« Empires and States in the Middle East » : différence entre les versions

De Baripedia
Aucun résumé des modifications
 
(17 versions intermédiaires par le même utilisateur non affichées)
Ligne 21 : Ligne 21 :




=L'Empire ottoman=
=The Ottoman Empire=


=== Fondation et Expansion de l'Empire Ottoman ===
=== Foundation and expansion of the Ottoman Empire ===
L'Empire ottoman, fondé à la fin du 13ème siècle, est un exemple fascinant de puissance impériale qui a marqué profondément l'histoire de trois continents : l'Asie, l'Afrique et l'Europe. Sa fondation est généralement attribuée à Osman Ier, le leader d'une tribu turque dans la région d'Anatolie. Le succès de cet empire réside dans sa capacité à s'étendre rapidement et à établir une administration efficace sur un territoire immense. Dès le milieu du 14ème siècle, les Ottomans ont commencé à étendre leur territoire en Europe, conquérant progressivement des parties des Balkans. Cette expansion a marqué un tournant majeur dans l'équilibre des pouvoirs en Méditerranée et en Europe de l'Est. Cependant, contrairement à ce que l'on pourrait penser, l'Empire ottoman n'a pas détruit Rome. En fait, les Ottomans ont assiégé Constantinople, la capitale de l'Empire byzantin, et l'ont conquise en 1453, mettant fin à cet empire. Cette conquête a été un événement historique majeur, marquant la fin du Moyen Âge et le début de l'époque moderne en Europe.
The Ottoman Empire, founded at the end of the 13th century, is a fascinating example of an imperial power that had a profound effect on the history of three continents: Asia, Africa and Europe. Its foundation is generally attributed to Osman I, the leader of a Turkish tribe in the Anatolia region. The success of this empire lay in its ability to expand rapidly and establish an efficient administration over an immense territory. From the middle of the 14th century, the Ottomans began to expand their territory in Europe, gradually conquering parts of the Balkans. This expansion marked a major turning point in the balance of power in the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe. However, contrary to popular belief, the Ottoman Empire did not destroy Rome. In fact, the Ottomans laid siege to Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and conquered it in 1453, putting an end to that empire. This conquest was a major historical event, marking the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the modern era in Europe.


L'Empire ottoman est connu pour sa structure administrative complexe et sa tolérance religieuse, notamment avec le système du millet, qui permettait une certaine autonomie aux communautés non-musulmanes. Son apogée s'étend du 15ème au 17ème siècle, période durant laquelle il a exercé une influence considérable sur le commerce, la culture, la science, l'art et l'architecture. Les Ottomans ont introduit de nombreuses innovations et ont été des médiateurs importants entre l'Orient et l'Occident. Cependant, à partir du 18ème siècle, l'Empire ottoman a commencé à décliner face aux puissances européennes montantes et aux problèmes internes. Ce déclin s'est accéléré au 19ème siècle, conduisant finalement à la dissolution de l'empire après la Première Guerre mondiale. L'héritage de l'Empire ottoman reste profondément ancré dans les régions qu'il a gouvernées, influençant les aspects culturels, politiques et sociaux de ces sociétés jusqu'à aujourd'hui.
The Ottoman Empire is known for its complex administrative structure and religious tolerance, notably with the millet system, which allowed a degree of autonomy for non-Muslim communities. Its heyday extended from the 15th to the 17th century, during which time it exerted a considerable influence on trade, culture, science, art and architecture. The Ottomans introduced many innovations and were important mediators between East and West. However, from the 18th century onwards, the Ottoman Empire began to decline in the face of rising European powers and internal problems. This decline accelerated in the 19th century, eventually leading to the dissolution of the empire after the First World War. The legacy of the Ottoman Empire remains deeply rooted in the regions it ruled, influencing the cultural, political and social aspects of those societies to this day.


L'Empire ottoman, une entité politique et militaire remarquable fondée à la fin du 13ème siècle par Osman Ier, a marqué profondément l'histoire de l'Eurasie. Emergent dans un contexte de fragmentation politique et de rivalités entre les beylicats en Anatolie, cet empire a rapidement démontré une capacité exceptionnelle à étendre son influence, se positionnant comme une puissance dominante dans la région. Le milieu du 14ème siècle a été un tournant décisif pour l'Empire ottoman, notamment avec la conquête de Gallipoli en 1354. Cette victoire, loin d'être un simple fait d'armes, a marqué la première implantation permanente des Ottomans en Europe et a ouvert la voie à une série de conquêtes dans les Balkans. Ces succès militaires, combinés à une diplomatie habile, ont permis aux Ottomans de solidifier leur emprise sur des territoires stratégiques et de s'immiscer dans les affaires européennes.
The Ottoman Empire, a remarkable political and military entity founded at the end of the 13th century by Osman I, has had a profound impact on the history of Eurasia. Emerging against a backdrop of political fragmentation and rivalries between the beylicats in Anatolia, this empire quickly demonstrated an exceptional ability to extend its influence, positioning itself as a dominant power in the region. The middle of the 14th century was a decisive turning point for the Ottoman Empire, notably with the conquest of Gallipoli in 1354. This victory, far from being a mere feat of arms, marked the first permanent Ottoman settlement in Europe and paved the way for a series of conquests in the Balkans. These military successes, combined with skilful diplomacy, enabled the Ottomans to consolidate their hold on strategic territories and to interfere in European affairs.


