中东地区的帝国和国家

根据 Yilmaz Özcan 的课程改编。

Languages

Deutsch English Español Français Italiano 日本語

Português

当代中东：国家、民族和社区

中东的概念 ● 中东地区的语言、宗教和文化 ● 中东地区的帝国和国家 ● 中东地区的政治和宗教潮流

中东是古代文明的摇篮，也是文化和商业交流的十字路口，在世界历史上，尤其是在中世纪，一直扮演着核心角色。在这个充满活力和多样性的时期，见证了无数帝国和国家的兴衰，每个帝国和国家都在该地区的政治、文化和社会版图上留下了不可磨灭的印记。从伊斯兰哈里发的扩张及其文化和科学的顶峰，到拜占庭帝国的长期影响，再到十字军的入侵和蒙古人的征服，中世纪的中东是一个不断演变的大国马赛克。这一时期不仅塑造了该地区的特征，还对世界历史的发展产生了深远影响，在东西方之间架起了桥梁。因此，对中世纪中东帝国和国家的研究为了解人类历史的关键时期提供了一个迷人的窗口，揭示了征服、复原、创新和文化互动的故事。

奥斯曼帝国

奥斯曼帝国的建立和扩张

奥斯曼帝国建立于 13 世纪末，是一个帝国强国的精彩范例，对三大洲的历史产生了深远影响：它对亚洲、非洲和欧洲三大洲的历史产生了深远的影响。奥斯曼帝国的建立一般归功于安纳托利亚地区一个土耳其部落的首领奥斯曼一世。这个帝国的成功在于它能够迅速扩张，并在广袤的领土上建立起高效的管理机构。从 14 世纪中叶开始，奥斯曼人开始在欧洲扩张领土，逐渐征服了巴尔干半岛的部分地区。这一扩张标志着地中海和东欧均势的一个重要转折点。然而，与普遍的看法相反，奥斯曼帝国并没有摧毁罗马。事实上，奥斯曼人围攻了拜占庭帝国的首都君士坦丁堡，并于 1453 年征服了君士坦丁堡，终结了这个帝国。这次征服是一个重大历史事件，标志着欧洲中世纪的结束和现代的开始。

奥斯曼帝国以其复杂的行政结构和宗教宽容而著称，尤其是允许非穆斯林社区享有一定自治权的小米制度。其鼎盛时期从 15 世纪延续到 17 世纪，在此期间，它对贸易、文化、科学、艺术和建筑产生了相当大的影响。奥斯曼人引进了许多创新，是东西方之间的重要调解人。然而，从 18 世纪起，面对欧洲列强的崛起和内部问题，奥斯曼帝国开始衰落。这种衰落在 19 世纪加速，最终导致帝国在第一次世界大战后解体。奥斯曼帝国的遗产仍然深深扎根于它所统治的地区，至今影响着这些社会的文化、政治和社会方面。

奥斯曼帝国是奥斯曼一世于 13 世纪末建立的一个杰出的政治和军事实体，对欧亚大陆的历史产生了深远的影响。在安纳托利亚政治四分五裂、诸侯争霸的背景下，这个帝国迅速展现出扩大影响力的非凡能力，成为该地区的霸主。14 世纪中叶是奥斯曼帝国的决定性转折点，尤其是 1354 年对加利波利的征服。这场胜利绝非单纯的军事胜利，它标志着奥斯曼帝国在欧洲建立了第一个永久定居点，并为在巴尔干地区的一系列征服铺平了道路。这些军事胜利加上娴熟的外交技巧，使奥斯曼人得以巩固其对战略领土的控制，并干涉欧洲事务。

在以 1453 年征服君士坦丁堡而闻名的穆罕默德二世等统治者的领导下，奥斯曼帝国不仅重塑了东地中海的政治版图，还开启了一段深刻的文化和经济变革时期。攻占君士坦丁堡终结了拜占庭帝国，是世界历史上的关键时刻，标志着中世纪的结束和现代的开始。拜占庭帝国在战争艺术方面的卓越成就往往归功于其纪律严明、勇于创新的军队，但同时也得益于其务实的治理方式，即在中央集权的行政体系下整合不同的民族和宗教团体。这种文化多样性加上政治稳定，促进了艺术、科学和商业的繁荣。

奥斯曼帝国的冲突和军事挑战

纵观奥斯曼帝国的历史，它经历了一系列壮观的征服和重大挫折，这些都决定了它及其统治地区的命运。奥斯曼帝国的扩张以重大胜利为标志，但也有战略失败。奥斯曼帝国对巴尔干半岛的入侵是其欧洲扩张的第一步。这次征服不仅扩大了他们的领土，还巩固了他们在该地区的霸主地位。1453 年，被称为征服者的穆罕默德二世攻占伊斯坦布尔，这是一个重大历史事件。这一胜利不仅标志着拜占庭帝国的灭亡，也象征着奥斯曼帝国无可争议地崛起为超级大国。奥斯曼帝国继续扩张，于 1517 年攻占开罗，这是标志着埃及融入帝国和阿拔斯哈里发统治结束的关键事件。在苏莱曼大帝的领导下，奥斯曼帝国还于 1533 年征服了巴格达，将其影响力扩展到美索不达米亚富饶而具有战略意义的土地上。

然而，奥斯曼帝国的扩张并非一帆风顺。1529 年，奥斯曼人围攻维也纳，企图进一步扩大其在欧洲的影响力，但以失败告终。1623年的进一步尝试也以失败告终，这标志着奥斯曼帝国在中欧扩张的极限。这些失败是关键时刻，说明了奥斯曼帝国的军事和后勤力量在面对欧洲有组织的防御时的局限性。另一个重大挫折是 1571 年在莱庞托海战中的失败。在这场海战中，奥斯曼舰队被欧洲基督教联军击败，标志着奥斯曼帝国控制地中海的转折点。虽然奥斯曼帝国设法从这次失败中恢复过来，并在该地区保持了强大的存在，但莱潘托海战象征着奥斯曼帝国无争议扩张的终结，标志着地中海地区更加平衡的海上竞争时期的开始。综合来看，这些事件说明了奥斯曼帝国扩张的动力：一系列令人印象深刻的征服，夹杂着重大的挑战和挫折。它们凸显了管理这样一个庞大帝国的复杂性，以及在面对组织日益严密、抵抗力不断增强的对手时保持持续扩张的难度。

奥斯曼帝国的改革和内部转型

1768-1774 年的俄奥斯曼战争是奥斯曼帝国历史上的一个关键事件，它不仅标志着奥斯曼帝国开始遭受重大领土损失，而且标志着其政治和宗教合法性结构的变化。1774 年签署的《库丘克-卡伊纳尔卡条约》（或称《库丘克-卡伊纳尔吉条约》）标志着这场战争的结束。该条约对奥斯曼帝国影响深远。首先，它导致奥斯曼帝国将大量领土割让给俄罗斯帝国，特别是黑海和巴尔干的部分地区。这一损失不仅缩小了帝国的版图，还削弱了其在东欧和黑海地区的战略地位。其次，条约削弱了奥斯曼帝国在欧洲舞台上的地位，标志着当时国际关系的转折点。奥斯曼帝国曾是地区事务的主要参与者，而且经常占据主导地位，但现在开始被视为一个衰落的国家，容易受到欧洲列强的压力和干预。

最后，或许也是最重要的一点，战争的结束和《库库克-卡伊纳尔卡条约》也对奥斯曼帝国的内部结构产生了重大影响。面对这些失败，帝国开始更加强调哈里发宗教方面的合法性。已经被公认为帝国政治领袖的奥斯曼帝国苏丹，开始更多地被视为哈里发，即穆斯林社区的宗教领袖。这一发展是为了应对国内外的挑战，加强苏丹国的权威和合法性，将宗教作为一种统一的力量和权力的源泉。因此，俄奥战争和由此产生的条约标志着奥斯曼帝国历史的转折点，既象征着领土的衰落，也象征着帝国合法性性质的改变。

外国影响和国际关系

1801 年，英国和奥斯曼帝国联军在埃及进行干预，赶走了法国人，这是埃及和奥斯曼帝国历史上的一个重要转折点。奥斯曼帝国任命阿尔巴尼亚军官麦赫迈特-阿里（Mehmet Ali）为埃及帕夏，开创了埃及从奥斯曼帝国半独立和深刻变革的时代。穆罕默德-阿里通常被视为现代埃及的奠基人，他发起了一系列旨在实现埃及现代化的激进改革。这些改革涉及各个方面，包括军队、行政和经济，部分受到欧洲模式的启发。在他的领导下，埃及取得了长足的发展，穆罕默德-阿里试图将自己的影响力扩展到埃及以外的地区。在此背景下，Nahda（即阿拉伯文艺复兴）获得了相当大的发展势头。这场旨在振兴阿拉伯文化并使其适应现代挑战的文化和知识运动，得益于麦赫麦特-阿里倡导的改革和开放氛围。

穆罕默德-阿里的儿子易卜拉欣-帕夏在埃及的扩张主义野心中发挥了关键作用。1836 年，他向奥斯曼帝国发起进攻，当时奥斯曼帝国正处于衰弱和衰落之中。这场对抗在 1839 年达到高潮，易卜拉欣的军队大败奥斯曼帝国。然而，欧洲列强，特别是英国、奥地利和俄罗斯的干预阻止了埃及的全面胜利。在国际压力下，双方签署了和平条约，承认埃及在穆罕默德-阿里及其后裔的统治下享有事实上的自治权。这一承认标志着埃及脱离奥斯曼帝国迈出了重要一步，尽管埃及名义上仍处于奥斯曼帝国的宗主权之下。英国的立场尤其引人关注。英国最初与奥斯曼帝国结盟，以遏制法国在埃及的影响，但英国认识到该地区不断变化的政治和战略现实，最终选择支持穆罕默德-阿里领导下的埃及自治。这一决定反映了英国希望在控制重要贸易路线（尤其是通往印度的贸易路线）的同时稳定该地区局势的愿望。19 世纪初几十年的埃及事件不仅说明了奥斯曼帝国、埃及和欧洲列强之间复杂的力量对比，也说明了当时中东政治和社会秩序正在发生的深刻变化。

现代化和改革运动

1798 年拿破仑-波拿巴远征埃及对奥斯曼帝国来说是一个启示性事件，凸显了奥斯曼帝国在现代化和军事能力方面落后于欧洲列强的事实。这一认识是 1839 年发起的一系列改革（即 Tanzimat）的重要推动力，这些改革旨在实现帝国的现代化并阻止其衰落。Tanzimat在土耳其语中意为 "重组"，标志着奥斯曼帝国进入了一个深刻变革的时期。这些改革的一个重要方面是帝国非穆斯林公民迪米人组织的现代化。这包括建立米勒制度，为各种宗教团体提供一定程度的文化和行政自治。其目的是将这些社区更有效地融入奥斯曼帝国的国家结构，同时保留其独特的身份。

第二波改革浪潮开始了，试图建立一种超越宗教和种族划分的奥斯曼公民制度。然而，这一尝试常常受到族群间暴力的阻碍，反映出多民族和多信仰帝国内部的深刻矛盾。与此同时，这些改革在军队的某些派别中遇到了巨大的阻力，这些派别敌视那些被认为威胁到其传统地位和特权的变革。这种抵制导致了起义和内部动荡，加剧了帝国面临的挑战。

在这种动荡的背景下，19 世纪中叶出现了一场被称为 "青年奥斯曼人 "的政治和思想运动。这个团体试图将现代化和改革的理想与伊斯兰教的原则和奥斯曼帝国的传统相协调。他们主张制定宪法、国家主权以及更具包容性的政治和社会改革。坦齐马特的努力和青年奥斯曼人的理想是奥斯曼帝国在瞬息万变的世界中应对挑战的重要尝试。虽然这些努力带来了一些积极的变化，但也暴露了帝国内部深刻的裂痕和紧张关系，预示着在帝国存在的最后几十年里将出现更大的挑战。

1876 年，随着苏丹阿卜杜勒哈米德二世的上台，坦齐马进程进入了一个关键阶段，他颁布了奥斯曼帝国的第一部君主立宪制宪法。这一时期是一个重要的转折点，它试图将现代化原则与帝国的传统结构相协调。1876 年的宪法体现了帝国行政现代化的努力，并建立了立法制度和议会，反映了当时欧洲流行的自由和宪政理想。然而，阿卜杜勒哈米德二世统治时期的另一个特点是泛伊斯兰主义的强势崛起，这种意识形态旨在加强帝国内外穆斯林之间的联系，与西方列强的竞争日益激烈。

阿卜杜勒哈米德二世将泛伊斯兰主义作为巩固权力和抵御外部影响的工具。他邀请穆斯林领袖和政要前往伊斯坦布尔，并提出让他们的子女在奥斯曼帝国首都接受教育，这一举措旨在加强穆斯林世界的文化和政治联系。然而，1878 年，阿卜杜勒哈米德二世出人意料地突然转向，中止了宪法，关闭了议会，标志着专制统治的回归。做出这一决定的部分原因是担心对政治进程的控制不足以及帝国内部民族主义运动的兴起。苏丹因此加强了对政府的直接控制，同时继续推行泛伊斯兰主义，以此作为合法化的手段。

在这种情况下，萨拉菲主义（旨在回归第一代伊斯兰教实践的运动）受到了泛伊斯兰主义和阿拉伯文艺复兴（Nahda）理想的影响。Jamal al-Din al-Afghani 通常被视为现代萨拉菲运动的先驱，他在传播这些思想方面发挥了关键作用。阿夫加尼主张回归伊斯兰教的原始原则，同时鼓励采用某些形式的技术和科学现代化。因此，坦齐马特时期和阿卜杜勒哈米德二世统治时期说明了奥斯曼帝国改革尝试的复杂性，既要满足现代化的要求，又要保持传统的结构和意识形态。这一时期的影响远远超出了帝国的衰落，影响了整个现代穆斯林世界的政治和宗教运动。

奥斯曼帝国的衰落和灭亡

"东方问题 "一词主要用于 19 世纪和 20 世纪初，指的是关于逐渐衰落的奥斯曼帝国未来的复杂而多层面的争论。这一问题的出现是由于帝国领土的接连丧失、土耳其民族主义的兴起以及与非穆斯林领土（尤其是巴尔干地区）的分离日益加剧。早在 1830 年，随着希腊的独立，奥斯曼帝国就开始失去其欧洲领土。这一趋势随着巴尔干战争而继续，并在第一次世界大战期间加速，最终导致 1920 年《塞夫尔条约》和 1923 年在穆斯塔法-凯末尔-阿塔图尔克的领导下成立土耳其共和国。这些损失深刻地改变了该地区的政治地理格局。

在此背景下，土耳其民族主义获得了发展势头。这场运动试图围绕土耳其元素重新定义帝国的身份，与在此之前盛行的多民族和多宗教模式形成鲜明对比。民族主义的兴起是对帝国逐渐解体和需要建立新的民族身份的直接回应。与此同时，特别是在阿卜杜勒哈米德二世苏丹的泛伊斯兰主义推动下，出现了建立一种 "伊斯兰国际 "的想法。这种思想设想在穆斯林国家之间建立联盟或合作关系，它受到欧洲某些类似思想的启发，在欧洲，国际主义寻求超越国界团结各国人民。其目的是建立穆斯林人民的统一战线，抵制西方列强的影响和干涉，同时维护穆斯林领土的利益和独立。

然而，由于各国利益不同、地区竞争激烈以及民族主义思潮的影响日益扩大，这一主张很难付诸实施。此外，政治形势的发展，特别是第一次世界大战和民族主义运动在奥斯曼帝国各地的兴起，使 "伊斯兰国际 "的愿景越来越难以实现。因此，整个 "东方问题 "反映了这一时期该地区发生的深刻的地缘政治和意识形态变革，标志着一个多民族帝国的终结，以及具有自身民族特性和愿望的新民族国家的诞生。

德国在 19 世纪末 20 世纪初采取的 "世界政治 "或世界政策在涉及奥斯曼帝国的地缘政治动态中发挥了至关重要的作用。在德皇威廉二世统治时期启动的这一政策旨在扩大德国在国际舞台上的影响力和声望，特别是通过殖民扩张和战略联盟。奥斯曼帝国为了摆脱俄国和英国的压力，在德国找到了一个潜在的有用盟友。柏林-巴格达铁路（BBB）建设项目就是这一联盟的象征。这条铁路旨在通过拜占庭（伊斯坦布尔）连接柏林和巴格达，具有相当重要的战略和经济意义。其目的不仅在于促进贸易和通信，还在于加强德国在该地区的影响力，制衡英国和俄国在中东的利益。

对于潘图尔克派和奥斯曼帝国的支持者来说，与德国结盟是有利的。潘图尔克主义者主张土耳其语民族的统一和团结，他们认为结盟是加强奥斯曼帝国地位和抵御外部威胁的机会。与德国的结盟为长期影响奥斯曼帝国政治和事务的俄国和英国等传统强国施加压力提供了一个替代方案。奥斯曼帝国与德国之间的这种关系在第一次世界大战期间达到了顶峰，当时两国在中央集权中结盟。这一联盟在军事和政治上都对奥斯曼帝国产生了重要影响，并在最终导致战后帝国解体的事件中发挥了作用。德意志世界政治和柏林-巴格达铁路项目是奥斯曼帝国面对列强压力维护其完整和独立战略的关键要素。这一时期标志着帝国历史上的一个重要时刻，说明了 20 世纪初联盟和地缘政治利益的复杂性。

1908 年是奥斯曼帝国历史上的一个决定性转折点，在以联盟与进步委员会（CUP）为主要代表的青年土耳其人运动的推动下，奥斯曼帝国开始了第二个立宪时期。这一运动最初由改革派的奥斯曼帝国军官和知识分子组成，旨在实现帝国的现代化，使其免于崩溃。

在联盟与进步委员会的压力下，苏丹阿卜杜勒哈米德二世被迫恢复自 1878 年起中止的 1876 年宪法，标志着第二个立宪时期的开始。宪法的恢复被视为帝国向现代化和民主化迈出的一步，有望带来更广泛的公民权利和政治权利，并建立议会制政府。然而，这一改革时期很快就遇到了重大挑战。1909 年，传统的保守派和宗教团体不满改革和联盟派日益增长的影响力，企图发动政变推翻立宪政府，重建苏丹的绝对权威。这一企图的动机是反对青年土耳其党人推动的快速现代化和世俗化政策，以及担心失去特权和影响力。然而，年轻的土耳其人以这次反革命事件为借口，成功地粉碎了抵抗，巩固了自己的权力。这一时期的特点是，反对者受到更多镇压，权力集中在中央政治局手中。

1913 年，银联领导人夺取了议会，将局势推向高潮，这一事件通常被描述为政变。这标志着帝国短暂的宪政和议会实验的结束，青年土耳其人领导的日益专制的政权开始建立。在他们的统治下，奥斯曼帝国进行了实质性的改革，但也采取了更加集权和民族主义的政策，为第一次世界大战期间和之后发生的事件奠定了基础。这段动荡的时期反映了奥斯曼帝国内部的紧张关系和内部斗争，在变革和传统力量之间徘徊，为帝国晚年的彻底变革奠定了基础。

1915 年，在第一次世界大战期间，奥斯曼帝国对亚美尼亚人进行了种族灭绝，这是历史上一段悲惨而黑暗的插曲，如今已被广泛认可。这一政策包括有计划地驱逐、大规模屠杀和杀害生活在帝国境内的亚美尼亚人。针对亚美尼亚人的行动始于逮捕、处决和大规模驱逐。亚美尼亚男子、妇女、儿童和老人被迫离开家园，被送往穿越叙利亚沙漠的死亡行军途中，许多人死于饥饿、干渴、疾病或暴力。许多在该地区有着悠久和丰富历史的亚美尼亚社区被摧毁。

