme un catalyseur pour les futures négociations de paix. Les pertes subies par les deux côtés ont ouvert la voie aux Accords de Camp David en 1978, sous l'égide du président américain Jimmy Carter, aboutissant au premier traité de paix israélo-égyptien en 1979. Ce traité a été un tournant, marquant la première reconnaissance d'Israël par un pays arabe voisin. La guerre a également eu un impact international, notamment en provoquant la crise pétrolière de 1973. Les pays arabes producteurs de pétrole ont utilisé le pétrole comme arme économique pour protester contre le soutien des États-Unis à Israël, ce qui a conduit à des augmentations significatives des prix du pétrole et à des répercussions économiques mondiales. La Guerre du Kippour a donc non seulement redéfini les relations israélo-arabes, mais a également eu des conséquences mondiales, influençant les politiques énergétiques, les relations internationales et le processus de paix au Moyen-Orient. Cette guerre a marqué une étape importante dans la reconnaissance de la complexité du conflit israélo-arabe et de la nécessité d'une approche équilibrée pour sa résolution.

En 1979, un événement historique a marqué une étape majeure dans le processus de paix au Moyen-Orient avec la signature des Accords de Camp David, qui ont débouché sur le premier traité de paix entre Israël et un de ses voisins arabes, l'Égypte. Ces accords, négociés sous l'égide du président américain Jimmy Carter, ont été le fruit de négociations difficiles et audacieuses entre le Premier ministre israélien Menachem Begin et le président égyptien Anwar Sadate. L'initiative de ces négociations a été prise dans le sillage de la Guerre du Kippour de 1973, qui avait mis en évidence la nécessité pressante d'une résolution pacifique au conflit israélo-arabe prolongé. La décision courageuse d'Anwar Sadate de se rendre à Jérusalem en 1977 a brisé de nombreuses barrières politiques et psychologiques, ouvrant ainsi la voie à un dialogue direct entre Israël et l'Égypte.

Les pourparlers de paix, qui se sont tenus à Camp David, la retraite présidentielle dans le Maryland, ont été marqués par des périodes de négociations intenses, reflétant les profondes divisions historiques entre Israël et l'Égypte. L'intervention personnelle de Jimmy Carter a été déterminante pour maintenir les deux parties engagées dans le processus et pour surmonter les impasses. Les accords qui en ont résulté comprenaient deux cadres distincts. Le premier accord posait les bases d'une autonomie palestinienne dans les territoires occupés de Cisjordanie et de la bande de Gaza, tandis que le second accord menait directement à un traité de paix entre l'Égypte et Israël. Signé en mars 1979, ce traité a conduit Israël à se retirer de la péninsule du Sinaï, qu'il occupait depuis 1967, en échange de la reconnaissance par l'Égypte de l'État d'Israël et l'établissement de relations diplomatiques normales.

Le traité de paix israélo-égyptien a été une percée révolutionnaire, modifiant le paysage politique du Moyen-Orient. Il a signifié la fin de l'état de guerre entre les deux nations et a établi un précédent pour les futurs efforts de paix dans la région. Cependant, le traité a également suscité une vive opposition dans le monde arabe, et Sadate a été assassiné en 1981, un acte largement perçu comme une réponse directe à sa politique de rapprochement avec Israël. En définitive, les Accords de Camp David et le traité de paix qui a suivi ont démontré la possibilité de négociations pacifiques dans une région marquée par des conflits prolongés, tout en soulignant les défis inhérents à la réalisation d'une paix durable au Moyen-Orient. Ces événements ont eu un impact profond non seulement sur les relations israélo-égyptiennes, mais aussi sur la dynamique régionale et internationale.

Le Droit de Retour des Réfugiés Palestiniens

Le droit de retour des réfugiés palestiniens demeure un sujet complexe et controversé dans le cadre du conflit israélo-palestinien. Ce droit fait référence à la possibilité pour les réfugiés palestiniens et leurs descendants de retourner dans les terres qu'ils ont quittées ou dont ils ont été déplacés en 1948 lors de la création de l'État d'Israël. La résolution 194 de l'Assemblée générale des Nations-Unies, adoptée le 11 décembre 1948, mentionne que les réfugiés souhaitant rentrer chez eux devraient être autorisés à le faire et vivre en paix avec leurs voisins. Cependant, cette résolution, comme d'autres résolutions de l'Assemblée générale, ne possède pas la capacité de déterminer des lois ou d’établir des droits. Elle est plutôt de nature recommandative. Par conséquent, bien qu'elle ait été confirmée à plusieurs reprises par les Nations-Unies, elle n'a pas été mise en œuvre jusqu'à aujourd'hui.

L'Office de secours et de travaux des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés palestiniens au Proche-Orient (UNRWA), créé en 1949, soutient plus de cinq millions de réfugiés palestiniens enregistrés. Contrairement à la Convention de 1951 sur les réfugiés en général, l'UNRWA inclut également les descendants des réfugiés de 1948, ce qui augmente significativement le nombre de personnes concernées. Les accords de paix tels que ceux négociés à Camp David en 1978 ou les Accords d'Oslo de 1993 reconnaissent la question des réfugiés palestiniens comme un sujet de négociation dans le cadre du processus de paix. Toutefois, ils ne mentionnent pas explicitement un "droit au retour" pour les réfugiés palestiniens. La résolution du problème des réfugiés est généralement considérée comme une question devant être réglée par des accords bilatéraux entre Israël et ses voisins.