Sous la direction de souverains tels que Mehmed II, connu pour la conquête de Constantinople en 1453, l'Empire ottoman a non seulement remodelé le paysage politique de la Méditerranée orientale mais a également initié une période de profondes transformations culturelles et économiques. La prise de Constantinople, qui a mis fin à l'Empire byzantin, a été un moment charnière dans l'histoire mondiale, marquant la fin du Moyen Âge et le début de l'ère moderne. L'empire a excellé dans l'art de la guerre, souvent grâce à son armée disciplinée et innovante, mais aussi à travers son approche pragmatique de la gouvernance, intégrant divers groupes ethniques et religieux sous un système administratif centralisé. Cette diversité culturelle, couplée à la stabilité politique, a favorisé un essor dans les domaines des arts, de la science et du commerce.
Under the leadership of rulers such as Mehmed II, famous for his conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the Ottoman Empire not only reshaped the political landscape of the eastern Mediterranean but also initiated a period of profound cultural and economic transformation. The capture of Constantinople, which put an end to the Byzantine Empire, was a pivotal moment in world history, marking the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the modern era. The empire excelled in the art of warfare, often thanks to its disciplined and innovative army, but also through its pragmatic approach to governance, integrating diverse ethnic and religious groups under a centralised administrative system. This cultural diversity, coupled with political stability, encouraged a flourishing of the arts, science and commerce.


=== Conflits et Défis Militaires de l'Empire Ottoman ===
=== Conflicts and Military Challenges of the Ottoman Empire ===
L'Empire ottoman, dans son parcours historique, a connu une série de conquêtes spectaculaires et de revers significatifs qui ont façonné son destin et celui des régions qu'il a dominées. Leur expansion, marquée par des victoires majeures, a aussi été ponctuée par des échecs stratégiques. L'incursion ottomane dans les Balkans a été l'une des premières étapes de leur expansion européenne. Cette conquête a non seulement étendu leur territoire mais a également renforcé leur position en tant que puissance dominante dans la région. La prise d'Istanbul en 1453 par Mehmed II, connu sous le nom de Mehmed le Conquérant, est un événement historique majeur. Cette victoire a non seulement marqué la fin de l'Empire byzantin mais a aussi symbolisé l'ascension irréfutable de l'Empire ottoman en tant que superpuissance. Leur expansion s'est poursuivie avec la prise du Caire en 1517, un événement crucial qui a marqué l'intégration de l'Égypte dans l'empire et la fin du califat abbasside. Sous le règne de Soliman le Magnifique, les Ottomans ont également conquis Bagdad en 1533, étendant ainsi leur influence sur les terres riches et stratégiques de la Mésopotamie.
Throughout its history, the Ottoman Empire experienced a series of spectacular conquests and significant setbacks that shaped its destiny and that of the regions it dominated. Their expansion, marked by major victories, was also punctuated by strategic failures. The Ottoman incursion into the Balkans was one of the first steps in their European expansion. This conquest not only extended their territory but also strengthened their position as the dominant power in the region. The capture of Istanbul in 1453 by Mehmed II, known as Mehmed the Conqueror, was a major historical event. This victory not only marked the end of the Byzantine Empire but also symbolised the indisputable rise of the Ottoman Empire as a superpower. Their expansion continued with the capture of Cairo in 1517, a crucial event that marked the integration of Egypt into the empire and the end of the Abbasid caliphate. Under Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottomans also conquered Baghdad in 1533, extending their influence over the rich and strategic lands of Mesopotamia.