对受害者人数的估计各不相同，但普遍认为在此期间有 80 万至 150 万亚美尼亚人丧生。种族灭绝对全球亚美尼亚社区产生了持久的影响，并且仍然是一个非常敏感和有争议的话题，尤其是因为一些团体否认或淡化这些事件。亚美尼亚种族灭绝通常被认为是最早的现代种族灭绝之一，是 20 世纪其他大规模暴行的黑暗前兆。它还在现代亚美尼亚人身份认同的形成过程中发挥了关键作用，对种族灭绝的记忆仍然是亚美尼亚人意识的核心。承认和纪念这些事件仍然是国际关系中的一个重要问题，特别是在有关人权和防止种族灭绝的讨论中。

波斯帝国

波斯帝国的起源和完成

波斯帝国（即现在的伊朗）的历史具有令人印象深刻的文化和政治连续性，尽管王朝更迭和外敌入侵。这种连续性是了解该地区历史和文化演变的关键因素。

公元前 7 世纪初建立的玛代帝国是伊朗历史上最早的强国之一。该帝国在奠定伊朗文明的基础方面发挥了至关重要的作用。然而，公元前 550 年左右，它被波斯的居鲁士二世（又称居鲁士大帝）推翻。居鲁士对米底的征服标志着阿契美尼德帝国的开始，这是一个大扩张和大文化影响的时期。阿契美尼德王朝建立了一个从印度河到希腊的庞大帝国，其统治的特点是高效的管理和对帝国内不同文化和宗教的宽容政策。公元前 330 年，亚历山大大帝灭亡了这个帝国，但这并没有结束波斯文化的延续。

经过一段时间的希腊统治和政治分裂，萨珊王朝于公元 224 年崛起。该王朝由阿尔达希尔一世建立，标志着该地区新时代的开始，一直持续到公元 624 年。在萨珊王朝统治下，大伊朗经历了一个文化和政治复兴时期。首都喀提芬成为权力和文化中心，体现了帝国的宏伟和影响力。萨珊王朝在该地区的艺术、建筑、文学和宗教发展中发挥了重要作用。他们倡导琐罗亚斯德教，对波斯文化和身份认同产生了深远的影响。他们的帝国与罗马帝国以及后来的拜占庭帝国冲突不断，最终导致代价高昂的战争，削弱了两个帝国的实力。萨珊王朝在 7 世纪穆斯林征服之后灭亡，但波斯文化和传统继续影响着该地区，即使在后来的伊斯兰时期也是如此。这种在保留独特文化核心的同时融入新元素的韧性和能力是波斯历史连续性概念的核心。

伊斯兰教统治下的伊朗：征服与变革

从 642 年起，随着穆斯林的征服，伊朗开始进入伊斯兰时期，伊朗历史进入了一个新纪元。这一时期不仅是该地区政治史上的重要转折点，也是其社会、文化和宗教结构的重要转折点。632 年先知穆罕默德去世后不久，穆斯林军队开始征服伊朗。642 年，随着萨珊王朝的首都喀提虹被攻占，伊朗被新生的伊斯兰帝国所控制。这一过渡是一个复杂的过程，既涉及军事冲突，也涉及谈判。在穆斯林的统治下，伊朗发生了深刻的变化。伊斯兰教逐渐成为主导宗教，取代了以前帝国统治下的国教拜火教。然而，这一转变并非一蹴而就，不同宗教传统之间曾有过一段共存和互动的时期。

伊朗文化和社会受到伊斯兰教的深刻影响，同时也对伊斯兰世界产生了重大影响。伊朗成为伊斯兰文化和知识的重要中心，在哲学、诗歌、医学和天文学等领域做出了卓越的贡献。伊朗的标志性人物，如诗人鲁米和哲学家阿维森纳（伊本-西纳）在伊斯兰文化和知识遗产中发挥了重要作用。在这一时期，倭马亚王朝、阿拔斯王朝、萨法里王朝、萨曼王朝、布依王朝以及后来的塞尔柱王朝等王朝相继建立，每个王朝都为伊朗历史的丰富性和多样性做出了贡献。每个王朝都为该地区的治理、文化和社会带来了各自的细微差别。

塞费维德王朝的兴起和影响

1501 年，伊朗和中东历史上发生了一件大事，伊朗国王伊斯梅尔一世在阿塞拜疆建立了塞费维德帝国。这不仅标志着伊朗，也标志着整个地区进入了一个新时代，都德西曼什叶派成为国教，这一变化深刻影响了伊朗的宗教和文化特征。塞夫维德帝国一直统治到 1736 年，在巩固伊朗作为一个独特的政治和文化实体方面发挥了至关重要的作用。沙阿-伊斯梅尔一世是一位富有魅力的领袖和才华横溢的诗人，他成功地统一了他所控制的各个地区，建立了一个中央集权的强大国家。他最重要的决定之一是将十二进制什叶派作为帝国的官方宗教，这一行为对伊朗和中东的未来产生了深远的影响。

伊朗的 "什叶派化 "涉及强迫逊尼派居民和其他宗教团体皈依什叶派，这是一项深思熟虑的战略，目的是将伊朗与其逊尼派邻国（尤其是奥斯曼帝国）区分开来，并巩固塞弗维德的权力。这一政策还起到了强化伊朗什叶派身份的作用，至今这已成为伊朗民族的一个显著特征。在塞菲维王朝统治下，伊朗经历了一个文化和艺术复兴时期。首都伊斯法罕成为伊斯兰世界最重要的艺术、建筑和文化中心之一。塞非维王朝鼓励艺术的发展，包括绘画、书法、诗歌和建筑，创造了丰富而持久的文化遗产。然而，帝国也经历了内外冲突，包括与奥斯曼帝国和乌兹别克人的战争。这些冲突以及内部挑战最终导致了帝国在 18 世纪的衰落。

1514 年发生的查尔迪兰战役是塞法迪帝国和奥斯曼帝国历史上的一个重要事件，它不仅是一个军事转折点，也标志着两个帝国之间形成了一条重要的政治分界线。在这场战役中，沙赫-伊斯梅尔一世率领的塞法维德军队与苏丹-塞利姆一世指挥的奥斯曼军队发生冲突。塞法维德军队虽然作战英勇，但最终还是被奥斯曼军队击败，这主要是因为奥斯曼军队拥有技术优势，尤其是能够有效地使用火炮。这次失败对塞法维帝国造成了重大影响。查尔迪兰战役的直接后果之一是塞法德人失去了大量领土。奥斯曼人成功夺取了安纳托利亚的东半部，大大削弱了塞法维王朝在该地区的影响力。这次战败也在两个帝国之间划定了一条持久的政治边界，成为该地区重要的地缘政治标志。塞费维德人的失败也对支持沙阿-伊斯梅尔一世及其什叶派化政策的宗教团体阿列维人产生了影响。战役结束后，许多阿列维人在随后的十年中遭到迫害和屠杀，原因是他们效忠于塞费维德国王，而且他们独特的宗教信仰与奥斯曼帝国占统治地位的逊尼派习俗相悖。

在查尔迪兰取得胜利后，苏丹塞利姆一世继续扩张，并于 1517 年征服了开罗，结束了阿拔斯哈里发统治。这次征服不仅将奥斯曼帝国的版图扩展到埃及，还巩固了苏丹作为有影响力的穆斯林领袖的地位，因为他获得了哈里发的称号，象征着对逊尼派穆斯林世界的宗教和政治权威。因此，查尔迪兰战役及其后果说明了当时两个穆斯林大国之间的激烈竞争，极大地影响了中东的政治、宗教和领土历史。

卡贾尔王朝和伊朗的现代化

1796 年，伊朗出现了一个新的统治王朝，即由阿迦-穆罕默德-汗-卡贾尔（Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar）建立的卡贾尔（或卡贾尔）王朝。该王朝由土库曼人建立，取代了赞德王朝，统治伊朗直至 20 世纪初。阿迦-穆罕默德-汗-卡贾尔在统一了伊朗的各个派别和领土后，于 1796 年自封为国王，标志着卡贾尔统治的正式开始。这一时期在伊朗历史上具有重要意义。在卡扎尔统治时期，伊朗在经历了多年的动乱和内部分裂之后，经历了一个权力集中和领土巩固的时期。首都从设拉子迁至德黑兰，德黑兰成为国家的政治和文化中心。这一时期的国际关系也很复杂，特别是与当时的帝国主义列强俄罗斯和英国的关系。卡贾尔王朝必须在艰难的国际环境中游刃有余，伊朗经常陷入大国的地缘政治竞争，特别是俄罗斯和英国之间的 "大博弈"。这些互动往往导致伊朗丧失领土以及重大的经济和政治让步。

在文化方面，卡贾尔时期以其独特的艺术而闻名，尤其是绘画、建筑和装饰艺术。卡贾尔宫廷是艺术赞助的中心，这一时期伊朗的传统风格与欧洲的现代影响形成了独特的融合。然而，卡贾尔王朝也因未能有效实现国家现代化和满足人民需求而饱受诟病。这种失败导致了国内的不满，为 20 世纪初发生的改革运动和宪政革命奠定了基础。卡贾尔王朝是伊朗历史上的一个重要时期，其特点是努力实现中央集权、面临外交挑战和做出重大文化贡献，但内部斗争和外部压力也影响了该国后来的发展。

20 世纪的伊朗：迈向君主立宪制

1906 年，伊朗经历了一个历史性时刻，开始进入立宪时期，这是伊朗政治现代化和争取民主的重要一步。这一发展在很大程度上受到了社会和政治运动的影响，这些运动要求限制君主的绝对权力，实行更具代表性的宪政治理。伊朗立宪革命导致该国于 1906 年通过了第一部宪法，标志着伊朗向君主立宪制过渡。这部宪法规定设立议会，并制定了法律和结构，以实现伊朗社会和政府的现代化和改革。然而，这一时期也出现了外国干涉和国家势力范围的划分。伊朗被卷入了英国和俄罗斯之间的竞争，双方都试图扩大自己在该地区的影响力。这些大国建立了不同的 "国际秩序 "或势力范围，限制了伊朗的主权。

1908-1909 年发现的石油为伊朗的局势增添了新的内容。在 Masjed Soleyman 地区发现的石油很快引起了外国列强的注意，特别是英国，他们试图控制伊朗的石油资源。这一发现大大提高了伊朗在国际舞台上的战略重要性，同时也使伊朗的内部动态复杂化。尽管存在这些外部压力和与自然资源相关的利害关系，伊朗仍坚持中立政策，特别是在第一次世界大战等全球冲突期间。这种中立政策在一定程度上是为了维护伊朗的自主权，抵制试图开发伊朗资源和控制伊朗政治的外国势力。20 世纪初是伊朗经历变革和挑战的时期，其特点是努力实现政治现代化，随着石油的发现而出现新的经济挑战，以及在复杂的国际环境中航行。

第一次世界大战中的奥斯曼帝国

外交活动和结盟

1914 年，奥斯曼帝国加入第一次世界大战，在此之前，奥斯曼帝国进行了复杂的外交和军事活动，包括英国、法国和德国在内的几个大国都参与其中。在探讨了与英国和法国结盟的可能性后，奥斯曼帝国最终选择了与德国结盟。这一决定受到多种因素的影响，包括奥斯曼帝国与德国之间业已存在的军事和经济联系，以及对其他欧洲大国意图的看法。

尽管结盟，但奥斯曼人意识到自己的内部困难和军事限制，不愿直接卷入冲突。然而，达达尼尔海峡事件改变了局势。奥斯曼人用军舰（其中一些是从德国购买的）轰炸了俄罗斯在黑海的港口。这一行动将奥斯曼帝国卷入战争，与中央强国并肩作战，反对协约国，特别是俄国、法国和英国。

作为对奥斯曼帝国参战的回应，英国于 1915 年发动了达达尼尔海峡战役。其目的是控制达达尼尔海峡和博斯普鲁斯海峡，开辟一条通往俄国的海上通道。然而，这场战役以盟军失败告终，双方均伤亡惨重。与此同时，英国正式控制了埃及，于 1914 年宣布成立英国埃及保护国。这一决定是出于战略考虑，主要是为了确保苏伊士运河的安全，而苏伊士运河是英国航道的重要过境点，尤其是通往亚洲殖民地的通道。这些事件说明了第一次世界大战期间中东地缘政治局势的复杂性。奥斯曼帝国做出的决定不仅对其帝国，而且对战后中东地区的格局都有重要影响。

阿拉伯起义和中东局势的变化

第一次世界大战期间，协约国试图通过在南部开辟新战线来削弱奥斯曼帝国，导致了著名的 1916 年阿拉伯起义。这次起义是中东历史上的关键时刻，标志着阿拉伯民族主义运动的开始。麦加郡主侯赛因-本-阿里在这次起义中发挥了核心作用。在他的领导下，在被称为阿拉伯的劳伦斯（T.E. Lawrence）等人的鼓励和支持下，阿拉伯人奋起反抗奥斯曼帝国的统治，希望建立一个统一的阿拉伯国家。这种独立和统一的愿望是出于对民族解放的渴望，以及英国人，特别是亨利-麦克马洪将军做出的自治承诺。

阿拉伯起义取得了几次重大胜利。1917 年 6 月，侯赛因-本-阿里之子费萨尔赢得了亚喀巴战役，这是起义的战略转折点。这场胜利开辟了对抗奥斯曼帝国的重要战线，鼓舞了阿拉伯军队的士气。在阿拉伯的劳伦斯和其他英国军官的帮助下，费萨尔成功地联合了希贾兹的几个阿拉伯部落，最终于 1917 年解放了大马士革。1920 年，费萨尔宣布自己为叙利亚国王，肯定了阿拉伯人自决和独立的愿望。然而，他的雄心壮志却遭遇了国际政治的现实。1916 年《赛克斯-皮科协定》是英国和法国之间的一项秘密安排，当时已将中东大部分地区划分为势力范围，从而破坏了建立一个大一统阿拉伯王国的希望。阿拉伯起义是战争期间削弱奥斯曼帝国的决定性因素，并为现代阿拉伯民族主义奠定了基础。然而，战后中东在欧洲的授权下分裂为多个民族国家，这使得侯赛因-本-阿里及其支持者所设想的统一阿拉伯国家的实现遥遥无期。

内部挑战和亚美尼亚种族灭绝

第一次世界大战期间，局势发展复杂，态势不断变化，其中包括俄罗斯因1917年俄国革命而退出冲突。这一退出对战争的进程和其他交战国产生了重大影响。俄国的退出减轻了对中央强国的压力，尤其是德国，因为德国现在可以集中兵力在西线对抗法国及其盟国。这一变化令英国及其盟国忧心忡忡，他们正在寻找维持均势的方法。

关于布尔什维克犹太人，必须指出的是，1917 年的俄国革命和布尔什维主义的兴起是受俄国国内各种因素影响的复杂现象。虽然布尔什维克中也有犹太人，但与当时的许多政治运动一样，他们的存在不应被过度解读，也不应被用来宣扬简单化或反犹主义的说法。就奥斯曼帝国而言，"青年土耳其人 "运动领导人之一、陆军大臣恩维尔-帕夏在战争中发挥了关键作用。1914 年，他在高加索地区对俄军发动了灾难性的进攻，结果奥斯曼帝国在萨里卡米什战役中大败。

恩维尔-帕夏的失败造成了悲惨的后果，包括亚美尼亚种族灭绝的爆发。恩维尔-帕夏和奥斯曼帝国的其他领导人想找个替罪羊来解释战败的原因，他们指责帝国的亚美尼亚少数民族与俄国人勾结。这些指控助长了针对亚美尼亚人的系统性驱逐、屠杀和灭绝运动，最终导致了现在公认的亚美尼亚种族灭绝。这场种族灭绝是第一次世界大战和奥斯曼帝国历史上最黑暗的事件之一，凸显了大规模冲突和种族仇恨政策的恐怖和悲惨后果。

战后解决和重新定义中东

1919年1月开始的巴黎和会是第一次世界大战后重新定义世界秩序的关键时刻。会议聚集了主要协约国的领导人，讨论和平条件和地缘政治的未来，包括衰落的奥斯曼帝国的领土。会议讨论的主要问题之一涉及奥斯曼帝国在中东领土的未来。受各种政治、战略和经济因素（包括对石油资源的控制）的影响，协约国正在考虑重新划分该地区的边界。虽然从理论上讲，会议允许相关国家提出自己的观点，但实际上，一些代表团被边缘化或其要求被忽视。例如，试图讨论埃及独立问题的埃及代表团就遇到了重重障碍，其中一些成员被流放到了马耳他。这种情况反映了会议上不平等的权力动态，欧洲主要大国的利益往往占上风。

侯赛因-本-阿里之子、阿拉伯起义领导人费萨尔在会议上发挥了重要作用。他代表阿拉伯的利益，主张承认阿拉伯的独立和自治。尽管他做出了努力，但会议做出的决定并没有完全满足阿拉伯人建立一个独立统一国家的愿望。费萨尔继续在叙利亚建国，于 1920 年宣布自己为叙利亚国王。然而，他的雄心壮志只是昙花一现，因为在 1920 年圣雷莫会议之后，叙利亚被置于法国的委任统治之下，根据 1916 年的赛克斯-皮科协定，这一决定是欧洲列强瓜分中东的一部分。因此，巴黎会议及其成果对中东产生了深远影响，为延续至今的许多地区紧张局势和冲突奠定了基础。会议做出的决定反映了第一次世界大战战胜国的利益，往往损害了该地区人民的民族愿望。

代表法国的乔治-克莱蒙梭与阿拉伯起义领导人费萨尔之间达成的协议，以及围绕在中东建立新国家的讨论，都是一战后塑造该地区地缘政治秩序的关键因素。克莱蒙梭-法沙尔协议被认为对法国非常有利。法沙尔为了确保阿拉伯领土的某种形式的自治，不得不做出重大让步。法国在该地区拥有殖民地和战略利益，利用其在巴黎会议上的地位，坚持其控制权，特别是对叙利亚和黎巴嫩等领土的控制权。黎巴嫩代表团赢得了在法国授权下建立一个独立国家--大黎巴嫩的权利。这一决定受到了黎巴嫩马龙派基督教社区愿望的影响，他们希望在法国的监护下建立一个边界更广、拥有一定自治权的国家。在库尔德问题上，法国承诺建立库尔德斯坦。这些承诺在某种程度上是对库尔德民族主义愿望的承认，也是削弱奥斯曼帝国的一种手段。然而，事实证明这一承诺的实施是复杂的，战后的条约在很大程度上忽略了这一点。

所有这些因素都汇聚到了 1920 年的《塞夫尔条约》中，该条约正式宣告了奥斯曼帝国的解体。该条约重新划定了中东的边界，在法国和英国的委任统治下建立了新的国家。条约还规定建立库尔德自治实体，但这一规定从未得到执行。塞夫尔条约》虽然从未得到完全批准，后来在 1923 年被《洛桑条约》取代，但它是该地区历史上的一个决定性时刻。它为中东的现代政治结构奠定了基础，但由于对该地区民族、文化和历史现实的无知，也为未来的许多冲突埋下了种子。

向共和国的过渡和阿塔图尔克的崛起

第一次世界大战结束后，奥斯曼帝国受到削弱和压力，于 1920 年同意签署《塞夫尔条约》。该条约解散了奥斯曼帝国并对其领土进行了重新分配，似乎标志着有关帝国命运的旷日持久的 "东方问题 "的终结。然而，《塞夫尔条约》非但没有结束该地区的紧张局势，反而激化了民族主义情绪，引发了新的冲突。

在土耳其，由穆斯塔法-凯末尔-阿塔图尔克领导的强大的民族主义抵抗运动形成，反对《塞夫尔条约》。这一民族主义运动反对条约的规定，因为这些规定造成了严重的领土损失，并增加了外国对奥斯曼帝国领土的影响。抵抗运动与亚美尼亚人、安纳托利亚的希腊人和库尔德人等不同群体作战，目的是建立一个新的、单一的土耳其民族国家。随后的土耳其独立战争是一段激烈冲突和领土重组的时期。土耳其民族主义势力成功击退了安纳托利亚的希腊军队，并反击了其他叛乱团体。这次军事胜利是 1923 年土耳其共和国成立的关键因素。