Cependant, l'expansion ottomane n'a pas été sans obstacles. Le siège de Vienne en 1529, une tentative ambitieuse d'étendre encore plus leur influence en Europe, s'est soldé par un échec. Un nouvel essai en 1623 n'a pas non plus abouti, marquant ainsi les limites de l'expansion ottomane en Europe centrale. Ces échecs ont été des moments clés, illustrant les limites de la puissance militaire et logistique de l'Empire ottoman face aux défenses européennes organisées. Un autre revers majeur a été la défaite de la bataille de Lépante en 1571. Cette bataille navale, où la flotte ottomane a été vaincue par une coalition de forces chrétiennes européennes, a marqué un tournant dans le contrôle ottoman de la Méditerranée. Bien que l'Empire ottoman ait réussi à se remettre de cette défaite et à maintenir une présence forte dans la région, Lépante a symbolisé la fin de leur expansion incontestée et a marqué le début d'une période de rivalités maritimes plus équilibrées en Méditerranée. Ces événements, dans leur ensemble, illustrent la dynamique de l'expansion ottomane : une série de conquêtes impressionnantes, entrecoupées de défis et de revers significatifs. Ils mettent en lumière la complexité de la gestion d'un empire aussi vaste et la difficulté de maintenir une expansion constante face à des adversaires de plus en plus organisés et résistants.
However, Ottoman expansion was not without obstacles. The siege of Vienna in 1529, an ambitious attempt to further extend their influence in Europe, ended in failure. A further attempt in 1623 also failed, marking the limits of Ottoman expansion in Central Europe. These failures were key moments, illustrating the limits of the Ottoman Empire's military and logistical power in the face of organised European defences. Another major setback was the defeat at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. This naval battle, in which the Ottoman fleet was defeated by a coalition of European Christian forces, marked a turning point in Ottoman control of the Mediterranean. Although the Ottoman Empire managed to recover from this defeat and maintain a strong presence in the region, Lepanto symbolised the end of their uncontested expansion and marked the beginning of a period of more balanced maritime rivalries in the Mediterranean. Taken together, these events illustrate the dynamics of Ottoman expansion: a series of impressive conquests, interspersed with significant challenges and setbacks. They highlight the complexity of managing such a vast empire and the difficulty of maintaining constant expansion in the face of increasingly organised and resistant adversaries.


=== Réformes et Transformations Internes de l'Empire Ottoman ===
=== Reforms and Internal Transformations of the Ottoman Empire ===
La guerre russo-ottomane de 1768-1774 est un épisode crucial dans l'histoire de l'Empire ottoman, marquant non seulement le début de ses pertes territoriales significatives mais aussi un changement dans sa structure de légitimité politique et religieuse. La fin de cette guerre a été concrétisée par la signature du traité de Küçük Kaynarca (ou Kutchuk-Kaïnardji) en 1774. Ce traité a eu des conséquences profondes pour l'Empire ottoman. Premièrement, il a entraîné la cession de territoires importants à l'Empire russe, notamment des parties de la mer Noire et des Balkans. Cette perte a non seulement réduit la superficie de l'empire mais a également affaibli sa position stratégique en Europe de l'Est et dans la région de la mer Noire. Deuxièmement, le traité a marqué un tournant dans les relations internationales de l'époque, en affaiblissant la position de l'Empire ottoman sur la scène européenne. L'empire, qui avait été un acteur majeur et souvent dominant dans les affaires régionales, a commencé à être perçu comme un État en déclin, vulnérable aux pressions et aux interventions des puissances européennes.
The Russo-Ottoman War of 1768-1774 was a crucial episode in the history of the Ottoman Empire, marking not only the beginning of its significant territorial losses but also a change in its structure of political and religious legitimacy. The end of this war was marked by the signing of the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca (or Kutchuk-Kaïnardji) in 1774. This treaty had far-reaching consequences for the Ottoman Empire. Firstly, it resulted in the cession of significant territories to the Russian Empire, notably parts of the Black Sea and the Balkans. This loss not only reduced the size of the Empire but also weakened its strategic position in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea region. Secondly, the treaty marked a turning point in international relations at the time, by weakening the position of the Ottoman Empire on the European stage. The Empire, which had been a major and often dominant player in regional affairs, began to be perceived as a declining state, vulnerable to pressure and intervention from European powers.


Enfin, et peut-être le plus important, la fin de cette guerre et le traité de Küçük Kaynarca ont également eu un impact significatif sur la structure interne de l'Empire ottoman. Face à ces défaites, l'empire a commencé à mettre davantage l'accent sur l'aspect religieux du califat comme source de légitimité. Le Sultan ottoman, déjà reconnu comme le leader politique de l'empire, a commencé à être davantage valorisé en tant que calife, le chef religieux de la communauté musulmane. Cette évolution a été une réponse à la nécessité de renforcer l'autorité et la légitimité du sultanat face aux défis internes et externes, en s'appuyant sur la religion comme unificateur et source de pouvoir. Ainsi, la guerre russo-ottomane et le traité qui en a résulté ont marqué un point tournant dans l'histoire ottomane, symbolisant à la fois un déclin territorial et un changement dans la nature de la légitimité impériale.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the end of this war and the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca also had a significant impact on the internal structure of the Ottoman Empire. In the face of these defeats, the Empire began to place greater emphasis on the religious aspect of the Caliphate as a source of legitimacy. The Ottoman Sultan, already recognised as the political leader of the empire, began to be valued more as the Caliph, the religious leader of the Muslim community. This development was a response to the need to strengthen the authority and legitimacy of the Sultanate in the face of internal and external challenges, relying on religion as a unifying force and source of power. Thus, the Russo-Ottoman War and the resulting treaty marked a turning point in Ottoman history, symbolising both a territorial decline and a change in the nature of imperial legitimacy.


=== Influences Extérieures et Relations Internationales ===
=== Foreign Influences and International Relations ===
L'intervention en Égypte en 1801, où les forces britanniques et ottomanes ont uni leurs efforts pour chasser les Français, marque un tournant important dans l'histoire de l'Égypte et de l'Empire ottoman. La nomination de Mehmet Ali, un officier albanais, en tant que pacha d'Égypte par les Ottomans, a ouvert une ère de transformations profondes et de semi-indépendance de l'Égypte vis-à-vis de l'Empire ottoman. Mehmet Ali, souvent considéré comme le fondateur de l'Égypte moderne, a initié une série de réformes radicales visant à moderniser l'Égypte. Ces réformes touchaient à divers aspects, notamment l'armée, l'administration, et l'économie, inspirées en partie par les modèles européens. Sous sa gouvernance, l'Égypte a connu un développement significatif, et Mehmet Ali a cherché à étendre son influence au-delà de l'Égypte. Dans ce contexte, la Nahda, ou la Renaissance arabe, a pris un élan considérable. Ce mouvement culturel et intellectuel, cherchant à revitaliser la culture arabe et à l'adapter aux défis modernes, a bénéficié du climat de réforme et d'ouverture initié par Mehmet Ali.
The intervention in Egypt in 1801, where British and Ottoman forces joined forces to drive out the French, marked an important turning point in the history of Egypt and the Ottoman Empire. The appointment of Mehmet Ali, an Albanian officer, as pasha of Egypt by the Ottomans ushered in an era of profound transformation and semi-independence of Egypt from the Ottoman Empire. Mehmet Ali, often regarded as the founder of modern Egypt, initiated a series of radical reforms aimed at modernising Egypt. These reforms affected various aspects, including the army, the administration and the economy, and were inspired in part by European models. Under his leadership, Egypt underwent significant development, and Mehmet Ali sought to extend his influence beyond Egypt. Against this backdrop, the Nahda, or Arab Renaissance, gained considerable momentum. This cultural and intellectual movement, which sought to revitalise Arab culture and adapt it to modern challenges, benefited from the climate of reform and openness initiated by Mehmet Ali.


Le fils de Mehmet Ali, Ibrahim Pacha, a joué un rôle clé dans les ambitions expansionnistes de l'Égypte. En 1836, il a lancé une offensive contre l'Empire ottoman, qui était alors affaibli et en déclin. Cette confrontation a culminé en 1839, lorsque les forces d'Ibrahim ont infligé une défaite majeure aux Ottomans. Cependant, l'intervention des puissances européennes, notamment la Grande-Bretagne, l'Autriche et la Russie, a empêché une victoire totale égyptienne. Sous la pression internationale, un traité de paix a été signé, reconnaissant l'autonomie de facto de l'Égypte sous la gouvernance de Mehmet Ali et de ses descendants. Cette reconnaissance a marqué une étape importante dans la séparation de l'Égypte de l'Empire ottoman, bien que l'Égypte soit restée nominalement sous suzeraineté ottomane. La position des Britanniques était particulièrement intéressante. Initialement alliés avec les Ottomans pour contenir l'influence française en Égypte, ils ont finalement opté pour soutenir l'autonomie égyptienne sous Mehmet Ali, reconnaissant ainsi les réalités politiques et stratégiques changeantes de la région. Cette décision a reflété le désir britannique de stabiliser la région tout en contrôlant les routes commerciales vitales, en particulier celles menant vers l'Inde. L'épisode égyptien dans les premières décennies du 19ème siècle illustre non seulement les dynamiques de pouvoir complexes entre l'Empire ottoman, l'Égypte et les puissances européennes, mais aussi les changements profonds qui s'opéraient dans l'ordre politique et social du Moyen-Orient à cette époque.
Mehmet Ali's son, Ibrahim Pasha, played a key role in Egypt's expansionist ambitions. In 1836, he launched an offensive against the Ottoman Empire, which was then weakened and in decline. This confrontation culminated in 1839, when Ibrahim's forces inflicted a major defeat on the Ottomans. However, the intervention of the European powers, notably Great Britain, Austria and Russia, prevented a total Egyptian victory. Under international pressure, a peace treaty was signed, recognising Egypt's de facto autonomy under the rule of Mehmet Ali and his descendants. This recognition marked an important step in Egypt's separation from the Ottoman Empire, although Egypt remained nominally under Ottoman suzerainty. The British position was particularly interesting. Initially allied with the Ottomans to contain French influence in Egypt, they eventually opted to support Egyptian autonomy under Mehmet Ali, recognising the changing political and strategic realities of the region. This decision reflected the British desire to stabilise the region while controlling vital trade routes, particularly those leading to India. The Egyptian episode in the early decades of the 19th century illustrates not only the complex power dynamics between the Ottoman Empire, Egypt and the European powers, but also the profound changes that were taking place in the political and social order of the Middle East at the time.