由于这些事件，《塞夫尔条约》于 1923 年被《洛桑条约》取代。新条约承认了新土耳其共和国的边界，并取消了《塞夫尔条约》中最具惩罚性的条款。洛桑条约》标志着现代土耳其作为一个主权独立国家进入了一个重要阶段，重新确定了土耳其在该地区和国际事务中的作用。这些事件不仅重新绘制了中东的政治地图，还标志着奥斯曼帝国的终结，揭开了土耳其历史的新篇章，其影响至今仍在影响着该地区和全世界。

哈里发制度的废除及其影响

1924 年哈里发制度的废除是中东现代史上的一件大事，标志着一个延续了几个世纪的伊斯兰制度的终结。土耳其共和国的创始人穆斯塔法-凯末尔-阿塔图尔克做出了这一决定，作为他对新土耳其国家进行世俗化和现代化改革的一部分。废除哈里发统治是对传统伊斯兰权威结构的打击。自先知穆罕默德时代以来，哈里发一直被视为穆斯林社会（乌玛）的精神和世俗领袖。随着哈里发的废除，逊尼派伊斯兰教的这一核心机构消失了，穆斯林领导层出现了真空。

针对土耳其废除哈里发制度，奥斯曼帝国灭亡后成为希贾兹国王的侯赛因-本-阿里自封为哈里发。侯赛因是哈希姆家族的成员，也是先知穆罕默德的直系后裔，他试图宣称自己是哈里发，以便在穆斯林世界保持一种精神和政治上的连续性。然而，侯赛因的哈里发地位并没有得到广泛承认，而且持续时间很短。内外挑战削弱了他的地位，包括来自控制着阿拉伯半岛大部分地区的沙特家族的反对。沙特家族在阿卜杜拉齐兹-伊本-沙特的领导下崛起，最终征服了希贾兹，建立了沙特阿拉伯王国。侯赛因-本-阿里被沙特人赶下台象征着阿拉伯半岛权力的急剧转移，标志着他建立哈里发的野心的终结。这一事件也凸显了穆斯林世界正在发生的政治和宗教变革，标志着一个新时代的开始，在许多穆斯林国家，政治和宗教将开始走上更加截然不同的道路。

第一次世界大战后的时期对于中东的政治重新定义至关重要，欧洲列强，特别是法国和英国进行了重大干预。1920 年，叙利亚发生了一件大事，标志着该地区历史的转折点。侯赛因-本-阿里的儿子费萨尔是阿拉伯起义的核心人物，奥斯曼帝国灭亡后，他在叙利亚建立了一个阿拉伯王国，渴望实现建立一个统一的阿拉伯国家的梦想。然而，他的雄心壮志却遭遇了法国殖民利益的现实。1920 年 7 月的迈萨伦战役后，法国根据国际联盟的授权控制了大马士革，瓦解了费萨尔的阿拉伯国家，结束了他在叙利亚的统治。法国的干预反映了战后时期的复杂动态，在这一时期，中东人民的民族愿望往往被欧洲列强的战略利益所掩盖。被废黜叙利亚王位的法伊萨尔却在伊拉克找到了新的命运。1921 年，在英国的主持下，他被推举为伊拉克哈希姆君主国的第一任国王，这是英国为确保在这一石油资源丰富地区的有利领导和稳定而采取的一项战略举措。

与此同时，在外约旦，英国人实施了另一项政治策略。为了挫败犹太复国主义在巴勒斯坦的野心并保持其授权的平衡，英国于 1921 年建立了外约旦王国，并在那里安插了侯赛因-本-阿里的另一个儿子阿卜杜拉。这一决定旨在为阿卜杜拉提供一块可以统治的领土，同时将巴勒斯坦置于英国的直接控制之下。外约旦的建立是现代约旦国家形成的重要一步，也说明了殖民利益是如何塑造现代中东的边界和政治结构的。第一次世界大战后该地区的这些发展表明了战时中东政治的复杂性。欧洲傀儡列强受其自身战略和地缘政治利益的影响而做出的决定产生了持久的后果，为继续影响中东的国家结构和冲突奠定了基础。这些事件还凸显了该地区人民的民族愿望与欧洲殖民统治现实之间的斗争，这是 20 世纪中东历史中反复出现的主题。

圣雷莫会议的影响

1920 年 4 月举行的圣雷莫会议是第一次世界大战后历史上的一个决定性时刻，对中东来说尤其如此。会议重点讨论了奥斯曼帝国战败和解体后对前各省的委任统治权分配问题。在这次会议上，战胜国同盟国决定了委任统治地的分配。法国获得了叙利亚和黎巴嫩的委任统治权，从而控制了两个具有重要战略意义和丰富文化内涵的地区。英国则获得了外约旦、巴勒斯坦和美索不达米亚的委任统治权，后者更名为伊拉克。这些决定反映了殖民国家的地缘政治和经济利益，特别是在获取资源和战略控制方面。

在这些发展的同时，土耳其在穆斯塔法-凯末尔-阿塔图尔克的领导下，也在进行国家的重新定义。战后，土耳其寻求建立新的国界。这一时期发生了多起悲剧性冲突，尤其是在战争期间对亚美尼亚人实施种族灭绝之后对亚美尼亚人的镇压。1923 年，经过数年的斗争和外交谈判，穆斯塔法-凯末尔-阿塔图尔克成功地就《塞夫尔条约》的条款进行了重新谈判，该条约是 1920 年强加给土耳其的，土耳其民族主义者普遍认为这是屈辱和不可接受的。1923 年 7 月签署的《洛桑条约》取代了《塞夫尔条约》，承认了新土耳其共和国的主权和边界。该条约标志着奥斯曼帝国的正式终结，并奠定了现代土耳其国家的基础。

洛桑条约》被认为是穆斯塔法-凯末尔和土耳其民族主义运动的一大成功。它不仅重新界定了土耳其的边界，还使新的共和国摆脱了《塞夫尔条约》的限制，在国际舞台上重新开始。从圣雷莫会议到《洛桑条约》的签署，这些事件对中东产生了深远的影响，塑造了该地区未来几十年的国家边界、国际关系和政治动态。

盟军的承诺和阿拉伯的要求

第一次世界大战期间，解散和瓜分奥斯曼帝国是协约国（主要是英国、法国和俄国）关注的核心问题。这些列强期待着战胜奥斯曼帝国这个中央强国的盟友，开始计划瓜分其广袤的领土。

1915 年，随着第一次世界大战的爆发，英国、法国和俄国的代表在君士坦丁堡进行了重要谈判。谈判的中心议题是奥斯曼帝国领土的未来，奥斯曼帝国当时与中央列强结盟。奥斯曼帝国衰弱衰落，被协约国视为胜利后要瓜分的领土。在君士坦丁堡进行的这些谈判是出于战略和殖民利益的强烈动机。每个大国都试图扩大其在该地区的影响力，因为该地区的地理位置和资源具有重要的战略意义。俄国对控制博斯普鲁斯海峡和达达尼尔海峡尤其感兴趣，因为这两个海峡对其进入地中海至关重要。与此同时，法国和英国则希望扩大其殖民帝国，确保获得该地区的资源，尤其是石油。然而，值得注意的是，尽管这些讨论对奥斯曼帝国领土的未来产生了重大影响，但有关其分割的最重要、最详细的协议是后来正式签订的，特别是 1916 年的《赛克斯-皮科协定》。

1916 年由英国外交官马克-赛克斯和法国外交官弗朗索瓦-乔治-皮科缔结的《赛克斯-皮科协定》是中东历史上的一个关键时刻，深刻影响了第一次世界大战后该地区的地缘政治格局。该协定旨在确定奥斯曼帝国领土在英国、法国和一定程度上的俄国之间的划分，尽管俄国的参与因 1917 年俄国革命而无效。赛克斯-皮科协定》规定了法国和英国在中东的势力范围和控制区。根据该协定，法国将直接控制或影响叙利亚和黎巴嫩，而英国则对伊拉克、约旦和巴勒斯坦周边地区拥有类似的控制权。然而，该协议并没有准确界定未来国家的边界，而是留待以后的谈判和协议来确定。

赛克斯-皮科协定》的重要性在于，它是有关中东地理空间的集体记忆的 "起源"。它象征着欧洲列强在该地区的帝国主义干预和操纵，往往无视当地的种族、宗教和文化特性。尽管该协定影响了中东国家的建立，但这些国家的实际边界是由后来的权力平衡、外交谈判和第一次世界大战后演变的地缘政治现实决定的。赛克斯-皮科协定》的后果反映在战后国际联盟对法国和英国的委任统治中，导致了几个现代中东国家的形成。然而，划定的边界和做出的决定往往忽视了当地的种族和宗教现实，为该地区未来的冲突和紧张局势埋下了种子。在当代中东，该协定的遗留问题仍是一个争论和不满的话题，象征着外国势力强加的干预和分裂。

这幅地图展示了 1916 年法国和英国签订的《赛克斯-皮科协定》中规定的奥斯曼帝国领土划分，包括直接管理区和势力范围。

代表法国直接管理的 "蓝区 "涵盖了后来成为叙利亚和黎巴嫩的地区。这表明法国打算直接控制战略城市中心和沿海地区。由英国直接管理的 "红区 "涵盖了未来的伊拉克，包括巴格达和巴士拉等重要城市，以及以独立方式代表的科威特。该区反映了英国对产油地区的兴趣及其作为波斯湾门户的战略重要性。代表巴勒斯坦（包括海法、耶路撒冷和加沙等地）的 "棕色区 "在《赛克斯-皮科协定》中没有明确界定其直接控制权，但通常与英国的影响力有关。后来，由于《贝尔福宣言》和犹太复国主义运动，该地区成为英国的委任统治地，并成为政治紧张局势和冲突的焦点。

阿拉伯 A 区和 B 区 "是分别在法国和英国监督下承认阿拉伯自治的地区。这被解释为是对阿拉伯人渴望某种形式的自治或独立的让步，盟军在战争期间一直鼓励这种愿望，以赢得阿拉伯人对奥斯曼帝国的支持。这幅地图没有显示的是协约国在战争期间所做承诺的复杂性和多重性，这些承诺往往自相矛盾，并在协议曝光后导致当地民众产生背叛感。这幅地图只是简化了《赛克斯-皮科协定》，实际上该协定要复杂得多，而且随着时间的推移，随着政治的发展、冲突和国际压力而发生了变化。

1917 年俄国革命后，俄国布尔什维克揭露了《赛克斯-皮科协定》，这不仅在中东地区，而且在国际舞台上都产生了巨大影响。通过揭露这些秘密协定，布尔什维克试图抨击西方列强，特别是法国和英国的帝国主义，并表明自己对自决和透明原则的承诺。赛克斯-皮科协定》并不是 "东方问题 "漫长进程的开端，而是其高潮。这一进程涉及对衰落的奥斯曼帝国领土的管理和影响力分享，而《赛克斯-皮科协定》则是这一进程中决定性的一步。

根据这些协议，法国在叙利亚和黎巴嫩建立了势力范围，而英国则获得了对伊拉克、约旦和巴勒斯坦周边地区的控制权或影响力。这样做的目的是在大国势力范围之间建立缓冲区，包括在该地区利益相互竞争的英国和俄国之间建立缓冲区。这种格局在一定程度上是为了应对这些大国之间难以共处的问题，它们在印度和其他地方的竞争就证明了这一点。赛克斯-皮科协定》的公布在阿拉伯世界引起了强烈反响，被认为是对战争期间向阿拉伯领导人所做承诺的背叛。这一消息加剧了对西方列强的不信任，助长了该地区的民族主义和反帝愿望。这些协议的影响至今仍可感受到，因为它们为中东的现代边界和继续影响该地区的政治动态奠定了基础。

亚美尼亚种族灭绝

历史背景和种族灭绝的开始（1915-1917 年）

第一次世界大战期间冲突激烈，政治动荡，但也发生了 20 世纪初最悲惨的事件之一：亚美尼亚种族灭绝。这一种族灭绝是奥斯曼帝国青年土耳其人政府在 1915 年至 1917 年期间实施的，尽管暴力和驱逐行为在这之前就已开始，并在这之后仍在继续。

在这一悲惨时期，奥斯曼帝国的基督教少数民族--奥斯曼亚美尼亚人被有计划地当作目标，遭到强制驱逐、大规模处决、死亡行军和有计划的饥荒。奥斯曼帝国当局以战争为掩护和借口，解决他们认为的 "亚美尼亚问题"，精心策划了这些行动，目的是消灭安纳托利亚和帝国其他地区的亚美尼亚人口。对受害者人数的估计各不相同，但普遍认为多达 150 万亚美尼亚人丧生。亚美尼亚种族灭绝在亚美尼亚人的集体记忆中留下了深刻的烙印，并对全球亚美尼亚社区产生了持久的影响。它被认为是最早的现代种族灭绝之一，给土耳其和亚美尼亚的关系蒙上了一个多世纪的阴影。

承认亚美尼亚种族灭绝仍然是一个敏感和有争议的问题。许多国家和国际组织已正式承认种族灭绝，但某些争论和外交紧张局势依然存在，特别是与土耳其的争论，土耳其对将事件定性为种族灭绝提出异议。亚美尼亚种族灭绝对国际法也有影响，它影响了种族灭绝概念的发展，并促使人们努力防止今后发生此类暴行。这一令人悲痛的事件强调了历史记忆和承认过去的不公正对于在理解与和解的基础上建设共同未来的重要性。

亚美尼亚的历史根源

亚美尼亚人民拥有丰富而古老的历史，其历史可以追溯到基督教时代之前。根据亚美尼亚民族主义传统和神话传说，他们的历史可以追溯到公元前 200 年，甚至更早。考古和历史证据表明，亚美尼亚人占据亚美尼亚高原已有数千年之久。历史上的亚美尼亚通常被称为上亚美尼亚或大亚美尼亚，其所在地区包括现代土耳其东部、亚美尼亚、阿塞拜疆、格鲁吉亚、现代伊朗和伊拉克的部分地区。该地区是乌拉尔图王国的发源地，乌拉尔图王国被认为是古亚美尼亚的前身，曾在公元前 9 世纪至公元前 6 世纪繁荣一时。公元前 6 世纪初，乌拉尔图王国灭亡，亚美尼亚并入阿契美尼德帝国，亚美尼亚王国正式建立并得到承认。公元前 1 世纪，提格兰大帝（Tigran the Great）统治时期，亚美尼亚王国达到鼎盛时期，短暂扩张后形成了一个从里海到地中海的帝国。

公元 301 年，亚美尼亚成为第一个正式将基督教奉为国教的国家，这也说明了亚美尼亚人在该地区的历史渊源。几个世纪以来，尽管遭受入侵和各种外国帝国的统治，亚美尼亚人仍保持着独特的文化和宗教特征。悠久的历史铸就了强大的民族认同感，即使在 20 世纪初亚美尼亚种族灭绝等严重困难面前，这种认同感也历久弥新。亚美尼亚的神话和历史记载虽然有时会被民族主义精神美化，但都是基于真实而重要的历史，这些历史造就了亚美尼亚人民丰富的文化和顽强的生命力。

亚美尼亚，第一个基督教国家

亚美尼亚拥有第一个正式将基督教作为国教的王国的历史称号。这一具有纪念意义的事件发生在公元 301 年，当时的国王是提里达特斯三世，这在很大程度上是受圣格雷戈里-照亮者（Saint Gregory the Illuminator）传教活动的影响，圣格雷戈里-照亮者成为亚美尼亚教会的第一任首领。亚美尼亚王国皈依基督教的时间早于罗马帝国。公元 313 年米兰敕令颁布后，罗马帝国在君士坦丁皇帝的领导下开始将基督教作为其主导宗教。亚美尼亚人皈依基督教是一个重要的过程，对亚美尼亚人民的文化和民族特性产生了深远的影响。信奉基督教促进了亚美尼亚文化和宗教艺术的发展，包括亚美尼亚教堂和修道院的独特建筑风格，以及圣梅斯罗普-马什托茨（Saint Mesrop Mashtots）在 5 世纪初创造的亚美尼亚字母表。这种字母使亚美尼亚文学得以蓬勃发展，包括《圣经》和其他重要宗教典籍的翻译，从而有助于加强亚美尼亚的基督教特性。亚美尼亚作为第一个基督教国家的地位也产生了政治和地缘政治影响，因为它经常处于相互竞争的主要帝国的边界上，并被非基督教邻国所包围。几个世纪以来，这种区别帮助塑造了亚美尼亚的角色和历史，使其成为基督教历史以及中东和高加索地区历史上的一个重要角色。

亚美尼亚将基督教奉为国教之后的历史错综复杂，时常动荡不安。在经历了几个世纪与邻国帝国的冲突和相对自治时期后，亚美尼亚人在 7 世纪被阿拉伯人征服后经历了一场重大变革。

先知穆罕默德去世后，伊斯兰教迅速传播，阿拉伯军队在公元 640 年左右征服了中东大片地区，包括亚美尼亚大部分地区。这一时期，亚美尼亚被拜占庭势力和阿拉伯哈里发势力瓜分，导致亚美尼亚地区的文化和政治分裂。在阿拉伯统治时期以及后来的奥斯曼帝国统治时期，亚美尼亚人作为基督徒通常被归类为 "dhimmis"--伊斯兰法律规定的受保护但低等的非穆斯林类别。这种身份给了他们一定程度的保护，允许他们信奉自己的宗教，但他们也要缴纳特定的税款，并受到社会和法律的限制。19 世纪和 20 世纪初，历史上亚美尼亚的大部分地区处于奥斯曼帝国和俄罗斯帝 国之间。在此期间，亚美尼亚人在面临日益严峻的政治挑战的同时，努力保护自己的文化和宗教特性。

在苏丹阿卜杜勒哈米德二世统治时期（19 世纪末），奥斯曼帝国采取了泛伊斯兰主义政策，试图将帝国内不同的穆斯林民族团结起来，以应对奥斯曼帝国势力的衰落和内外压力。这一政策往往加剧了帝国内部的种族和宗教矛盾，导致针对亚美尼亚人和其他非穆斯林群体的暴力事件。19 世纪末发生的哈米迪安大屠杀是 1915 年亚美尼亚种族灭绝之前和预示着 1915 年亚美尼亚种族灭绝的暴力事件的一个悲惨例子，在这次大屠杀中，成千上万的亚美尼亚人被杀害。这些事件凸显了亚美尼亚人和帝国中的其他少数民族在民族主义兴起和帝国衰落的情况下寻求政治和宗教统一所面临的困难。

圣斯特凡诺条约》和柏林会议

1878 年签署的《圣斯特凡诺条约》是亚美尼亚问题的关键时刻，亚美尼亚问题成为国际关注的问题。该条约是在 1877-1878 年俄土战争结束时缔结的，在这场战争中，奥斯曼帝国在俄罗斯帝国手中遭到重大失败。圣斯特凡诺条约》中最引人注目的内容之一是要求奥斯曼帝国实施有利于基督教居民（尤其是亚美尼亚人）的改革，并改善他们的生活条件。这默认了亚美尼亚人遭受的虐待和国际保护的必要性。然而，条约中承诺的改革措施在很大程度上没有得到有效实施。奥斯曼帝国因战争和内部压力而衰弱，不愿做出可能被视为外国干涉内政的让步。此外，同年晚些时候，柏林会议对《圣斯蒂法诺条约》的条款进行了重新修订，调整了条约条款，以照顾其他大国，特别是英国和奥匈帝国的关切。

尽管如此，柏林会议仍不断向奥斯曼帝国施压，要求其进行改革，但实际上却几乎没有采取任何行动来切实改善亚美尼亚人的处境。由于缺乏行动，再加上帝国内部政局不稳，民族矛盾日益加剧，这种环境最终导致了 19 世纪 90 年代的哈米迪亚大屠杀，以及后来 1915 年的亚美尼亚种族灭绝。因此，《圣斯蒂法诺条约》将亚美尼亚问题国际化，标志着欧洲列强开始对奥斯曼帝国的事务施加更直接的影响，其幌子往往是保护基督教少数民族。然而，改革承诺与履行承诺之间的差距给亚美尼亚人民留下了无法兑现的承诺，造成了悲惨的后果。

19 世纪末和 20 世纪初是奥斯曼帝国亚美尼亚和亚述族群遭受严重暴力的时期。特别是在 1895 年和 1896 年，发生了大规模屠杀事件，通常被称为哈米迪安大屠杀（以苏丹阿卜杜勒哈米德二世的名字命名）。这些屠杀是对亚美尼亚人抗议苛捐杂税、迫害和《圣斯蒂法诺条约》所承诺的改革缺失的回应。青年土耳其人是在 1908 年政变后掌权的改革派民族主义运动，起初被视为奥斯曼帝国少数民族的希望之源。然而，这一运动中的激进派最终采取了比其前辈更具侵略性的民族主义政策。他们深信有必要建立一个统一的土耳其国家，将亚美尼亚人和其他非土耳其少数民族视为其民族愿景的障碍。对亚美尼亚人的系统性歧视日益加剧，叛国和与帝国敌人（尤其是俄国）勾结的指控更是火上浇油。这种怀疑和仇恨的气氛为 1915 年开始的种族灭绝提供了温床。这场种族灭绝运动的首批行动之一是 1915 年 4 月 24 日在君士坦丁堡逮捕并杀害亚美尼亚知识分子和领导人，现在人们将这一天作为亚美尼亚种族灭绝的开始举行纪念活动。

大规模驱逐、向叙利亚沙漠的死亡行军和屠杀接踵而至，据估计被杀害的亚美尼亚人多达 150 万。除了死亡行军，还有报道称亚美尼亚人被迫登上在黑海被故意击沉的船只。面对这些恐怖事件，一些亚美尼亚人皈依伊斯兰教以求生存，另一些人则躲藏起来或受到包括库尔德人在内的同情邻居的保护。与此同时，亚述人在 1914 年至 1920 年间也遭受了类似的暴行。亚述人作为奥斯曼帝国承认的一个部落或自治社区，本应受到一定的保护。然而，在第一次世界大战和土耳其民族主义的背景下，他们成了系统性灭绝运动的目标。这些悲惨事件表明，歧视、非人化和极端主义是如何导致大规模暴力行为的。对亚美尼亚人的种族灭绝和对亚述人的屠杀是历史上黑暗的一页，凸显了纪念、承认和防止种族灭绝以确保此类暴行不再发生的重要性。

走向土耳其共和国和否认种族灭绝

1919 年盟军占领伊斯坦布尔，并成立军事法庭审判对战争期间所犯暴行负有责任的奥斯曼官员，这标志着试图为所犯罪行，特别是亚美尼亚种族灭绝行为伸张正义。然而，安纳托利亚的局势依然不稳定且复杂。1920 年的《塞夫尔条约》肢解了奥斯曼帝国，并对土耳其实施了严厉的制裁，作为对该条约条款的回应，由穆斯塔法-凯末尔-阿塔图尔克领导的土耳其民族主义运动迅速发展。凯末尔主义者拒绝接受该条约，认为这是对土耳其主权和领土完整的羞辱和威胁。

其中一个症结是土耳其境内的希腊东正教徒问题，他们受到条约条款的保护，但在希土冲突中却处于危险之中。希腊和土耳其社区之间的紧张关系导致了大规模的暴力和人口交换，1919 年至 1922 年的希腊和土耳其战争又加剧了这种紧张关系。穆斯塔法-凯末尔曾是 "青年土耳其党 "的重要成员，并在第一次世界大战期间因捍卫达达尼尔海峡而声名鹊起。然而，这些说法存在争议和历史争论。凯末尔和新生的土耳其共和国在种族灭绝问题上的官方立场是否认种族灭绝，将其归咎于战时环境和内乱，而不是蓄意的灭绝政策。

在争夺安纳托利亚和建立土耳其共和国的斗争中，穆斯塔法-凯末尔及其支持者把重点放在建立一个统一的土耳其民族国家上，避免承认过去发生的可能分裂或削弱这一民族计划的事件。因此，第一次世界大战后的时期发生了重大的政治变革，试图在冲突后实现正义，该地区出现了新的民族国家，新生的土耳其共和国试图独立于奥斯曼帝国的遗产，确定自己的身份和政治。

=土耳其建国= === 《洛桑条约》和新的政治现实（1923年

《洛桑条约》和新的政治现实（1923年）

1923年7月24日签署的《洛桑条约》标志着土耳其和中东当代史上的一个决定性转折点。主要由于穆斯塔法-凯末尔-阿塔图尔克（Mustafa Kemal Atatürk）领导的土耳其民族抵抗运动，《塞夫尔条约》宣告失败，协约国被迫重新谈判。协约国在战争中精疲力竭，面对土耳其决心捍卫领土完整的现实，不得不承认土耳其民族主义者建立的新的政治现实。洛桑条约》确立了国际公认的现代土耳其共和国的边界，并取消了《塞夫尔条约》中关于建立库尔德国家和承认在一定程度上保护亚美尼亚人的条款。洛桑条约》没有规定建立库尔德斯坦，也没有为亚美尼亚人采取任何措施，从而在国际上关闭了 "库尔德问题 "和 "亚美尼亚问题 "的大门，使这些问题悬而未决。

与此同时，该条约正式确定了希腊和土耳其之间的人口交换，这导致了 "将希腊人驱逐出土耳其领土"，这是一个痛苦的插曲，其特点是人口被迫流离失所，安纳托利亚和色雷斯的历史社区终结。洛桑条约》签署后，在第一次世界大战期间掌权的联盟与进步委员会（CUP）（又称 "青年土耳其党"）正式解散。该委员会的几位领导人流亡国外，还有一些人被暗杀，以报复他们在亚美尼亚种族灭绝和战争破坏性政策中所扮演的角色。

在随后的岁月里，土耳其共和国得到巩固，出现了一些旨在捍卫安纳托利亚主权和完整的民族主义组织。宗教在构建民族身份认同方面发挥了作用，"基督教西部 "和 "穆斯林安纳托利亚 "经常被区分开来。这种论述被用来加强民族凝聚力，并为抵抗任何被视为对土耳其民族构成威胁的外国影响或干预提供理由。因此，《洛桑条约》被视为现代土耳其共和国的基石，其遗产继续影响着土耳其的内外政策，以及土耳其与邻国和境内少数民族社区的关系。

穆斯塔法-凯末尔-阿塔图尔克的到来和土耳其民族抵抗运动（1919年）

1919年5月，穆斯塔法-凯末尔-阿塔图尔克抵达安纳托利亚，标志着土耳其独立和主权斗争进入了一个新阶段。他反对盟军的占领和《塞夫尔条约》的条款，自立为土耳其民族抵抗运动的领袖。在随后的岁月里，穆斯塔法-凯末尔领导了几次关键的军事行动。他在多条战线上作战：1921 年与亚美尼亚人作战，在安纳托利亚南部与法国人作战以重新划定边界，1919 年与占领伊兹密尔市并挺进安纳托利亚西部的希腊人作战。这些冲突是土耳其民族主义运动的关键因素，目的是在奥斯曼帝国的废墟上建立一个新的民族国家。英国在该地区的战略十分复杂。面对希腊人和土耳其人以及土耳其人和英国人之间可能发生的更大范围的冲突，英国认为让希腊人和土耳其人自相残杀是有利的，这样他们就可以把精力集中在其他地方，特别是伊拉克这块石油资源丰富、战略地位重要的领土上。

1922 年，希土战争最终以土耳其的胜利和希腊从安纳托利亚的撤军而告终，这给希腊带来了小亚细亚灾难，也使土耳其民族主义势力取得了重大胜利。穆斯塔法-凯末尔的军事胜利使《塞夫尔条约》的条款得以重新谈判，并促成了 1923 年《洛桑条约》的签署，该条约承认了土耳其共和国的主权，并重新界定了土耳其的边界。在签订《洛桑条约》的同时，希腊和土耳其还制定了一项人口交换公约。这导致两国被迫交换希腊东正教和土耳其穆斯林人口，目的是建立种族更加单一的国家。在击退法国军队、缔结边界协定和签署《洛桑条约》之后，穆斯塔法-凯末尔于 1923 年 10 月 29 日宣布成立土耳其共和国，并成为首任总统。共和国的宣布标志着穆斯塔法-凯末尔在多民族和多信仰的奥斯曼帝国残余势力基础上建立一个现代、世俗和民族主义的土耳其国家的努力达到了顶峰。

边界的形成以及摩苏尔和安提阿问题

1923年《洛桑条约》的缔结标志着土耳其共和国得到国际承认，并重新确定了其边界。这些问题需要进一步谈判和国际组织的干预才能解决。安提阿城位于安纳托利亚南部历史悠久、文化多样的地区，是土耳其和法国之间争夺的对象，法国对包括安提阿在内的叙利亚行使委任统治权。这座城市拥有多元文化的历史和重要的战略意义，是两国关系的紧张点。最终，经过谈判，安提阿被授予土耳其，尽管这一决定引起了争议和紧张。摩苏尔地区的问题更为复杂。摩苏尔地区蕴藏丰富的石油，土耳其和英国都声称拥有该地区，英国对伊拉克拥有委任统治权。土耳其基于历史和人口方面的理由，希望将摩苏尔地区划入其疆界，而英国则出于战略和经济方面的原因，特别是石油的存在，支持将摩苏尔地区划入伊拉克。

国际联盟（联合国的前身）出面解决了这一争端。经过一系列谈判，双方于 1925 年达成协议。根据该协议，摩苏尔地区将成为伊拉克的一部分，但土耳其将获得经济补偿，特别是石油收入的一部分。协议还规定，土耳其应正式承认伊拉克及其边界。这一决定对于稳定土耳其、伊拉克和英国之间的关系至关重要，并在确定伊拉克边界方面发挥了重要作用，影响了中东地区未来的发展。这些谈判和由此产生的协议说明了第一次世界大战后中东动态的复杂性。它们显示了该地区的现代边界是如何由历史诉求、战略和经济考虑以及国际干预等因素共同作用形成的，这些因素往往反映的是殖民国家的利益，而不是当地居民的利益。

穆斯塔法-凯末尔-阿塔图尔克的激进改革

第一次世界大战后，土耳其在穆斯塔法-凯末尔-阿塔图尔克（Mustafa Kemal Atatürk）的领导下进行了大刀阔斧的改革和变革，努力实现新土耳其共和国的现代化和世俗化。1922 年，土耳其议会废除了奥斯曼苏丹国，迈出了关键的一步，这一决定结束了几个世纪的帝国统治，巩固了土耳其新首都安卡拉的政治权力。1924 年，土耳其进行了另一项重大改革，废除了哈里发统治。这一决定取消了奥斯曼帝国特有的伊斯兰宗教和政治领导权，标志着国家向世俗化迈出了决定性的一步。在废除哈里发的同时，土耳其政府成立了宗教事务主席团（Diyanet），这是一个旨在监督和管理国内宗教事务的机构。该机构旨在将宗教事务置于国家控制之下，确保宗教不被用于政治目的。穆斯塔法-凯末尔随后实施了一系列旨在实现土耳其现代化的改革，这些改革通常被称为 "专制现代化"。这些改革包括教育世俗化、改革着装规范、采用格里高利历法以及引入民法取代伊斯兰宗教法。

作为建立同质化土耳其民族国家的一部分，针对少数民族和不同种族群体的同化政策也已到位。这些政策包括为所有公民创建土耳其姓氏、鼓励采用土耳其语言和文化以及关闭宗教学校。这些措施旨在将人民统一在一个共同的土耳其身份之下，但也提出了少数民族的文化权利和自治问题。这些激进的改革改变了土耳其社会，为现代土耳其奠定了基础。这些改革反映了穆斯塔法-凯末尔的愿望，即建立一个现代、世俗和统一的国家，同时驾驭战后民族主义愿望的复杂环境。这些变革对土耳其历史产生了深远影响，并继续影响着今天的土耳其政治和社会。

20 世纪二三十年代，在穆斯塔法-凯末尔-阿塔图尔克的领导下，土耳其进行了一系列旨在实现国家现代化和西方化的激进改革。这些改革几乎影响到土耳其社会、文化和政治生活的方方面面。首批措施之一是成立教育部，该部在改革教育系统和宣传凯末尔思想方面发挥了核心作用。1925 年，最具象征意义的改革之一是推行欧式礼帽，取代了传统的头巾，这是土耳其公民外貌和着装现代化政策的一部分。

法律改革也很重要，土耳其采用了受西方模式启发的法典，特别是瑞士民法典。这些改革的目的是以世俗的现代法律制度取代以伊斯兰教法为基础的奥斯曼法律制度。土耳其还采用了公制和格里高利历，并将休息日从周五（穆斯林国家的传统休息日）改为周日，使国家与西方标准接轨。最激进的改革之一是在 1928 年将字母表从阿拉伯字母改为改良的拉丁字母。这项改革的目的是提高识字率和使土耳其语现代化。土耳其历史研究所成立于 1931 年，是重新解释土耳其历史和促进土耳其民族认同的广泛努力的一部分。本着同样的精神，净化土耳其语的政策旨在消除阿拉伯语和波斯语的借用，强化 "太阳语 "理论，这是一种民族主义意识形态，宣称土耳其语和土耳其文化源远流长，具有优越性。

在库尔德人问题上，凯末尔政府奉行同化政策，将库尔德人视为 "山地土耳其人"，试图将他们融入土耳其的民族认同中。这一政策导致了紧张局势和冲突，尤其是在 1938 年镇压库尔德人和非穆斯林人口期间。凯末尔时期是土耳其发生深刻变革的时代，其特点是努力创造一个现代化、世俗化和同质化的民族国家。然而，这些改革虽然具有现代化的进步意图，但也伴随着专制政策和同化努力，给当代土耳其留下了复杂的、有时甚至是有争议的遗产。

土耳其的凯末尔时期始于1923年共和国的成立，其特点是进行了一系列改革，旨在实现国家的中央化、民族化和世俗化，以及社会的欧洲化。这些改革由穆斯塔法-凯末尔-阿塔图尔克领导，旨在与奥斯曼帝国的帝国和伊斯兰历史决裂，奥斯曼帝国的历史被视为进步和现代化的障碍。改革的目的是建立一个与西方价值观和标准相一致的现代土耳其。从这个角度看，奥斯曼帝国和伊斯兰遗产往往被描绘成落后和蒙昧的负面形象。向西方的转变在政治、文化、法律、教育甚至日常生活中都是显而易见的。

多党制以及现代化与传统之间的紧张关系（1950年后）

然而，随着20世纪50年代多党制的到来，土耳其的政治格局开始发生变化。在共和人民党（CHP）领导下以一党制运作的土耳其开始向政治多元化开放。这一转变并非没有矛盾。在凯末尔主义时期经常被边缘化的保守派开始质疑凯末尔主义的一些改革，尤其是有关世俗主义和西方化的改革。世俗主义与传统价值观、西方化与土耳其和伊斯兰身份认同之间的争论已成为土耳其政治中反复出现的主题。保守党和伊斯兰党派的势力不断扩大，对凯末尔主义遗产提出质疑，并呼吁回归某些传统和宗教价值观。

这种政治态势有时会导致镇压和紧张局势，因为不同的政府在驾驭日益多样化的政治环境的同时，也在努力巩固自己的权力。政治紧张和镇压时期，特别是1960年、1971年、1980年的军事政变和2016年的未遂政变，见证了土耳其在寻求现代化与传统、世俗主义与宗教信仰、西方化与土耳其身份认同之间的平衡时所面临的挑战。在1950年后的土耳其，凯末尔主义遗产与部分民众回归传统价值观的愿望之间出现了复杂的、有时甚至是相互冲突的再平衡，反映了当代土耳其社会中现代与传统之间持续存在的紧张关系。

土耳其及其内部挑战：管理种族和宗教多样性

作为西方的战略盟友，特别是自1952年加入北约以来，土耳其不得不协调与西方的关系及其内部政治动态。20世纪50年代引入的多党制是这种调和的关键因素，反映了向更加民主的治理形式的过渡。然而，在这一过渡时期，也出现了动荡和军事干预。事实上，土耳其经历了数次军事政变，大约每十年一次，特别是在1960年、1971年、1980年，以及2016年的一次未遂政变。这些政变往往被军方辩解为恢复秩序和保护土耳其共和国的原则，特别是凯末尔主义和世俗主义所必需。每次政变后，军队一般都会举行新的选举，以恢复文官统治，尽管军队继续扮演着凯末尔主义意识形态守护者的角色。

然而，自 2000 年代以来，随着保守党和伊斯兰党的崛起，土耳其的政治格局发生了重大变化，尤其是正义与发展党（AKP）。在雷杰普-塔伊普-埃尔多安的领导下，正义与发展党赢得了数次选举，并长期掌权。尽管 AKP 政府主张更加保守的伊斯兰价值观，但却没有被军方推翻。这与过去几十年的情况不同，在过去几十年里，被认为背离凯末尔主义原则的政府经常成为军事干预的目标。土耳其保守派政府的相对稳定表明，军方和民间政党之间的权力正在重新平衡。这可以归因于一系列旨在削弱军队政治权力的改革，以及土耳其民众态度的转变，他们越来越容易接受反映保守和伊斯兰价值观的政府管理。当代土耳其的政治动态反映了一个国家在世俗的凯末尔主义传统与日益增长的保守主义和伊斯兰主义倾向之间游刃有余的挑战，同时又保持着对多党制和西方联盟的承诺。

现代土耳其面临着各种内部挑战，包括对其种族和宗教多样性的管理。同化政策，尤其是针对库尔德人的同化政策，在加强土耳其民族主义方面发挥了重要作用。这种情况导致了紧张局势和冲突，尤其是与库尔德少数民族之间的紧张局势和冲突，因为库尔德少数民族没有从奥斯曼帝国时期给予某些宗教少数群体的 "小米"（自治社区）地位中受益。20 世纪欧洲反犹太主义和种族主义也对土耳其产生了影响。20世纪30年代，受欧洲政治和社会思潮影响的歧视和仇外思想开始在土耳其显现。这导致了悲剧性事件的发生，如1934年色雷斯针对犹太人的大屠杀，犹太人社区成为袭击目标，被迫逃离家园。

此外，1942 年出台的《财富税法》（Varlık Vergisi）是另一项歧视性措施，主要影响到非土耳其人和非穆斯林少数民族，包括犹太人、亚美尼亚人和希腊人。这项法律对财富征收苛捐杂税，对非穆斯林的征税过高，无力支付的人被送往劳改营，特别是在土耳其东部的阿什卡莱。这些政策和事件反映了土耳其社会内部的种族和宗教紧张关系，以及土耳其民族主义有时被以排他性和歧视性的方式诠释的时期。它们还凸显了在安纳托利亚这样一个多民族、多宗教群体共存的地区建立民族国家过程的复杂性。这一时期土耳其少数民族的待遇仍然是一个敏感和有争议的话题，反映了土耳其在管理国内多样性的同时寻求统一民族身份所面临的挑战。这些事件也对土耳其不同种族和宗教群体之间的关系产生了长期影响。

世俗主义与政教分离：凯末尔时期的遗产

世俗化与世俗主义之间的区别对于理解不同历史和地理背景下的社会和政治动态非常重要。世俗化是指社会、机构和个人开始脱离宗教影响和规范的一个历史和文化过程。在世俗化的社会中，宗教逐渐失去对公共生活、法律、教育、政治和其他领域的影响。这一过程并不一定意味着个人的宗教信仰减少，而是宗教成为私人事务，与公共事务和国家分开。世俗化通常与现代化、科技发展和社会规范的改变联系在一起。另一方面，世俗主义是一种制度和法律政策，国家据此宣布自己在宗教事务中保持中立。它决定将国家与宗教机构分开，确保政府决策和公共政策不受特定宗教教义的影响。世俗主义可以与宗教色彩浓厚的社会共存；它主要涉及国家如何处理与不同宗教的关系。从理论上讲，世俗主义旨在保障宗教自由，平等对待所有宗教，避免偏袒任何特定宗教。