=== Modernisation et Mouvements de Réforme ===
=== Modernisation and reform movements ===
L'expédition de Napoléon Bonaparte en Égypte en 1798 a été un événement révélateur pour l'Empire ottoman, mettant en évidence son retard en termes de modernisation et de capacité militaire face aux puissances européennes. Cette prise de conscience a été un moteur important pour une série de réformes connues sous le nom de Tanzimat, lancées en 1839, visant à moderniser l'empire et à freiner son déclin. La Tanzimat, signifiant « réorganisation » en turc, a marqué une période de transformation profonde dans l'Empire ottoman. L'un des aspects clés de ces réformes était la modernisation de l'organisation des Dhimmis, les citoyens non-musulmans de l'empire. Cela comprenait la création des systèmes de Millet, qui offraient à diverses communautés religieuses une certaine autonomie culturelle et administrative. Cette mesure visait à intégrer plus efficacement ces communautés dans la structure de l'État ottoman tout en préservant leur identité distincte.  
Napoleon Bonaparte's expedition to Egypt in 1798 was a revelatory event for the Ottoman Empire, highlighting the fact that it was lagging behind the European powers in terms of modernisation and military capacity. This realisation was an important driving force behind a series of reforms known as the Tanzimat, launched in 1839 to modernise the empire and halt its decline. The Tanzimat, meaning "reorganisation" in Turkish, marked a period of profound transformation in the Ottoman Empire. One of the key aspects of these reforms was the modernisation of the organisation of the Dhimmis, the non-Muslim citizens of the empire. This included the creation of the Millet systems, which offered various religious communities a degree of cultural and administrative autonomy. The aim was to integrate these communities more effectively into the structure of the Ottoman state while preserving their distinct identities.  


Une deuxième vague de réformes a été initiée pour tenter de créer une forme de citoyenneté ottomane, transcendant les divisions religieuses et ethniques. Cependant, cette tentative a souvent été entravée par des violences intercommunautaires, reflétant les tensions profondes au sein de l'empire multiethnique et multiconfessionnel. Parallèlement, ces réformes ont rencontré une résistance significative au sein de certaines factions de l'armée, qui étaient hostiles aux changements perçus comme menaçant leur statut et leurs privilèges traditionnels. Cette résistance a conduit à des révoltes et à des instabilités internes, exacerbant les défis auxquels l'empire était confronté.
A second wave of reforms was initiated in an attempt to create a form of Ottoman citizenship, transcending religious and ethnic divisions. However, this attempt was often hampered by inter-communal violence, reflecting the deep tensions within the multi-ethnic and multi-faith empire. At the same time, these reforms met with significant resistance within certain factions of the army, who were hostile to changes perceived to threaten their traditional status and privileges. This resistance led to revolts and internal instability, exacerbating the challenges facing the empire.