历史和当代的例子显示了这两个概念的不同组合。例如，一些欧洲国家在经历了显著的世俗化过程的同时，仍保持着国家与某些教会之间的官方联系（如英国与英格兰教会的联系）。另一方面，法国等国采取了严格的政教分离政策，而这些国家在历史上都是深受宗教传统熏陶的社会。在土耳其，凯末尔时期实行了严格的政教分离政策，清真寺与国家分离，而穆斯林宗教仍在人们的私人生活中发挥着重要作用。凯末尔主义的世俗主义政策旨在实现土耳其的现代化和统一，它从西方模式中汲取灵感，同时又能驾驭一个长期围绕伊斯兰教建立社会和政治组织的复杂社会环境。

第二次世界大战后，土耳其发生了一系列事件，加剧了国内的种族和宗教紧张局势，尤其影响到少数民族。在这些事件中，1955 年穆斯塔法-凯末尔-阿塔图尔克在塞萨洛尼基（当时位于希腊）的出生地遭到轰炸，引发了土耳其现代史上最悲惨的事件之一：伊斯坦布尔大屠杀。伊斯坦布尔大屠杀又称 1955 年 9 月 6-7 日事件，是一系列暴力袭击事件，主要针对该市的希腊社区，但也针对其他少数民族，特别是亚美尼亚人和犹太人。这些袭击由阿塔图尔克出生地被炸的谣言引发，并因民族主义和反少数民族情绪而加剧。骚乱造成了大规模的财产破坏和暴力事件，许多人流离失所。

这一事件标志着土耳其少数民族历史上的一个转折点，导致伊斯坦布尔的希腊族人口大幅减少，其他少数民族普遍感到不安全。伊斯坦布尔大屠杀还揭示了土耳其社会在民族身份、种族和宗教多样性问题上的潜在紧张关系，以及在一个多元民族国家中保持和谐所面临的挑战。此后，由于移民、同化政策以及有时族群间的紧张关系和冲突等各种因素，土耳其的少数民族和宗教少数群体的比例大幅下降。尽管现代土耳其一直在努力宣传一个宽容和多元化社会的形象，但这些历史事件的遗留问题仍在影响着不同族群之间的关系以及国家对少数民族的政策。土耳其少数群体的状况仍然是一个敏感问题，说明了许多国家在管理多样性和维护其境内所有社区的权利和安全方面所面临的挑战。

=阿列维人

土耳其共和国成立对阿列维人的影响（1923 年）

1923 年土耳其共和国的成立和穆斯塔法-凯末尔-阿塔图尔克发起的世俗主义改革对土耳其的各种宗教和民族群体产生了重大影响，其中包括阿列维人。阿列维人是伊斯兰教中一个独特的宗教和文化群体，奉行不同于主流逊尼派的信仰形式，他们对土耳其共和国的成立持一定程度的乐观态度。与奥斯曼帝国时期相比，世俗主义和世俗化给他们带来了更大的平等和宗教自由的希望。

然而，1924 年废除哈里发统治后，土耳其政府成立了宗教事务局（Diyanet），试图管理和控制宗教事务。尽管宗教事务局旨在对宗教实行国家控制，并促进伊斯兰教与共和和世俗价值观的兼容，但在实践中，它往往偏向于土耳其占多数的逊尼派伊斯兰教。这一政策给阿列维人社区带来了问题，他们感到自己被边缘化了，因为国家推广的伊斯兰教形式与其宗教信仰和习俗并不相符。虽然在土耳其共和国时期，阿列维人的处境比奥斯曼帝国时期要好得多，在奥斯曼帝国时期，他们经常受到迫害，但他们在宗教认可和权利方面仍然面临挑战。

多年来，阿列维人一直在为其礼拜场所（cemevis）获得官方承认以及在宗教事务中获得公平代表权而奋斗。尽管土耳其在世俗主义和公民权利方面取得了进展，但阿列维问题仍然是一个重要问题，反映了土耳其在世俗框架内管理其宗教和种族多样性所面临的广泛挑战。因此，土耳其阿列维人的状况是现代化和世俗化背景下国家、宗教和少数民族之间复杂关系的一个例子，说明了国家政策如何影响一个国家的社会和宗教动态。

20 世纪 60 年代阿列维人的政治参与 =

20 世纪 60 年代，土耳其经历了一个重大的政治和社会变革时期，出现了代表各种观点和利益的各种政党和运动。这是一个充满政治活力的时期，其特点是政治身份和要求得到了更多的表达，包括阿列维人等少数群体的政治身份和要求。在此期间成立的第一个阿列维政党是一个重要的发展，反映了该群体越来越愿意参与政治进程并捍卫自己的特殊利益。阿列维人有自己独特的信仰和习俗，他们经常寻求促进对其宗教和文化权利的更大承认和尊重。然而，其他政党，尤其是左派或共产主义政党，也确实响应了库尔德和阿列维选民的要求。通过宣传社会正义、平等和少数民族权利的理念，这些政党吸引了这些族群的大量支持。少数民族权利、社会正义和世俗主义问题往往是这些政党政治纲领的核心，与阿列维人和库尔德人的关切产生了共鸣。

20 世纪 60 年代的土耳其，政治局势日益紧张，意识形态鸿沟日益扩大，在这种背景下，左翼政党往往被视为底层民众、少数民族和边缘化群体的拥护者。这导致阿列维政党虽然直接代表这一群体，但有时会被更广泛、更成熟的政党所掩盖，这些政党致力于解决更广泛的社会正义和平等问题。因此，这一时期的土耳其政治反映出政治身份和政治派别日益多样化和复杂化，说明少数民族权利、社会正义和身份认同问题在土耳其新兴政治格局中发挥着核心作用。

20世纪70年代和80年代阿列维人面对极端主义和暴力

20世纪70年代是土耳其社会和政治局势极为紧张的时期，两极分化日益加剧，极端主义团体不断涌现。在这一时期，以民族主义和极端民族主义团体为部分代表的土耳其极右派的知名度和影响力不断上升。极端主义的兴起造成了悲剧性后果，尤其是对阿列维人等少数族群而言。阿列维人的信仰和习俗有别于占多数的逊尼派伊斯兰教，因此常常成为极端民族主义和保守团体的攻击目标。这些团体在民族主义、有时是宗派主义意识形态的煽动下，对阿列维社区发动了暴力袭击，包括大屠杀和大屠杀。最臭名昭著的事件包括 1978 年在马拉什和 1980 年在乔鲁姆发生的大屠杀。这些事件的特点是极端暴力、大屠杀和其他暴行，包括斩首和肢解。这些袭击并非孤立事件，而是针对阿列维人的暴力和歧视大趋势的一部分，加剧了土耳其的社会分裂和紧张局势。

20 世纪 70 年代和 80 年代初的暴力事件加剧了不稳定局势，导致了 1980 年的军事政变。政变后，军队建立了一个政权，镇压了包括极右派和极左派在内的许多政治团体，试图恢复秩序和稳定。然而，不同社区之间的歧视和紧张关系等潜在问题依然存在，给土耳其的社会和政治凝聚力带来了持续挑战。因此，土耳其阿列维人的境况是一个鲜明的例子，说明了在政治两极分化和极端主义抬头的背景下，宗教和少数民族所面临的困难。它还凸显了采取包容性方法的必要性，即尊重所有社区的权利，以维护社会和平与民族团结。

20 世纪 90 年代的锡瓦斯和加齐悲剧

20 世纪 90 年代，土耳其的紧张局势和暴力事件持续不断，尤其是针对阿列维族的暴力事件，阿列维族是多起悲剧性袭击事件的目标。1993 年，土耳其中部城镇锡瓦斯发生了一起特别令人震惊的事件。1993 年 7 月 2 日，在 Pir Sultan Abdal 文化节期间，一群阿列维知识分子、艺术家和作家以及观众遭到极端主义暴徒的袭击。他们下榻的 Madımak 酒店被纵火焚烧，造成 37 人死亡。这一事件被称为锡瓦斯大屠杀或马德马克悲剧，是土耳其现代史上最黑暗的事件之一，凸显了阿列维人在极端主义和宗教不容忍面前的脆弱性。两年后的 1995 年，伊斯坦布尔的加齐区发生了另一起暴力事件，该地区有大量的阿列维人。一名身份不明的枪手向阿列维人经常光顾的咖啡馆开枪，造成一人死亡，数人受伤，随后爆发了暴力冲突。随后几天又发生了骚乱和与警察的冲突，导致更多人员伤亡。

这些事件加剧了阿列维社区与土耳其国家之间的紧张关系，凸显了对阿列维人的偏见和歧视依然存在。这些事件还使人们对土耳其保护少数民族以及国家确保所有公民安全和正义的能力产生了疑问。锡瓦斯和加齐发生的暴力事件标志着人们对土耳其阿列维人状况认识的一个转折点，导致人们更加强烈地呼吁承认他们的权利，更加理解和尊重他们独特的文化和宗教特性。这些悲惨事件仍然铭刻在土耳其的集体记忆中，象征着该国在宗教多样性与和平共处方面所面临的挑战。

正义与发展党领导下的阿列维人：身份挑战与冲突

自2002年由雷杰普-塔伊普-埃尔多安领导的正义与发展党（AKP）执政以来，土耳其对伊斯兰教和宗教少数群体（包括阿列维人）的政策发生了重大变化。人民党通常被视为具有伊斯兰教或保守主义倾向的政党，因偏袒逊尼派伊斯兰教而受到批评，这引起了宗教少数群体，尤其是阿列维人的担忧。在 AKP 的领导下，政府加强了宗教事务局（Diyanet）的作用，该局被指责宣扬逊尼派伊斯兰教。这给阿列维社区带来了麻烦，因为他们信奉的伊斯兰教与占主导地位的逊尼派明显不同。阿列维人不去传统的清真寺做礼拜，而是使用 "cemevi "来举行宗教仪式和集会。然而，Diyanet 并不正式承认 cemevi 为礼拜场所，这一直是阿列维人感到沮丧和冲突的根源。同化问题也是阿列维人关注的问题，因为政府一直被认为试图将所有宗教和民族社区整合成一个统一的逊尼派土耳其身份。这一政策让人想起凯末尔时代的同化努力，尽管动机和背景有所不同。

阿列维人是一个种族和语言多样化的群体，既有讲土耳其语的成员，也有讲库尔德语的成员。虽然他们的身份主要由其独特的信仰决定，但他们也与其他土耳其人和库尔德人有着共同的文化和语言。然而，独特的宗教习俗和被边缘化的历史使他们在土耳其社会中显得与众不同。2002 年以来土耳其阿列维人的处境反映了国家与宗教少数群体之间持续存在的紧张关系。它提出了有关宗教自由、少数民族权利以及国家在世俗和民主框架内包容多样性的能力等重要问题。土耳其如何处理这些问题仍然是其国内政策及其在国际舞台上形象的一个重要方面。

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.

Lebanon

Ottoman Domination and Cultural Mosaic (16th Century - First World War)

Lebanon, with its rich and complex history, has been influenced by various powers and cultures over the centuries. From the 16th century until the end of the First World War, the territory that is now Lebanon was under the control of the Ottoman Empire. This period saw the development of a distinct cultural and religious mosaic, characterised by ethnic and denominational diversity.

Two groups in particular, the Druze and the Maronites (an Eastern Christian community), have played a central role in Lebanon's history. These two communities have often been at odds with each other, partly because of their religious differences and their struggle for political and social power in the region. The Druze, a religious minority that developed out of Shia Ismaili Islam, settled mainly in the mountains of Lebanon and Syria. They have maintained a distinct identity and have often exercised significant political and military power in their regions. The Maronites, on the other hand, are an Eastern Christian community in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. They have settled mainly in the mountains of Lebanon, where they have developed a strong cultural and religious identity. The Maronites have also established close links with European powers, particularly France, which has had a significant influence on Lebanese history and politics. The coexistence and sometimes confrontation between these communities, as well as with other groups such as the Sunnis, Shiites and Orthodox, have shaped Lebanon's socio-political history. These dynamics have played a key role in shaping the Lebanese identity and have influenced the political structure of modern Lebanon, notably the confessional power-sharing system, which seeks to balance the representation of its various religious groups.

French Mandate and Administrative Restructuring (After the First World War - 1943)

During the French Mandate in Lebanon, France attempted to mediate between the country's different religious and ethnic communities, while at the same time putting in place an administrative structure that reflected and reinforced Lebanon's diversity. Prior to the establishment of the French mandate, Mount Lebanon had already enjoyed a degree of autonomy under the Ottoman Empire, particularly after the establishment of the Mutasarrifiyyah in 1861. The Mutasarrifiyyah of Mount Lebanon was an autonomous region with its own Christian governor, created in response to the conflicts between Christian Maronites and Muslim Druze that had broken out in the 1840s and 1860s. This structure was intended to ease tensions by providing more balanced governance and a degree of autonomy for the region.

When France took control of Lebanon after the First World War, it inherited this complex structure and sought to maintain a balance between the different communities. The French Mandate expanded the borders of Mount Lebanon to include areas with large Muslim populations, forming Greater Lebanon in 1920. This expansion was aimed at creating a more economically viable Lebanese state, but it also introduced new demographic and political dynamics. The political system in Lebanon under the French mandate was based on a model of consociationalism, where power was shared between the different religious communities. This system aimed to ensure fair representation of Lebanon's main religious groups in administration and politics, and laid the foundations for the confessional political system that characterises modern Lebanon. However, the French mandate was not without controversy. French policies were sometimes seen as favouring some communities over others, and there was resistance to foreign domination. Nevertheless, the mandate played a significant role in the formation of the Lebanese state and the definition of its national identity.

During the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, which followed the end of the First World War, France played a strategic role in influencing the decision-making process concerning the future of the territories of the Middle East, including Lebanon. The presence of two Lebanese delegations at this conference was a manoeuvre by France to counter the claims of Faisal, the leader of the Arab Kingdom of Syria, who sought to establish an independent Arab state including Lebanon.

Fayçal, supported by Arab nationalists, was calling for a large independent Arab state that would extend over a large part of the Levant, including Lebanon. These demands were in direct contradiction with French interests in the region, which included the establishment of a mandate over Lebanon and Syria. To counter Faisal's influence and justify their own mandate over the region, the French encouraged the formation of Lebanese delegations made up of Christian Maronite representatives and other groups who favoured the idea of a Lebanon under French mandate. These delegations were sent to Paris to plead for French protection and to emphasise Lebanon's distinct identity from Syria and Faisal's pan-Arab aspirations. By presenting these delegations as representative of the aspirations of the Lebanese people, France sought to legitimise its claim to a mandate over Lebanon and to demonstrate that a significant proportion of the Lebanese population preferred French protection to integration into a unified Arab state under Faisal. This manoeuvre helped shape the outcome of the conference and played an important role in the establishment of the French and British mandates in the Middle East, in accordance with the Sykes-Picot agreements.

The Struggle for Independence and Confessionalism (1919 - 1943)

The creation of the modern Lebanese state in 1921, under the French mandate, was marked by the adoption of a single communal political system, known as "political confessionalism". This system aimed to manage Lebanon's religious and ethnic diversity by allocating political power and government posts according to the demographic distribution of the different confessional communities. Lebanese confessionalism was designed to ensure fair representation of all the country's main religious communities. Under this system, the main government posts, including the President, Prime Minister and Speaker of the National Assembly, were reserved for members of specific communities: the President had to be a Christian Maronite, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim, and the Speaker of the Assembly a Shia Muslim. This distribution of posts was based on a population census carried out in 1932.

Although designed to promote peaceful coexistence and balance between the different communities, this system was criticised for institutionalising denominational divisions and encouraging politics based on communal identity rather than political programmes or ideologies. Moreover, the system was fragile, as it depended on demographics that could change over time. Political elites and community leaders, while initially supportive of the system as a guarantee of representation and influence, became increasingly frustrated by its limitations and weaknesses. The system was also put under pressure by external factors, notably the influx of Palestinian refugees after the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 and the ideals of pan-Arabism, which challenged Lebanon's confessional political order. These factors contributed to demographic imbalances and heightened political and confessional tensions within the country. The confessional system, although an attempt to manage Lebanon's diversity, was ultimately a key factor in the political instability that led to the Lebanese civil war of 1975-1990. This war left a profound mark on Lebanon and revealed the limitations and challenges of the confessional system in managing diversity and national cohesion.

Lebanese Civil War: Causes and International Impact (1975 - 1990)

The Lebanese Civil War, which began in 1975, was influenced by a number of internal and external factors, in particular the growing tensions linked to the Palestinian presence in Lebanon. The massive arrival of Palestinian refugees and fighters in Lebanon, particularly after the events of "Black September" in Jordan in 1970, was a major trigger for the civil war. In September 1970, King Hussein of Jordan launched a military campaign to expel the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and other Palestinian armed groups from Jordan, following increasing attempts by these groups to interfere in Jordan's internal affairs. This campaign, known as "Black September", led to a large influx of Palestinians into Lebanon, exacerbating existing tensions in the country. The growing presence of armed Palestinians and PLO activism against Israel from Lebanese soil added a new dimension to the Lebanese conflict, further complicating the already fragile political situation. Palestinian groups, particularly in southern Lebanon, have often clashed with local Lebanese communities and have been involved in cross-border attacks against Israel.

In response to these attacks and the presence of the PLO, Israel launched several military operations in Lebanon, culminating in the invasion of Lebanon in 1982. The Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon was motivated by Israel's desire to secure its northern borders and dismantle the PLO's base of operations. The Lebanese civil war was therefore fuelled by a mixture of internal tensions, sectarian conflicts, demographic imbalances and external factors, including Israeli interventions and regional dynamics linked to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This war, which lasted until 1990, was devastating for Lebanon, resulting in enormous loss of life, massive displacement of populations and widespread destruction. It profoundly transformed Lebanese society and politics and left scars that continue to affect the country.

Syrian influence and the Taif Agreement (1976 - 2005)

The Lebanese civil war and Syrian intervention in the conflict are key elements in understanding Lebanon's recent history. Syria, under the leadership of Hafez al-Assad, played a complex and sometimes contradictory role in the Lebanese civil war. Syria, with its own geopolitical interests in Lebanon, intervened in the conflict as early as 1976. Officially, this intervention was justified as an effort to stabilise Lebanon and prevent an escalation of the conflict. However, many observers noted that Syria also had ambitions for expansion and control over Lebanon, which was historically and culturally linked to Syria. During the war, Syria supported various Lebanese factions and communities, often according to its strategic interests at the time. This involvement was sometimes seen as an attempt by Syria to exert its influence and strengthen its position in Lebanon. The civil war finally came to an end with the Taif Accords in 1989, a peace agreement negotiated with the support of the Arab League and under Syrian supervision. The Taif Accords redefined the confessional political balance in Lebanon, changing the power-sharing system to better reflect the country's current demographics. They also provided for an end to the civil war and the establishment of a government of national reconciliation.

However, the agreements also consolidated Syrian influence in Lebanon. Syria maintained a considerable military presence and political influence in the country after the war, which was a source of tension and controversy in Lebanon and the region. The Syrian presence in Lebanon did not end until 2005, following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, an event that triggered massive protests in Lebanon and increased international pressure on Syria. The decision not to carry out a population census in Lebanon after the civil war reflects the sensitivities surrounding the demographic issue in Lebanon's confessional political context. A census could potentially upset the delicate balance on which the Lebanese political system is built, by revealing demographic changes that could call into question the current distribution of power between the different communities.

Assassination of Rafiq Hariri and the Cedar Revolution (2005)

The assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri on 14 February 2005 was a decisive moment in Lebanon's recent history. Hariri was a popular figure, known for his policy of post-civil war reconstruction and his efforts to re-establish Beirut as a financial and cultural centre. His assassination sent shockwaves through the country and triggered accusations against Syria, which was suspected of involvement. The assassination triggered the "Cedar Revolution", a series of large-scale peaceful demonstrations demanding an end to Syrian influence in Lebanon and the truth about Hariri's assassination. These demonstrations, in which hundreds of thousands of Lebanese of all faiths took part, put considerable pressure on Syria. Under the weight of this popular pressure and international condemnation, Syria finally withdrew its troops from Lebanon in April 2005, putting an end to almost 30 years of military and political presence in the country.