Dans ce contexte tumultueux, un mouvement politique et intellectuel connu sous le nom de "Jeunes Ottomans" a émergé dès le milieu du 19ème siècle. Ce groupe cherchait à réconcilier les idéaux de modernisation et de réforme avec les principes de l'islam et les traditions ottomanes. Ils ont plaidé pour une constitution, la souveraineté nationale, et des réformes politiques et sociales plus inclusives. Les efforts de la Tanzimat et les idéaux des Jeunes Ottomans ont été des tentatives significatives pour répondre aux défis auxquels l'Empire ottoman était confronté dans un monde en rapide évolution. Bien que ces efforts aient apporté certains changements positifs, ils ont également révélé les profondes fissures et les tensions au sein de l'empire, préfigurant les défis encore plus grands qui allaient survenir dans les dernières décennies de son existence.
Against this tumultuous backdrop, a political and intellectual movement known as the "Young Ottomans" emerged in the mid-19th century. This group sought to reconcile the ideals of modernisation and reform with the principles of Islam and Ottoman traditions. They advocated a constitution, national sovereignty, and more inclusive political and social reforms. The efforts of the Tanzimat and the ideals of the Young Ottomans were significant attempts to respond to the challenges facing the Ottoman Empire in a rapidly changing world. While these efforts brought about some positive changes, they also revealed the deep fissures and tensions within the empire, foreshadowing the even greater challenges that would arise in the final decades of its existence.


En 1876, une étape cruciale dans le processus de la Tanzimat a été franchie avec l'accession au pouvoir du sultan Abdülhamid II, qui a introduit la première constitution monarchique de l'Empire ottoman. Cette période a marqué un tournant significatif, tentant de concilier les principes de modernisation avec la structure traditionnelle de l'empire. La constitution de 1876 représentait un effort pour moderniser l'administration de l'empire et pour instaurer un système législatif et un parlement, reflétant les idéaux libéraux et constitutionnels en vogue en Europe à cette époque. Cependant, le règne d'Abdülhamid II a également été marqué par une forte montée du panislamisme, une idéologie visant à renforcer les liens entre les musulmans de l'empire et au-delà, dans le contexte d'une rivalité croissante avec les puissances occidentales.  
In 1876, a crucial stage in the Tanzimat process was reached with the accession to power of Sultan Abdülhamid II, who introduced the Ottoman Empire's first monarchical constitution. This period marked a significant turning point, attempting to reconcile the principles of modernisation with the traditional structure of the empire. The 1876 constitution represented an effort to modernise the administration of the empire and to establish a legislative system and parliament, reflecting the liberal and constitutional ideals in vogue in Europe at the time. However, Abdülhamid II's reign was also marked by a strong rise in pan-Islamism, an ideology aimed at strengthening ties between Muslims within the empire and beyond, against a backdrop of growing rivalry with Western powers.  


Abdülhamid II a utilisé le panislamisme comme un outil pour consolider son pouvoir et pour contrer les influences externes. Il a invité les chefs et dignitaires musulmans à Istanbul et a proposé de former leurs enfants dans la capitale ottomane, une initiative visant à renforcer les liens culturels et politiques au sein du monde musulman. Cependant, en 1878, dans un revirement surprenant, Abdülhamid II a suspendu la constitution et fermé le parlement, marquant un retour à un régime autocratique. Cette décision a été motivée en partie par la crainte d'un contrôle insuffisant sur le processus politique et par la montée de mouvements nationalistes au sein de l'empire. Le sultan a ainsi renforcé son contrôle direct sur le gouvernement, tout en continuant à promouvoir le panislamisme comme un moyen de légitimation.
Abdülhamid II used pan-Islamism as a tool to consolidate his power and counter external influences. He invited Muslim leaders and dignitaries to Istanbul and offered to educate their children in the Ottoman capital, an initiative designed to strengthen cultural and political ties within the Muslim world. However, in 1878, in a surprising U-turn, Abdülhamid II suspended the constitution and closed parliament, marking a return to autocratic rule. This decision was motivated in part by fears of insufficient control over the political process and the rise of nationalist movements within the empire. The Sultan thus strengthened his direct control over the government, while continuing to promote pan-Islamism as a means of legitimisation.


Dans ce contexte, le salafisme, un mouvement visant à revenir aux pratiques de l'islam des premières générations, a été influencé par les idéaux du panislamisme et de la Nahda (la Renaissance arabe). Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, souvent considéré comme le précurseur du mouvement salafiste moderne, a joué un rôle clé dans la propagation de ces idées. Al-Afghani prônait un retour aux principes originels de l'islam tout en encourageant l'adoption de certaines formes de modernisation technologique et scientifique. La période de la Tanzimat et le règne d'Abdülhamid II illustrent donc la complexité des tentatives de réforme dans l'Empire ottoman, tiraillé entre les exigences de modernisation et le maintien des structures et des idéologies traditionnelles. Les impacts de cette période se sont fait sentir bien au-delà de la chute de l'Empire, influençant les mouvements politiques et religieux dans le monde musulman moderne.
In this context, Salafism, a movement aimed at returning to the practices of first-generation Islam, was influenced by the ideals of pan-Islamism and the Nahda (Arab Renaissance). Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, often regarded as the precursor of the modern Salafist movement, played a key role in spreading these ideas. Al-Afghani advocated a return to the original principles of Islam while encouraging the adoption of certain forms of technological and scientific modernisation. The Tanzimat period and the reign of Abdülhamid II thus illustrate the complexity of attempts at reform in the Ottoman Empire, torn between the demands of modernisation and the maintenance of traditional structures and ideologies. The impact of this period was felt well beyond the fall of the Empire, influencing political and religious movements throughout the modern Muslim world.


=== Déclin et Chute de l'Empire Ottoman ===
=== Decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire ===
La "Question d'Orient", un terme utilisé principalement au 19ème siècle et au début du 20ème siècle, fait référence à un débat complexe et multidimensionnel concernant l'avenir de l'Empire ottoman, en déclin progressif. Cette question a émergé en raison des pertes territoriales successives de l'Empire, de l'émergence du nationalisme turc, et de la séparation croissante des territoires non musulmans, en particulier dans les Balkans. Dès 1830, avec l'indépendance de la Grèce, l'Empire ottoman a commencé à perdre ses territoires européens. Cette tendance s'est poursuivie avec les Guerres balkaniques et s'est accélérée durant la Première Guerre mondiale, culminant avec le traité de Sèvres en 1920 et la fondation de la République de Turquie en 1923 sous la direction de Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Ces pertes ont profondément modifié la géographie politique de la région.  
The "Eastern Question", a term used mainly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, refers to a complex and multi-dimensional debate concerning the future of the gradually declining Ottoman Empire. This issue emerged as a result of the Empire's successive territorial losses, the emergence of Turkish nationalism, and the growing separation from non-Muslim territories, particularly in the Balkans. As early as 1830, with the independence of Greece, the Ottoman Empire began to lose its European territories. This trend continued with the Balkan Wars and accelerated during the First World War, culminating in the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 and the founding of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. These losses profoundly altered the political geography of the region.  


Dans ce contexte, le nationalisme turc a pris de l'ampleur. Ce mouvement cherchait à redéfinir l'identité de l'empire autour de l'élément turc, en contraste avec le modèle multiethnique et multireligieux qui avait prévalu jusque-là. Cette montée du nationalisme a été une réponse directe au démantèlement progressif de l'empire et à la nécessité de forger une nouvelle identité nationale. Parallèlement, l'idée de constituer une sorte d'"internationale de l'islam" a émergé, notamment sous l'impulsion du sultan Abdülhamid II avec son panislamisme. Cette idée envisageait de créer une union ou une coopération entre les nations musulmanes, s'inspirant de certaines idées similaires en Europe, où l'internationalisme cherchait à unir les peuples au-delà des frontières nationales. L'objectif était de créer un front uni des peuples musulmans pour résister à l'influence et à l'intervention des puissances occidentales, tout en préservant les intérêts et l'indépendance des territoires musulmans.
Against this backdrop, Turkish nationalism gained momentum. This movement sought to redefine the empire's identity around the Turkish element, in contrast to the multi-ethnic and multi-religious model that had prevailed until then. This rise in nationalism was a direct response to the gradual dismantling of the empire and the need to forge a new national identity. At the same time, the idea of forming a kind of "international of Islam" emerged, notably under the impetus of Sultan Abdülhamid II with his pan-Islamism. This idea envisaged the creation of a union or cooperation between Muslim nations, inspired by certain similar ideas in Europe, where internationalism sought to unite peoples beyond national borders. The aim was to create a united front of Muslim peoples to resist the influence and intervention of Western powers, while preserving the interests and independence of Muslim territories.


Cependant, la mise en œuvre d'une telle idée s'est avérée difficile en raison des divers intérêts nationaux, des rivalités régionales et de l'influence croissante des idées nationalistes. De plus, l'évolution des événements politiques, notamment la Première Guerre mondiale et la montée des mouvements nationalistes dans les différentes parties de l'Empire ottoman, a rendu cette vision d'une "internationale de l'islam" de plus en plus irréalisable. La Question d'Orient, dans son ensemble, reflète donc les profondes transformations géopolitiques et idéologiques qui se sont produites dans la région au cours de cette période, marquant la fin d'un empire multiethnique et la naissance de nouveaux États-nations avec leurs propres identités et aspirations nationales.
However, the implementation of such an idea proved difficult due to diverse national interests, regional rivalries and the growing influence of nationalist ideas. Moreover, political developments, notably the First World War and the rise of nationalist movements in various parts of the Ottoman Empire, made the vision of an "international of Islam" increasingly unattainable. The Question of the East as a whole therefore reflects the profound geopolitical and ideological transformations that took place in the region during this period, marking the end of a multi-ethnic empire and the birth of new nation-states with their own national identities and aspirations.