Contemporary Lebanon: Political and Social Challenges (2005 - Present)

At the same time, Hezbollah, a Shiite Islamist group and military organisation founded in 1982, has become a key player in Lebanese politics. Hezbollah was founded with Iranian support in the context of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and has grown to become both a political movement and a powerful militia. The party refused to disarm after the civil war, citing the need to defend Lebanon against Israel. The 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah further strengthened Hezbollah's position as a major force in Arab resistance against Israel. The conflict began when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, triggering an intense Israeli military response in Lebanon. Despite the massive destruction and loss of life in Lebanon, Hezbollah emerged from the conflict with a strengthened image of resistance against Israel, gaining considerable support among parts of the Lebanese population and in the Arab world in general. These events have had a considerable influence on Lebanese political dynamics, revealing the deep divisions within the country and the persistent challenges to Lebanon's stability and sovereignty. The post-2005 period has been marked by ongoing political tensions, economic crises and security challenges, reflecting the complexity of Lebanon's political and confessional landscape.

Jordan

British Mandate and Territorial Division (Early 20th century - 1922)

To understand the formation of Jordan, it is essential to go back to the period of the British Mandate over Palestine after the First World War. When Great Britain obtained the Mandate over Palestine following the San Remo Conference in 1920, it found itself in charge of a complex and conflict-ridden territory. One of the first acts of the British was to divide the Mandate into two distinct zones at the Cairo Conference in 1922: Palestine on the one hand, and the Transjordan emirates on the other. This division reflected both geopolitical considerations and the desire to respond to the aspirations of the local populations. Abdallah, one of the sons of Sherif Hussein of Mecca, played an important role in the region, notably by leading revolts against the Ottomans. To appease and contain his influence, the British decided to appoint him Emir of Transjordan. This decision was partly motivated by the desire to stabilise the region and create a reliable ally for the British.

The issue of Jewish immigration to Palestine was a major source of tension during this period. Zionists, who aspired to the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine, protested against the British policy of banning Jewish immigration to Transjordan, considering that this restricted the possibilities of Jewish settlement in part of the Mandate territory.

Independence and formation of the Jordanian state (1946 - 1948)

The Jordan River played a decisive role in the distinction between Transjordan (to the east of the Jordan) and the West Bank (to the west). These geographical terms were used to describe the regions on either side of the Jordan River. The formation of Jordan as an independent state was a gradual process. In 1946, Transjordan gained independence from Britain, and Abdallah became the first king of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Jordan, like Palestine, has been profoundly affected by regional developments, notably the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 and the Arab-Israeli conflicts that followed. These events had a considerable impact on Jordanian politics and society in the decades that followed.

The Arab Legion has played a significant role in Jordan's history and in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Founded in the 1920s under the British Mandate, the Arab Legion was a Jordanian military force that operated under the supervision of British military advisors. This force was crucial in maintaining order in the territory of Transjordan and served as the basis for the modern Jordanian army. At the end of the British Mandate in 1946, Transjordan, under the reign of King Abdullah, gained its independence, becoming the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Jordan's independence marked a turning point in the history of the Middle East, making the country a key player in the region.

Israeli-Arab conflicts and their impact on Jordan (1948 - 1950)

In 1948, Israel's declaration of independence triggered the first Arab-Israeli war. Neighbouring Arab states, including Jordan, refused to recognise Israel's legitimacy and committed military forces to oppose the newly formed state. The Jordanian Arab Legion, considered to be one of the most effective armed forces among Arab countries at the time, played a major role in this conflict. During the 1948 war, Jordan, under the command of King Abdullah, occupied the West Bank, a region west of the Jordan River that was part of the British Mandate over Palestine. At the end of the war, Jordan officially annexed the West Bank, a decision that was widely recognised in the Arab world but not by the international community. This annexation included East Jerusalem, which was proclaimed Jordan's capital alongside Amman. Jordan's annexation of the West Bank had important implications for Arab-Israeli relations and the Palestinian conflict. It also shaped Jordanian domestic politics, as the Palestinian population of the West Bank became an important part of Jordanian society. This period in Jordanian history continued to influence the country's politics and international relations in the decades that followed.

The period following Jordan's annexation of the West Bank in 1948 was marked by significant political and social developments. In 1950, Jordan officially annexed the West Bank, a decision that had a lasting impact on the country's demographic and political make-up. Following this annexation, half of the seats in the Jordanian parliament were allocated to Palestinian deputies, reflecting the new demographic reality of a unified Jordan, which now included a large Palestinian population. This political integration of Palestinians into Jordan underlined the extent of the annexation of the West Bank and was seen by some as an effort to legitimise Jordanian control over the territory. However, the move also raised tensions, both within the Palestinian population and among Palestinian nationalists, who aspired to independence and the creation of a separate Palestinian state.

Rumours of secret agreements between Jordan and Israel over issues of sovereignty and territory fuelled discontent among Palestinian nationalists. In 1951, King Abdullah, who had been a key player in the annexation of the West Bank and had sought to maintain good relations with the Israelis, was assassinated in Jerusalem by a Palestinian nationalist. This assassination underlined the deep divisions and political tensions surrounding the Palestinian question. The Six Day War in 1967 was another major turning point for Jordan and the region. Israel captured the West Bank, East Jerusalem and other territories during this conflict, ending Jordanian control over these areas. This loss had a profound impact on Jordan, both politically and demographically, and exacerbated the Palestinian question, which has remained a central issue in Jordan's domestic affairs and foreign policy. The 1967 war also contributed to the emergence of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as the main representative of the Palestinians and influenced the trajectory of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the following years.

Reign of King Hussein and Internal Challenges (1952 - 1999)

King Hussein of Jordan, grandson of King Abdullah, ruled the country from 1952 until his death in 1999. His reign was marked by major challenges, including the issue of the Palestinian population in Jordan and the King's pan-Arab ambitions.

King Hussein inherited a complex situation with a large Palestinian population in Jordan, resulting from the annexation of the West Bank in 1948 and the influx of Palestinian refugees after the creation of Israel and the Six Day War in 1967. Managing the Palestinian question remained a major challenge throughout his reign, with growing internal political and social tensions. One of the most critical moments of his reign was the "Black September" crisis in 1970. Faced with the growing strength of Palestinian PLO fighters in Jordan, which threatened the sovereignty and stability of the kingdom, King Hussein ordered a brutal military intervention to regain control of the refugee camps and towns where the PLO had a strong presence. This intervention resulted in the expulsion of the PLO and its fighters from Jordanian territory, who then set up their headquarters in Lebanon.

Despite his participation in the Arab-Israeli wars, notably the 1973 Yom Kippur War, King Hussein maintained discreet but significant relations with Israel. These relations, often at odds with the positions of other Arab states, were motivated by strategic and security considerations. Jordan and Israel shared common concerns, particularly with regard to regional stability and the Palestinian question. King Hussein eventually played a key role in Middle East peace efforts. In 1994, Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel, becoming the second Arab country, after Egypt, to officially normalise relations with Israel. The treaty marked an important milestone in Arab-Israeli relations and reflected King Hussein's desire to seek a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, despite the challenges and controversies involved.

King Abdullah II and Modern Jordan (1999 - Present)

When King Hussein of Jordan died in 1999, his son, Abdullah II, succeeded him to the throne. Abdullah II's accession to power marked the beginning of a new era for Jordan, although the new king inherited many of his father's political, economic and social challenges. Abdullah II, educated abroad and with military experience, has taken over a country facing complex internal challenges, including managing relations with the Palestinian population, balancing democratic pressures with the stability of the kingdom, and persistent economic problems. Internationally, under his reign, Jordan has continued to play an important role in regional issues, including the Arab-Israeli conflict and crises in neighbouring countries. King Abdullah II continued his father's efforts to modernise the country and improve the economy. He also sought to promote Jordan as an intermediary and mediator in regional conflicts, while maintaining close relations with Western countries, particularly the United States.

Abdullah II's foreign policy was marked by a balance between maintaining solid relations with Western countries and navigating the complex dynamics of the Middle East. Under his reign, Jordan continued to play an active role in Middle East peace efforts and was confronted with the impact of crises in neighbouring countries, notably Iraq and Syria. Internally, Abdullah II faced calls for greater political and economic reform. The Arab Spring uprisings in 2011 also had an impact on Jordan, although the country managed to avoid the large-scale instability seen in other parts of the region. The King has responded to some of these challenges with progressive political reforms and efforts to improve the country's economy.

The historical trajectory of the Hashemites, who played a crucial role in events in the Middle East in the early 20th century, is marked by broken promises and major political adjustments. The Hashemite family, originally from the Hijaz region of Arabia, was at the heart of Arab ambitions for independence and unity during and after the First World War. Their aspirations for a great unified Arab state were encouraged and then disappointed by the European powers, particularly Great Britain.

King Hussein bin Ali, the patriarch of the Hashemites, had aspired to the creation of a great Arab kingdom extending over much of the Middle East. However, the Sykes-Picot Accords of 1916 and the Balfour Declaration of 1917, as well as other political developments, gradually curtailed these aspirations. Eventually, the Hashemites ruled only Transjordan (modern Jordan) and Iraq, where another of Hussein's sons, Faisal, became king. As far as Palestine is concerned, Jordan, under King Hussein, was heavily involved until the Oslo Accords in the 1990s. After the Six Day War in 1967 and Jordan's loss of the West Bank to Israel, King Hussein continued to claim sovereignty over Palestinian territory, despite the lack of effective control.

However, with the Oslo Accords in 1993, which established mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and laid the foundations for Palestinian autonomy, Jordan was forced to reassess its position. In 1988, King Hussein had already officially renounced all Jordanian claims to the West Bank in favour of the PLO, recognising the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. The Oslo Accords consolidated this reality, confirming the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and further marginalising Jordan's role in Palestinian affairs. The Oslo Accords thus marked the end of Jordanian ambitions over Palestine, orienting the peace process towards direct negotiation between Israelis and Palestinians, with Jordan and other regional actors playing a supporting rather than a leading role.

Jordan and International Relations: Strategic Alliance with the United States

Since its creation as an independent state in 1946, Jordan has played a strategic role in Middle Eastern politics, skilfully balancing international relations, particularly with the United States. This privileged relationship with Washington has been essential for Jordan, not only in terms of economic and military aid, but also as diplomatic support in a region often marked by instability and conflict. American economic and military aid has been a pillar of Jordan's development and security. The United States has provided substantial assistance to strengthen Jordan's defensive capabilities, support its economic development and help it manage humanitarian crises, such as the massive influx of Syrian and Iraqi refugees. This aid has enabled Jordan to maintain its internal stability and play an active role in promoting regional peace and security. On the military front, cooperation between Jordan and the United States has been close and fruitful. Joint military exercises and training programmes have strengthened ties between the two countries and enhanced Jordan's ability to contribute to regional security. This military cooperation is also a crucial element for Jordan in the context of the fight against terrorism and extremism. Diplomatically, Jordan has often acted as an intermediary in regional conflicts, a role that corresponds to US interests in the region. Jordan has been involved in Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts and has played a moderating role in the crises in Syria and Iraq. Jordan's geographic position, relative stability and relationship with the United States make it a key player in efforts to mediate and resolve conflicts in the region.

The relationship between Jordan and the United States is not just a strategic alliance; it also reflects a shared understanding of the challenges facing the region. The two countries share common objectives in the fight against terrorism, the promotion of regional stability and the search for diplomatic solutions to conflicts. This relationship is therefore essential for Jordan, enabling it to navigate the complex challenges of the Middle East while benefiting from the support of a major world power.

Iraq

Formation of the Iraqi state (Post-First World War)

The formation of Iraq as a modern state was a direct consequence of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire following the First World War. Iraq, as we know it today, was born of the merger of three historic Ottoman provinces: Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. This merger, orchestrated by the colonial powers, in particular Great Britain, shaped not only Iraq's borders but also its complex internal dynamics.

The province of Mosul, in the north of present-day Iraq, was a strategic region, not least because of its rich oil reserves. The ethnic composition of Mosul, with a significant Kurdish presence, added a further dimension to the political complexity of Iraq. After the war, the status of Mosul was the subject of international debate, with the Turks and the British both laying claim to the region. In the end, the League of Nations ruled in favour of Iraq, integrating Mosul into the new state. The vilayet of Baghdad, in the centre, was the historical and cultural heart of the region. Baghdad, a city with a rich history dating back to the era of the caliphates, continued to play a central role in Iraq's political and cultural life. The ethnic and religious diversity of the province of Baghdad has been a key factor in the political dynamics of modern Iraq. As for the province of Basra, in the south, this region, which is mainly populated by Shiite Arabs, has been an important commercial and port centre. Basra's links with the Persian Gulf and the Arab world were crucial to the Iraqi economy and influenced Iraq's foreign relations.

The merger of these three distinct provinces into a single state under the British mandate was not without its difficulties. Managing ethnic, religious and tribal tensions has been a constant challenge for Iraqi leaders. Iraq's strategic importance was reinforced by the discovery of oil, attracting the attention of Western powers and profoundly influencing the country's political and economic development. The decisions taken during and after the British Mandate laid the foundations for Iraq's political and social complexities, which have continued to manifest themselves throughout its modern history, including the reign of Saddam Hussein and beyond. The formation of Iraq, a mixture of diverse regions and groups, was a key factor in the many challenges the country faced in the following century.

British Influence and Oil Interests (Early 20th Century)

Britain's fascination with Iraq in the first half of the 20th century was part of a wider framework of British imperial policy, in which geostrategy and natural resources played a prominent role. Iraq, with its direct access to the Persian Gulf and proximity to oil-rich Persia, quickly became a territory of major interest to Britain as it sought to extend its influence in the Middle East. Iraq's strategic importance was linked to its geographical position, offering access to the Persian Gulf, a crucial waterway for trade and maritime communications. This control gave Britain an advantage in securing vital trade and shipping routes, particularly in relation to its colonial empire in India and beyond. Oil, which became a strategically vital resource in the early 20th century, heightened Britain's interest in Iraq and the surrounding region. The discovery of oil in Persia (modern-day Iran) by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later British Petroleum, or BP) highlighted the region's oil potential. Great Britain, anxious to secure oil supplies for its navy and industry, saw Iraq as a key territory for its energy interests.

The British Mandate in Iraq, established by the League of Nations after the First World War, gave Britain considerable control over the formation of the Iraqi state. However, this period was marked by tensions and resistance, as evidenced by the Iraqi revolt of 1920, a significant reaction to British rule and attempts to implant foreign administrative and political structures. British actions in Iraq were guided by a combination of imperial objectives and practical necessity. As the 20th century progressed, Iraq became an increasingly complex issue in British politics, especially with the emergence of Arab nationalism and the rise of demands for independence. Britain's role in Iraq, and more widely in the Middle East, has therefore been a mixture of imperial strategy, natural resource management and responding to the ever-changing political dynamics of the region.

Role of Mosul and Ethnic Diversity (Early 20th century)

The Mosul region of northern Iraq has always been of crucial importance in the historical and political context of the Middle East. Its significance is due to several key factors that have made it a coveted territory over the centuries, particularly by Great Britain during the colonial era. The discovery of oil in the Mosul region was a major turning point. In the early 20th century, as the importance of oil as a global strategic resource became increasingly apparent, Mosul emerged as a territory of immense economic value. The region's substantial oil reserves attracted the attention of imperial powers, particularly Great Britain, which sought to secure sources of oil for its industrial and military needs. This hydrocarbon wealth not only stimulated international interest in Mosul, but also played a key role in shaping Iraqi politics and economy over the next century. In addition, Mosul's geographical position, close to the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, gives it particular strategic importance. The control of water sources in this arid region is vital for agriculture, the economy and daily life. This geographical importance has made Mosul an issue in international relations and regional dynamics, particularly in the context of tensions over the distribution of water in the region. Control of Mosul was also seen as essential to the stability of Iraq as a whole. Because of its ethnic and cultural diversity, with a population made up of Kurds, Arabs, Turkmen, Assyrians and other groups, the region has been an important cultural and political crossroads. Managing this diversity and integrating Mosul into the Iraqi state have been constant challenges for successive Iraqi governments. Maintaining stability in the northern region was crucial to Iraq's national cohesion and unity.

Gertrude Bell's Contribution and Foundations of Modern Iraq (Early 20th Century)

Gertrude Bell's contribution to the formation of modern Iraq is an eloquent example of Western influence in the redefinition of borders and national identities in the Middle East in the early 20th century. Bell, a British archaeologist and colonial administrator, played a crucial role in the creation of the Iraqi state, notably by advocating the use of the term "Iraq", a name of Arabic origin, instead of "Mesopotamia", of Greek origin. This choice symbolised recognition of the region's Arab identity, as opposed to a designation imposed by foreign powers. However, as Pierre-Jean Luisard pointed out in his analysis of the Iraqi question, the foundations of modern Iraq were also the cradle of future problems. The structure of Iraq, conceived and implemented by colonial powers, brought together diverse ethnic and religious groups under a single state, creating a breeding ground for persistent tension and conflict. The domination of Sunnis, who are often in the minority, over Shiites, who are in the majority, has given rise to sectarian tensions and conflicts, exacerbated by discriminatory policies and ideological differences. In addition, the marginalisation of the Kurds, a large ethnic group in northern Iraq, has fuelled demands for autonomy and recognition, often repressed by the central government.

These internal tensions were exacerbated under the regime of Saddam Hussein, who ruled Iraq with an iron fist, exacerbating sectarian and ethnic divisions. The Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), the Anfal campaign against the Kurds, and the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 are examples of how Iraq's internal and external policies were influenced by these power dynamics. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 by a US-led coalition and the fall of Saddam Hussein ushered in a new period of conflict and instability, revealing the fragility of the foundations on which the Iraqi state had been built. The years that followed were marked by increased sectarian violence, internal power struggles and the emergence of extremist groups such as the Islamic State, which took advantage of the political vacuum and the disintegration of the state order. The story of Iraq is one of a state shaped by foreign influences and facing complex internal challenges. Gertrude Bell's contribution, while significant in the formation of Iraq, was part of a wider context of nation-building and conflict that continued to shape the country well beyond its founding.

Divide and rule and Sunni domination (early 20th century)

Britain's colonial approach to the creation and management of Iraq is a classic example of the 'divide and rule' strategy, which had a profound impact on Iraq's political and social structure. According to this approach, colonial powers often favoured a minority within society in order to keep it in power, thereby ensuring its dependence and loyalty to the metropolis, while at the same time weakening national unity. In the case of Iraq, the British installed the Sunni minority in power, despite the fact that Shiites made up the majority of the population. In 1920, Faisal I, a member of the Hashemite royal family, was installed as ruler of the newly formed Iraq. Faisal, despite having roots in the Arabian Peninsula, was chosen by the British for his pan-Arab legitimacy and his presumed ability to unify the various ethnic and religious groups under his rule. However, this decision exacerbated sectarian and ethnic tensions in the country. Shiites and Kurds, feeling marginalised and excluded from political power, were quick to express their discontent. As early as 1925, Shiite and Kurdish uprisings broke out in response to this marginalisation and to the policies implemented by the Sunni-dominated government. These protests were violently suppressed, sometimes with the help of the British Royal Air Force, with the aim of stabilising the state and maintaining colonial control. The use of force to quell the Shiite and Kurdish revolts laid the foundations for continuing instability in Iraq. British-backed Sunni domination engendered long-lasting resentment among Shia and Kurdish populations, contributing to cycles of rebellion and repression that marked Iraqi history throughout the 20th century. This dynamic also fuelled nationalist sentiment among Shiites and Kurds, reinforcing their aspirations for greater autonomy and even independence, particularly in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq.

Independence and Continued British Influence (1932)

Iraq's accession to independence in 1932 represented a pivotal moment in the history of the Middle East, highlighting the complexity of decolonisation and the continuing influence of the colonial powers. Iraq became the first state, created from scratch by a League of Nations mandate following the First World War, to formally achieve independence. This event marked an important stage in Iraq's evolution from a British protectorate to a sovereign state. Iraq's membership of the League of Nations in 1932 was hailed as a sign of its status as an independent and sovereign nation. However, this independence was in practice hampered by the maintenance of considerable British influence over Iraq's internal affairs. Although Iraq formally gained sovereignty, the British continued to exercise indirect control over the country.

This control was expressed in particular in the Iraqi government administration, where each Iraqi minister had a British assistant. These assistants, often experienced administrators, had an advisory role, but their presence also symbolised British control over Iraqi politics. This situation created an environment where Iraqi sovereignty was in part hampered by British influence and interests. This period in Iraqi history was also marked by internal tensions and political challenges. The Iraqi government, while sovereign, had to navigate a complex landscape of ethnic and religious divisions, while managing the expectations and pressures of the former colonial powers. These dynamics contributed to periods of instability and internal conflict, reflecting the difficulties inherent in Iraq's transition from mandate to independent nation. Iraq's independence in 1932, although an important milestone, did not put an end to foreign influence in the country. On the contrary, it marked the beginning of a new phase of international relations and domestic challenges for Iraq, shaping its political and social development in the decades that followed.

1941 Coup and British Intervention (1941)

In 1941, Iraq was the scene of a critical event that illustrated the fragility of its independence and the persistence of British influence in the country. It was the year of the coup d'état led by Rashid Ali al-Gaylani, which triggered a series of events culminating in British military intervention. Rashid Ali, who had previously served as Prime Minister, led a coup against the pro-British government in place. The coup was motivated by a variety of factors, including Arab nationalism, opposition to the British presence and influence in Iraq, and growing anti-colonial sentiments among certain factions of the Iraqi political and military elite.

Rashid Ali's seizure of power was seen as a direct threat to Britain, not least because of Iraq's strategic position during the Second World War. Iraq, with its access to oil and its geographical position, was crucial to British interests in the region, particularly in the context of the war against the Axis powers. In response to the coup, Britain quickly intervened militarily. Fearing that Iraq would fall under Axis influence or disrupt oil and supply routes, British forces launched a campaign to overthrow Rashid Ali and restore a British-friendly government. The operation was swift and decisive, ending Rashid Ali's brief reign. Following this intervention, Britain placed a new king in power, reasserting its influence over Iraqi politics. This period underlined Iraq's vulnerability to foreign intervention and highlighted the limits of its sovereign independence. The British intervention of 1941 also had a lasting impact on Iraqi politics, fuelling an anti-British and anti-colonial sentiment that continued to influence future political events in the country.

Iraq during the Cold War and the Baghdad Pact (1955)

Iraq's history during the Cold War is an example of how the geopolitical interests of the superpowers continued to influence and shape the internal and external politics of the countries in the region. During this period, Iraq became a key player in the containment strategies pursued by the United States against the Soviet Union.

In 1955, Iraq played a major role in the formation of the Baghdad Pact, a military and political alliance initiated by the United States. This pact, also known as the Middle East Pact, aimed to establish a security cordon in the region to counter the influence and expansion of the Soviet Union. In addition to Iraq, the pact included Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and the UK, forming a united front against communism in a strategically important region. The Baghdad Pact was in line with the United States' policy of "containment", which sought to limit Soviet expansion around the world. This policy was motivated by the perception of a growing Soviet threat and the desire to prevent the spread of communism, particularly in strategic areas such as the oil-rich Middle East.

However, Iraq's involvement in the Baghdad Pact had internal implications. This alliance with the Western powers was controversial within the Iraqi population and exacerbated internal political tensions. The pact was seen by many as a continuation of foreign interference in Iraqi affairs and fuelled nationalist and anti-Western sentiment among certain factions. In 1958, Iraq experienced a coup that overthrew the monarchy and established the Republic of Iraq. The coup was largely motivated by anti-Western sentiments and opposition to the monarchy's pro-Western foreign policy. After the coup, Iraq withdrew from the Baghdad Pact, marking a significant change in its foreign policy and underlining the complexity of its geopolitical position during the Cold War.

1958 Revolution and Rise of Baathism (1958)

The 1958 revolution in Iraq was a decisive turning point in the country's modern history, marking the end of the monarchy and the establishment of the Republic. This period of profound political and social change in Iraq coincided with major political developments in other parts of the Arab world, in particular the formation of the United Arab Republic (UAR) by Egypt and Syria. Abdel Karim Kassem, an Iraqi army officer, played a key role in the 1958 coup that overthrew the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq. After the revolution, Kassem became the first Prime Minister of the Republic of Iraq. His seizure of power was met with widespread popular support, as many saw him as a leader capable of leading Iraq into an era of reform and greater independence from foreign influence. Meanwhile, in 1958, Egypt and Syria merged to form the United Arab Republic, a pan-Arab unification effort led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. The UAR represented an attempt at political unity between Arab nations, based on Arab nationalism and anti-imperialism. However, Abdel Karim Kassem chose not to join the RAU. He had his own visions for Iraq, which differed from Nasser's model.

Kassem focused on consolidating power in Iraq and sought to strengthen his internal support by reaching out to groups that were often marginalised in Iraqi society, notably the Kurds and Shiites. Under his regime, Iraq underwent a period of social and economic reform. In particular, Kassem enacted land reforms and worked to modernise the Iraqi economy. However, his government was also marked by political tensions and conflicts. Kassem's policies towards the Kurds and the Shiites, although aimed at inclusion, also gave rise to tensions with other groups and regional powers. In addition, his regime faced stability challenges and internal opposition, including coup attempts and conflicts with rival political factions.

The post-revolutionary period in Iraq in the early 1960s was marked by rapid and often violent political change, with the emergence of Baathism as a significant political force. Abdel Karim Kassem, who had ruled Iraq since the 1958 revolution, was overthrown and killed in a coup d'état in 1963. The coup was orchestrated by a group of Arab nationalists and members of the Baath Party, a pan-Arab socialist political organisation. The Baath Party, founded in Syria, had gained influence in several Arab countries, including Iraq, and advocated Arab unity, socialism and secularism. Abdel Salam Aref, who replaced Kassem at the head of Iraq, was a member of the Ba'ath party and held different political views to those of his predecessor. Unlike Kassem, Aref favoured the idea of a United Arab Republic and supported the concept of pan-Arab unity. His accession to power marked a significant change in Iraqi politics, with a move towards policies more aligned with Baathist ideals.

The death of Abdel Salam Aref in a helicopter crash in 1966 led to another transition of power. His brother, Abdul Rahman Aref, succeeded him as President. The Aref brothers' period of governance was a time when Baathism began to gain a foothold in Iraq, although their regime was also marked by instability and internal power struggles. Baathism in Iraq, although having common origins with Syrian Baathism, developed its own characteristics and dynamics. The governments of Abdel Salam Aref and Abdul Rahman Aref faced various challenges, including internal tensions within the Baath Party and opposition from different social and political groups. These tensions eventually led to another coup in 1968, led by the Iraqi sector of the Baath Party, which saw the rise of figures such as Saddam Hussein into the ranks of the Iraqi leadership.

Saddam Hussein's reign and the Iran-Iraq War (1979 - 1988)

Saddam Hussein's rise to power in 1979 marked a new era in Iraq's political and social history. As the dominant figure in the Ba'ath Party, Saddam Hussein undertook a series of reforms and policies aimed at strengthening state control and modernising Iraqi society, while consolidating his own power. One of the key aspects of Saddam Hussein's governance was the process of tribal statehood, a strategy aimed at integrating traditional tribal structures into the state apparatus. The aim of this approach was to win the support of the tribes, particularly the Tiplit, by involving them in government structures and granting them certain privileges. In return, these tribes provided crucial support to Saddam Hussein, thereby strengthening his regime.

In parallel with this tribal policy, Saddam Hussein launched ambitious modernisation programmes in various sectors such as education, the economy and housing. These programmes aimed to transform Iraq into a modern, developed nation. A major element of this modernisation was the nationalisation of Iraq's oil industry, which allowed the government to control a vital resource and fund its development initiatives. However, despite these modernisation efforts, the Iraqi economy under Saddam Hussein was largely based on a clientelist system. This clientelist system involved the distribution of favours, resources and government positions to individuals and groups in exchange for their political support. This approach created a dependency on the regime and contributed to the maintenance of a network of loyalty to Saddam Hussein. Although Saddam Hussein's initiatives led to certain economic and social developments, they were also accompanied by political repression and human rights violations. Saddam Hussein's consolidation of power has often been at the expense of political freedom and opposition, leading to internal tensions and conflict.

The Iran-Iraq war, which began in 1980 and continued until 1988, is one of the bloodiest and most destructive conflicts of the 20th century. Initiated by Saddam Hussein, the war had far-reaching consequences for both Iraq and Iran, as well as for the region as a whole. Saddam Hussein, seeking to exploit Iran's apparent vulnerability in the wake of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, launched an offensive against Iran. He feared that the revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini would spread to Iraq, particularly among the country's Shiite majority, and destabilise his predominantly Sunni Baathist regime. In addition, Saddam Hussein aimed to establish Iraq's regional dominance and control over oil-rich territories, particularly in the border region of Shatt al-Arab. The war quickly escalated into a protracted and costly conflict, characterised by trench fighting, chemical attacks and massive human suffering. More than half a million soldiers were killed on both sides, and millions of people were affected by the destruction and displacement.

Regionally, the war has led to complex alliances. Syria, led by Hafez al-Assad, chose to support Iran, despite ideological differences, partly because of the Syrian-Iraqi rivalry. Iran also received support from Hezbollah, a Shiite militant organisation based in Lebanon. These alliances reflected the growing political and sectarian divisions in the region. The war finally ended in 1988, with no clear winner. The ceasefire, negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations, left the borders largely unchanged and no significant reparations were made. The conflict left both countries severely weakened and in debt, and laid the foundations for future conflicts in the region, including Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and subsequent interventions in the region by the United States and its allies.

The end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 was a crucial moment, marking the end of eight years of bitter conflict and considerable human suffering. Iran, under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini, finally accepted United Nations Security Council Resolution 598, which called for an immediate ceasefire and an end to hostilities between the two countries. Iran's decision to accept the ceasefire came against a backdrop of growing difficulties on the home front and an increasingly unfavourable military situation. Despite initial efforts to resist Iraqi aggression and make territorial gains, Iran has been under enormous economic and military pressure, exacerbated by international isolation and the human and material costs of the protracted conflict.

A particularly disturbing element of the war was Iraq's use of chemical weapons, a tactic that marked a dramatic escalation in the violence of the conflict. Iraqi forces used chemical weapons on several occasions against Iranian forces and even against their own Kurdish population, as in the infamous Halabja massacre in 1988, when thousands of Kurdish civilians were killed by poison gas. Iraq's use of chemical weapons was widely condemned internationally and contributed to the diplomatic isolation of Saddam Hussein's regime. The 1988 ceasefire ended one of the bloodiest conflicts of the second half of the 20th century, but it left behind devastated countries and a region deeply scarred by the aftermath of war. Neither Iran nor Iraq succeeded in achieving the ambitious goals they had set themselves at the start of the conflict, and the war was ultimately characterised by its tragic futility and enormous human cost.

Invasion of Kuwait and Gulf War (1990 - 1991)

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, under the command of Saddam Hussein, triggered a series of major events on the international stage, leading to the Gulf War of 1991. The invasion was motivated by a number of factors, including territorial claims, disputes over oil production and economic tensions. Saddam Hussein justified the invasion by claiming that Kuwait was historically part of Iraq. He also voiced grievances about Kuwait's oil production, which he accused of exceeding OPEC quotas, thereby contributing to the fall in oil prices and affecting the Iraqi economy, already weakened by the long war with Iran. The international response to the invasion was swift and firm. The United Nations Security Council condemned the invasion and imposed a strict economic embargo against Iraq. Subsequently, a coalition of international forces, led by the United States, was formed to liberate Kuwait. Although the operation was sanctioned by the UN, it was widely perceived as being dominated by the US, due to its leadership role and significant military contribution.

The Gulf War, which began in January 1991, was brief but intense. The massive air campaign and subsequent ground operation quickly expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait. However, the embargo imposed on Iraq had devastating consequences for the Iraqi civilian population. The economic sanctions, combined with the destruction of infrastructure during the war, led to a serious humanitarian crisis in Iraq, with shortages of food, medicine and other essential supplies. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent Gulf War had a major impact on the region and on international relations. Iraq found itself isolated on the international stage, and Saddam Hussein faced increased internal and external challenges. This period also marked a turning point in US policy in the Middle East, strengthening its military and political presence in the region.

Impact of the September 11th Attack and the American Invasion (2003)

The period after 11 September 2001 marked a significant turning point in US foreign policy, particularly with regard to Iraq. Under President George W. Bush, Iraq was increasingly seen as part of what Bush described as the "Axis of Evil", an expression that fuelled the American public and political imagination in the context of the fight against international terrorism. Although Iraq was not directly involved in the 11 September attacks, the Bush administration put forward the theory that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and represented a threat to global security. This perception was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a decision that was widely controversial, particularly after it was revealed that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction.

The invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by US-led forces resulted in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, but also led to unforeseen consequences and long-term instability. One of the most criticised policies of the US administration in Iraq was "de-Baathification", which aimed to eradicate the influence of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. This policy included the disbanding of the Iraqi army and the dismantling of many administrative and governmental structures. However, de-Baathification created a power vacuum and exacerbated sectarian and ethnic tensions in Iraq. Many former members of the army and the Ba'ath party, suddenly deprived of their jobs and status, found themselves marginalised and in some cases joined insurgent groups. This situation contributed to the emergence and rise to power of jihadist groups such as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which later became the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (EIIL), known as Daesh. The chaos and instability that followed the US invasion were key factors in the rise of the new jihadism represented by Daesh, which exploited the political vacuum, sectarian tensions and insecurity to extend its influence. The US intervention in Iraq, although initially presented as an effort to bring democracy and stability, has had profound and lasting consequences, plunging the country into a period of conflict, violence and instability that has persisted for many years.

The withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in 2009 marked a new phase in the country's political history, characterised by the rise of Shiite groups and changes in power dynamics. After decades of marginalisation under the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime, Iraq's Shiite majority gained political influence following the fall of Saddam Hussein and the process of political reconstruction that followed the US invasion in 2003. With the establishment of a more representative government and the organisation of democratic elections, Shiite political parties, which had been repressed under Saddam Hussein's regime, have gained a prominent role in the new Iraqi political landscape. Shiite political figures, often supported by Iran, began to occupy key positions within the government, reflecting the demographic and political change in the country.

However, this shift in power has also led to tension and conflict. Sunni and Kurdish communities, who had held positions of power under Saddam Hussein's regime or had sought autonomy, as in the case of Iraqi Kurdistan, found themselves marginalised in the new political order. This marginalisation, combined with the disbanding of the Iraqi army and other policies implemented after the invasion, created a sense of alienation and frustration among these groups. The marginalisation of Sunnis, in particular, has contributed to a climate of insecurity and discontent, creating fertile ground for insurgency and terrorism. Groups such as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and later the Islamic State (Daesh), took advantage of these divisions to recruit members and extend their influence, leading to a period of intense sectarian violence and conflict.

Israel

The beginnings of Zionism and the Balfour Declaration

The creation of the State of Israel in 1948 is a major historical event that has been interpreted in different ways, reflecting the complexities and tensions inherent in this period of history. On the one hand, it can be seen as the culmination of diplomatic and political efforts, marked by key decisions at international level. On the other, it is seen as the culmination of a national struggle, driven by the Zionist movement and the aspirations of the Jewish people for self-determination.

The Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which the British government supported the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, laid the foundations for the creation of Israel. Although this declaration was a promise rather than a legally binding commitment, it was a key moment in the international recognition of Zionist aspirations. The British Mandate over Palestine, established after the First World War, then served as the administrative framework for the region, although tensions between the Jewish and Arab communities increased during this period. The partition plan for Palestine proposed by the UN in 1947, which envisaged the creation of two independent states, Jewish and Arab, with Jerusalem under international control, was another decisive moment. Although this plan was accepted by Jewish leaders, it was rejected by Arab parties, leading to open conflict after the British withdrawal from the region.

Israel's War of Independence, which followed the proclamation of the State of Israel in May 1948 by David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister, was marked by fierce fighting against the armies of several neighbouring Arab countries. This war was a struggle for existence and sovereignty for the Israelis and a tragic moment of loss and displacement for the Palestinians, an event known as the Nakba (the catastrophe). The founding of Israel was thus greeted with jubilation by many Jews around the world, particularly in the context of persecution during the Second World War and the Holocaust. For Palestinians and many in the Arab world, however, 1948 was synonymous with loss and the beginning of a long conflict. The creation of Israel was therefore a pivotal event, not only for the people of the region, but also in the wider context of international relations, profoundly influencing Middle East politics in the decades that followed.

The Balfour Declaration, written on 2 November 1917, is a crucial document for understanding the origins of the State of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Drafted by Arthur James Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary at the time, the Declaration was sent to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The text of the Balfour Declaration pledged the British government's support for the establishment in Palestine of a "national home for the Jewish people", while stipulating that this should not prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in the country, nor the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. However, the non-Jewish populations of Palestine were not explicitly named in the document, which has been interpreted as a significant omission. The reasons behind the Balfour Declaration were multiple and complex, involving both British diplomatic and strategic considerations during the First World War. These included the desire to win Jewish support for Allied war efforts, particularly in Russia where the Bolshevik Revolution had created uncertainties, and the strategic interest in Palestine as a key region close to the Suez Canal, vital to the British Empire. The issue of the Balfour Declaration marked a turning point in the history of the region, as it was interpreted by the Zionists as international support for their aspiration to a national home in Palestine. For the Arab Palestinians, on the other hand, it was seen as a betrayal and a threat to their territorial and national claims. This dichotomy of perceptions laid the foundations for the tensions and conflict that followed in the region.

The historical context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complex and extends well before the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The Jewish presence in Jerusalem and other parts of historic Palestine dates back millennia, although the demographics and composition of the population have fluctuated over time as a result of various historical events, including periods of exile and diaspora. During the 1800s and particularly in the 1830s, a significant migration of Jews to Palestine began, partly in response to persecution and pogroms in the Russian Empire and other parts of Europe. This migration, often seen as part of the first Aliyahs (ascents) within the nascent Zionist movement, was motivated by the desire to return to the Jewish ancestral homeland and to rebuild a Jewish presence in Palestine.

An important aspect of this Jewish revival was the Askala or Haskala (Jewish Renaissance), a movement among European Jews, particularly Ashkenazim, to modernise Jewish culture and integrate into European society. This movement encouraged education, the adoption of local languages and customs, while promoting a renewed and dynamic Jewish identity. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, often cited as the father of modern Hebrew, played a crucial role in the revival of Hebrew as a living language. His work was essential to Jewish cultural and national renewal, giving the Jewish community in Palestine a unifying means of communication and strengthening their distinct cultural identity.

These cultural and migratory developments helped lay the foundations for political Zionism, a nationalist movement aimed at establishing a Jewish national home in Palestine. Zionism gained popularity in the late 19th century, partly in response to anti-Semitic persecution in Europe and the aspiration for self-determination. Jewish migration to Palestine in the 19th and early 20th centuries coincided with the long-standing presence of Palestinian Arab communities, leading to demographic changes and growing tensions in the region. These tensions, exacerbated by the policies of the British Mandate and international events, eventually led to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict we know today.

The history of the Zionist movement and the emergence of the idea of a Jewish national home is closely linked to the Jewish diaspora in Europe and the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This period was marked by a renewal of Jewish thought and a growing awareness of the challenges facing the Jewish community in Europe, particularly anti-Semitism. Leon Pinsker, a Russian Jewish physician and intellectual, was a key figure in the early stages of Zionism. Influenced by pogroms and anti-Semitic persecution in Russia, Pinsker wrote "Self-Emancipation" in 1882, a pamphlet that argued for the need for a national homeland for Jews. Pinsker believed that anti-Semitism was a permanent and inevitable phenomenon in Europe and that the only solution for the Jewish people was autonomy in their own territory. Theodore Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian journalist and writer, is often regarded as the father of modern political Zionism. Deeply affected by the Dreyfus Affair in France, where a Jewish officer, Alfred Dreyfus, was falsely accused of espionage in a climate of blatant anti-Semitism, Herzl came to the conclusion that assimilation would not protect Jews from discrimination and persecution. This case was a catalyst for Herzl, leading him to write "The State of the Jews" in 1896, in which he argued for the creation of a Jewish state. Contrary to popular belief, Herzl did not specifically envisage founding the Jewish national home in France, but rather in Palestine or, failing that, in another territory offered by a colonial power. Herzl's idea was to find a place where Jews could establish themselves as a sovereign nation and live freely, away from European anti-Semitism. Herzl was the driving force behind the First Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897, which laid the foundations of the Zionist movement as a political organisation. This congress brought together Jewish delegates from diverse backgrounds to discuss the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine.

Antisemitism and Jewish Migration

Anti-Semitism has a long and complex history, deeply rooted in European religious and socio-economic beliefs, particularly during the Middle Ages. One of the most prominent aspects of historical anti-Semitism is the notion of the "deicidal people", an accusation that the Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. This idea was widely promulgated in European Christendom and served as a justification for various forms of persecution and discrimination against Jews over the centuries. This belief contributed to the marginalisation of Jews and their portrayal as 'other' or foreign within Christian society.

In the Middle Ages, the restrictions imposed on Jews in the professional and social spheres had a significant impact on their place in society. As a result of Church laws and restrictions, Jews were often prevented from owning land or practising certain professions. For example, in many areas, they could not be members of guilds, which limited their opportunities in trade and crafts. These restrictions led many Jews to turn to trades such as money-lending, an activity often forbidden to Christians because of the Church's ban on usury. Although this activity provided a necessary economic niche, it also reinforced certain negative stereotypes and contributed to economic anti-Semitism. Jews were sometimes perceived as usurers and associated with avarice, which exacerbated mistrust and hostility towards them. In addition, Jews were often confined to specific neighbourhoods, known as ghettos, which limited their interaction with the Christian population and reinforced their isolation. This segregation, combined with religious and economic anti-Semitism, created an environment in which persecution, such as pogroms, could occur. Medieval anti-Semitism, rooted in religious beliefs and reinforced by socio-economic structures, thus laid the foundations for centuries of discrimination and persecution against Jews in Europe. This painful history was one of the factors that fuelled Zionist aspirations for a secure and sovereign national home.

The evolution of anti-Semitism in the 19th century represents a significant turning point, when prejudice and discrimination against Jews began to be based more on racial notions than on religious or cultural differences. This change marked the birth of what is known as 'modern' anti-Semitism, which laid the ideological foundations for 20th century anti-Semitism, including the Holocaust. In the pre-modern period, anti-Semitism was mainly rooted in religious differences, with accusations of deicide and negative stereotypes associated with Jews as a religious group. However, with the Enlightenment and the emancipation of Jews in many European countries in the 19th century, antisemitism began to take on a new form. This 'modern' form of anti-Semitism was characterised by the belief in the existence of distinct races with inherent biological and moral characteristics. Jews were seen not only as a distinct religious community, but also as a separate 'race', with hereditary traits and presumed behaviours that made them different and, in the eyes of anti-Semites, inferior or dangerous to society.

This racial ideology was reinforced by various pseudoscientific theories and writings, including those of figures such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an influential racial theorist whose ideas contributed to Nazi racial theory. Racial anti-Semitism found its most extreme expression in Nazi ideology, which used racist theories to justify the systematic persecution and extermination of Jews during the Holocaust. The transition from religious anti-Semitism to racial anti-Semitism in the 19th century was therefore a crucial development, fuelling more intense and systematic forms of discrimination and persecution against Jews. This development also contributed to the urgency felt by the Zionist movement for the creation of a Jewish nation-state where Jews could live in security and be free from such persecution.

The Zionist Movement and Settlement in Palestine

The end of the 19th century was a crucial period for the Jewish people and marked a decisive turning point in the history of Zionism, a movement that would eventually lead to the creation of the State of Israel. This period was characterised by a combination of response to anti-Semitic persecution in Europe and a growing desire for self-determination and a return to their ancestral homeland. The Hovevei Zion (Lovers of Zion) movement played a fundamental role in the early stages of Zionism. Formed by Jews mainly from Eastern Europe, this movement aimed to encourage Jewish immigration to Palestine and to establish a base for the Jewish community in the region. Inspired by the pogroms and discrimination in Russia and elsewhere, members of Hovevei Zion implemented agricultural and settlement projects, laying the foundations for Jewish renewal in Palestine. However, it was the first Zionist Congress, organised by Theodor Herzl in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland, that marked a historic milestone. Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian journalist deeply affected by the anti-Semitism he had observed, particularly during the Dreyfus affair in France, understood the need for a Jewish national home. The Basel Congress brought together Jewish delegates from various countries and served as a platform for articulating and propagating the Zionist idea. The most notable outcome of the Congress was the formulation of the Basel Programme, which called for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. The Congress also led to the creation of the World Zionist Organisation, charged with promoting the Zionist goal. Under Herzl's leadership, the Zionist movement gained legitimacy and international support, despite challenges and controversies. Herzl's vision, although largely symbolic at the time, provided a framework and direction for Jewish aspirations, transforming an idea into a tangible political movement. The period at the end of the 19th century was pivotal in the formation of the Zionist movement and set the stage for future events that would lead to the creation of the State of Israel. It reflects a period when the historical challenges faced by Jews in Europe converged with a renewed desire for self-determination, shaping the course of Jewish and Middle Eastern history.

The early 20th century was a significant period of development and transformation for the Jewish community in Palestine, marked by an increase in Jewish immigration and the creation of new social and urban structures. Between 1903 and 1914, a period known as the "Second Aliyah", around 30,000 Jews, mainly from the Russian Empire, immigrated to Palestine. This wave of immigration was motivated by a combination of factors, including anti-Semitic persecution in the Russian Empire and the Zionist aspiration to establish a Jewish national home. This period saw the creation of the city of Tel Aviv in 1909, which became a symbol of Jewish renewal and Zionism. Tel Aviv was conceived as a modern city, planned from the outset to be an urban centre for the growing Jewish community. One of the most innovative developments of this period was the creation of Kibbutzim. Kibbutzim were agricultural communities based on principles of collective ownership and communal work. They played a crucial role in Jewish settlement in Palestine, providing not only a means of subsistence, but also contributing to the defence and security of Jewish communities. Their importance went beyond agriculture, as they served as centres for culture, education and social Zionism.

The period between 1921 and 1931 saw a new wave of immigration, known as the "Third Aliyah", during which around 150,000 Jews arrived in Palestine. This significant increase in the Jewish population was partly stimulated by the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe, particularly in Poland and Russia, and by British policies in Palestine. These immigrants brought with them a variety of skills, contributing to the economic and social development of the region. Jewish immigration during this period was a key factor in the demographic configuration of Palestine, leading to substantial social and economic changes. It also exacerbated tensions with Palestinian Arab communities, who saw this growing immigration as a threat to their territorial and demographic claims. These tensions eventually escalated, leading to conflict and unrest in the following years and decades.

The period following the Balfour Declaration in 1917 was marked by a significant increase in tensions and conflicts between the Jewish and Arab communities in Palestine. The Declaration, which expressed the British government's support for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, was enthusiastically welcomed by many Jews but provoked opposition and animosity among the Palestinian Arab population. These tensions manifested themselves in a series of confrontations and violence between the two communities. The 1920s and 1930s witnessed several episodes of violence, including riots and massacres, in which both sides suffered casualties. These incidents reflected rising nationalist tensions on both sides and the struggle for control and the future of Palestine.

In response to these rising tensions and the perceived need to defend themselves against attack, the Jewish community in Palestine formed the Haganah in 1920. The Haganah, which means "defence" in Hebrew, was initially a clandestine defence organisation designed to protect Jewish communities from Arab attack. It was founded by a group of representatives of Jewish settlements and Zionist organisations in response to the Jerusalem riots of 1920. The Haganah evolved over time from a local defence force into a more structured military organisation. Although primarily defensive in its early years, the Haganah developed a more robust military capability, including the training of elite forces and the acquisition of weapons, in anticipation of wider conflict with Arab communities and neighbouring countries. The formation of the Haganah was a crucial development in the history of the Zionist movement and played an important role in the events that led to the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. The Haganah formed the nucleus of what would later become the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), the official army of the State of Israel.

The collaboration of Zionist circles with the proxy powers, in particular Great Britain, which had received the mandate from the League of Nations to govern Palestine after the First World War, played an important role in the development of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This cooperation was crucial to the progress of the Zionist movement, but it also fuelled tensions and anger among the Palestinian Arab population. The relationship between the Zionists and the British proxy authorities was complex and at times conflictual, but the Zionists sought to use this relationship to further their aims in Palestine. Zionist efforts to establish a Jewish national home were often seen by Palestinian Arabs as being supported, or at least tolerated, by the British, exacerbating tensions and mistrust.

An important aspect of Zionist strategy during the Mandate period was the purchase of land in Palestine. The Jewish Agency, established in 1929, played a key role in this strategy. The Jewish Agency was an organisation that represented the Jewish community to the British authorities and coordinated the various aspects of the Zionist project in Palestine, including immigration, settlement building, education and, crucially, land acquisition. The acquisition of land by Jews in Palestine was a major source of conflict, as it often led to the displacement of local Arab populations. Palestinian Arabs saw the purchase of land and Jewish immigration as a threat to their presence and future in the region. These land deals not only changed the demographic composition and landscape of Palestine, but also contributed to the intensification of nationalist sentiment among Palestinian Arabs.

The year 1937 marked a turning point in the British management of the Mandate of Palestine and revealed the first signs of British disengagement in the face of escalating tensions and violence between the Jewish and Arab communities. The complexity and intensity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict challenged British efforts to maintain peace and order, leading to a growing recognition of the impossibility of satisfying both Zionist aspirations and Palestinian Arab demands.

In 1937, the Peel Commission, a British commission of enquiry, published its report recommending for the first time the partition of Palestine into two separate states, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem under international control. This proposal was a response to escalating violence, particularly during the Great Arab Revolt of 1936-1939, a mass insurrection by Palestinian Arabs against British rule and Jewish immigration. The partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission was rejected by both sides for various reasons. The Palestinian Arab leaders rejected the plan because it implied the recognition of a Jewish state in Palestine. On the other hand, although some Zionist leaders saw the plan as a step towards a larger Jewish state, others rejected it because it did not meet their territorial expectations.

This period was also marked by the emergence of extremist groups on both sides. On the Jewish side, groups such as the Irgun and the Lehi (also known as the Stern Gang) began to carry out military operations against Palestinian Arabs and the British, including bombings. These groups adopted a more militant approach than the Haganah, the Jewish community's main defence organisation, in pursuit of the Zionist goal. On the Arab side, violence also intensified, with attacks on Jews and British interests. The Arab revolt was a sign of growing opposition to both British policy and Jewish immigration. Britain's inability to resolve the conflict and extremist responses on both sides created an increasingly unstable and violent climate, laying the foundations for future conflict and further complicating efforts to find a peaceful and lasting solution to the Palestine question.

The UN Partition Plan and the War of Independence

In 1947, faced with the continuing escalation of tensions and violence in Mandatory Palestine, the United Nations proposed a new partition plan in an attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This plan, recommended by UN General Assembly Resolution 181, envisaged the division of Palestine into two independent states, one Jewish and the other Arab, with Jerusalem placed under a special international regime. Under the UN partition plan, Palestine would be divided in such a way as to give each state a majority of its respective population. The Jerusalem area, including Bethlehem, would be established as a corpus separatum under international administration, because of its religious and historical importance to Jews, Christians and Muslims. However, the UN partition plan was rejected by the majority of Arab leaders and peoples. Palestinian Arabs and neighbouring Arab states felt that the plan did not respect their national and territorial claims, and that it was unfair in terms of land distribution, given that the Jewish population was then a minority in Palestine. They saw the plan as a continuation of the pro-Zionist policy of the Western powers and as a violation of their right to self-determination.

The Jewish community in Palestine, represented by the Jewish Agency, accepted the plan, seeing it as a historic opportunity for the creation of a Jewish state. For the Jews, the plan represented international recognition of their national aspirations and a crucial step towards independence. The rejection of the partition plan by the Arabs led to an intensification of conflicts and confrontations in the region. The period that followed was marked by an escalation of violence, culminating in the 1948 war, also known as Israel's War of Independence or the Nakba (catastrophe) for the Palestinians. This war led to the creation of the State of Israel in May 1948 and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, marking the start of a protracted conflict that continues to this day.

The declaration of independence of the State of Israel in May 1948 and the events that followed represent a crucial chapter in the history of the Middle East, with major political, social and military repercussions. The expiry of the British Mandate in Palestine created a political vacuum that Jewish leaders, led by David Ben-Gurion, sought to fill by proclaiming Israel's independence. This declaration, made in response to the 1947 United Nations partition plan, marked the realisation of Zionist aspirations but was also the catalyst for a major armed conflict in the region. The military intervention of neighbouring Arab countries, including Transjordan, Egypt and Syria, was aimed at thwarting the creation of the Jewish state and supporting the demands of the Arab Palestinians. These countries, united by their opposition to the creation of Israel, planned to eliminate the nascent state and redefine the political geography of Palestine. However, despite their initial numerical superiority, the Arab forces were gradually pushed back by an increasingly organised and effective Israeli army.

The Soviet Union's indirect support for Israel, mainly in the form of arms deliveries via the satellite countries of Eastern Europe, played a role in reversing the balance of power on the ground. This Soviet support was motivated less by affection for Israel than by a desire to diminish British influence in the region, in the context of the growing rivalry of the Cold War. The series of ceasefire agreements that ended the war in 1949 left Israel with substantially more territory than that allocated by the UN partition plan. The war had profoundly tragic consequences, including the mass displacement of Arab Palestinians, which gave rise to refugee and rights issues that continue to haunt the peace process. The War of Independence also solidified Israel's position as a central player in the region, marking the beginning of an Arab-Israeli conflict that persists to this day.

The Six-Day War, which took place in June 1967, was another decisive moment in the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict. This conflict, which pitted Israel against Egypt, Jordan, Syria and, to a lesser extent, Lebanon, led to major geopolitical changes in the region. The war began on 5 June 1967 when Israel, faced with what it perceived as an imminent threat from Arab armies aligned on its borders, launched a series of pre-emptive air strikes against Egypt. These strikes quickly destroyed most of the Egyptian air force on the ground, giving Israel a crucial air advantage. In the days that followed, Israel extended its military operations against Jordan and Syria. The conflict unfolded rapidly, with Israeli victories on several fronts. In six days of intense fighting, Israel succeeded in capturing the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. These territorial gains tripled the size of the territory under Israeli control. The Six Day War had profound and lasting consequences for the region. It marked a turning point in the Arab-Israeli conflict, strengthening Israel's military and strategic position while exacerbating tensions with its Arab neighbours. The war also had significant implications for the Palestinian population, as the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza posed new dynamics and challenges for the Palestinian question. In addition, the loss of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Golan Heights was a major blow to the Arab countries concerned, in particular Egypt and Syria, and contributed to an atmosphere of disillusionment and despair among the Arabs. The war also laid the foundations for future conflicts and negotiations, including efforts for a lasting peace process between Israel and its neighbours.

The Yom Kippur War and the Camp David Accords

The Yom Kippur War, which broke out in October 1973, was a crucial milestone in the history of Israeli-Arab conflict. The war, triggered by a surprise joint attack on Israel by Egypt and Syria, took place on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, which accentuated its psychological impact on the Israeli population. The Egyptian and Syrian attack was an attempt to recapture the territories lost in the Six Day War in 1967, in particular the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. The war began with significant successes for the Egyptian and Syrian forces, challenging the perception of Israeli military supremacy. However, Israel, under the leadership of Prime Minister Golda Meir and Defence Minister Moshe Dayan, quickly mobilised its forces for an effective counter-offensive.

This war had major repercussions. The Yom Kippur War forced Israel to reassess its military and security strategies. The initial surprise of the attack highlighted shortcomings in Israeli military intelligence and led to significant changes in Israel's preparation and defence doctrine. Diplomatically, the war acted as a catalyst for future peace negotiations. The losses suffered by both sides paved the way for the Camp David Accords in 1978, under the aegis of US President Jimmy Carter, leading to the first Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty in 1979. This treaty was a turning point, marking the first recognition of Israel by a neighbouring Arab country. The war also had an international impact, notably by triggering the 1973 oil crisis. Arab oil-producing countries used oil as an economic weapon to protest against US support for Israel, leading to significant increases in oil prices and global economic repercussions. The Yom Kippur War therefore not only redefined Arab-Israeli relations, but also had global consequences, influencing energy policies, international relations and the Middle East peace process. The war marked an important step in the recognition of the complexity of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the need for a balanced approach to its resolution.

In 1979, an historic event marked a major milestone in the Middle East peace process with the signing of the Camp David Accords, which led to the first peace treaty between Israel and one of its Arab neighbours, Egypt. These agreements, negotiated under the aegis of US President Jimmy Carter, were the fruit of difficult and daring negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. The initiative for these negotiations came in the wake of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which had highlighted the urgent need for a peaceful resolution to the protracted Arab-Israeli conflict. Anwar Sadat's courageous decision to visit Jerusalem in 1977 broke down many political and psychological barriers, paving the way for direct dialogue between Israel and Egypt.

The peace talks, held at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland, were marked by periods of intense negotiation, reflecting the deep historical divisions between Israel and Egypt. Jimmy Carter's personal intervention was instrumental in keeping both parties engaged in the process and overcoming impasses. The resulting agreements comprised two distinct frameworks. The first agreement laid the foundations for Palestinian autonomy in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, while the second agreement led directly to a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Signed in March 1979, this treaty led to Israel withdrawing from the Sinai Peninsula, which it had occupied since 1967, in exchange for Egypt's recognition of the State of Israel and the establishment of normal diplomatic relations.

The Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty was a revolutionary breakthrough, changing the political landscape of the Middle East. It signified the end of the state of war between the two nations and set a precedent for future peace efforts in the region. However, the treaty also provoked fierce opposition in the Arab world, and Sadat was assassinated in 1981, an act widely seen as a direct response to his policy of rapprochement with Israel. Ultimately, the Camp David Accords and the peace treaty that followed demonstrated the possibility of peaceful negotiations in a region marked by protracted conflict, while highlighting the challenges inherent in achieving a lasting peace in the Middle East. These events had a profound impact not only on Israeli-Egyptian relations, but also on regional and international dynamics.

The Right of Return of Palestinian Refugees

The right of return of Palestinian refugees remains a complex and controversial issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This right refers to the possibility for Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to the lands they left or from which they were displaced in 1948 when the State of Israel was created. Resolution 194 of the United Nations General Assembly, adopted on 11 December 1948, states that refugees wishing to return to their homes should be allowed to do so and live in peace with their neighbours. However, this resolution, like other General Assembly resolutions, does not have the capacity to determine laws or establish rights. Rather, it is recommendatory in nature. Consequently, although it has been confirmed on several occasions by the United Nations, it has not been implemented to date.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), established in 1949, supports over five million registered Palestinian refugees. Unlike the 1951 Convention on refugees in general, UNRWA also includes the descendants of the 1948 refugees, which significantly increases the number of people concerned. Peace agreements such as those negotiated at Camp David in 1978 or the Oslo Accords of 1993 recognise the question of Palestinian refugees as a subject for negotiation within the framework of the peace process. However, they do not explicitly mention a "right of return" for Palestinian refugees. The resolution of the refugee problem is generally considered to be a matter to be settled by bilateral agreements between Israel and its neighbours.