La "Weltpolitik", ou politique mondiale, adoptée par l'Allemagne à la fin du 19e et au début du 20e siècle, a joué un rôle crucial dans la dynamique géopolitique impliquant l'Empire ottoman. Cette politique, initiée sous le règne de l'empereur Guillaume II, visait à étendre l'influence et le prestige de l'Allemagne sur la scène internationale, notamment par l'expansion coloniale et les alliances stratégiques. L'Empire ottoman, cherchant à échapper aux pressions de la Russie et de la Grande-Bretagne, a trouvé dans l'Allemagne un allié potentiellement utile. Cette alliance a été particulièrement symbolisée par le projet de construction du chemin de fer Berlin-Bagdad (BBB). Ce chemin de fer, conçu pour relier Berlin à Bagdad en passant par Byzance (Istanbul), avait une importance stratégique et économique considérable. Il devait non seulement faciliter le commerce et les communications mais aussi renforcer l'influence allemande dans la région et offrir un contre-poids aux intérêts britanniques et russes au Moyen-Orient.
The 'Weltpolitik' or world policy adopted by Germany in the late 19th and early 20th centuries played a crucial role in the geopolitical dynamics involving the Ottoman Empire. This policy, initiated under the reign of Kaiser Wilhelm II, aimed to extend Germany's influence and prestige on the international stage, notably through colonial expansion and strategic alliances. The Ottoman Empire, seeking to escape pressure from Russia and Great Britain, found in Germany a potentially useful ally. This alliance was symbolised in particular by the project to build the Berlin-Baghdad Railway (BBB). This railway, designed to link Berlin to Baghdad via Byzantium (Istanbul), was of considerable strategic and economic importance. It was intended not only to facilitate trade and communications, but also to strengthen German influence in the region and provide a counterweight to British and Russian interests in the Middle East.


Pour les panturquistes et les partisans de l'Empire ottoman, l'alliance avec l'Allemagne était perçue favorablement. Les panturquistes, qui prônaient l'unité et la solidarité des peuples turcophones, voyaient dans cette alliance une opportunité de renforcer la position de l'Empire ottoman et de contrer les menaces extérieures. L'alliance avec l'Allemagne offrait une alternative aux pressions des puissances traditionnelles comme la Russie et la Grande-Bretagne, qui avaient longtemps influencé la politique et les affaires ottomanes. Cette relation entre l'Empire ottoman et l'Allemagne a atteint son apogée pendant la Première Guerre mondiale, lorsque les deux nations se sont retrouvées alliées dans les puissances centrales. Cette alliance a eu des conséquences importantes pour l'Empire ottoman, tant sur le plan militaire que politique, et a joué un rôle dans les événements qui ont finalement conduit à la dissolution de l'Empire après la guerre. La Weltpolitik allemande et le projet du chemin de fer Berlin-Bagdad ont été des éléments clés dans la stratégie de l'Empire ottoman pour préserver son intégrité et son indépendance face aux pressions des grandes puissances. Cette période a marqué un moment significatif dans l'histoire de l'Empire, illustrant la complexité des alliances et des intérêts géopolitiques au début du 20e siècle.
For the Panturquists and supporters of the Ottoman Empire, the alliance with Germany was viewed favourably. The Panturquists, who advocated the unity and solidarity of the Turkish-speaking peoples, saw in this alliance an opportunity to strengthen the position of the Ottoman Empire and counter external threats. The alliance with Germany offered an alternative to pressure from traditional powers such as Russia and Britain, which had long influenced Ottoman politics and affairs. This relationship between the Ottoman Empire and Germany reached its peak during the First World War, when the two nations found themselves allied in the Central Powers. This alliance had important consequences for the Ottoman Empire, both militarily and politically, and played a role in the events that eventually led to the dissolution of the Empire after the war. German Weltpolitik and the Berlin-Baghdad railway project were key elements in the Ottoman Empire's strategy to preserve its integrity and independence in the face of pressure from the Great Powers. This period marked a significant moment in the history of the Empire, illustrating the complexity of alliances and geopolitical interests at the beginning of the 20th century.


L'année 1908 marque un tournant décisif dans l'histoire de l'Empire ottoman avec le début de la deuxième période constitutionnelle, déclenchée par le mouvement des Jeunes Turcs, représenté principalement par le Comité Union et Progrès (CUP). Ce mouvement, initialement formé par des officiers et des intellectuels ottomans réformistes, a cherché à moderniser l'Empire et à le sauver de l'effondrement.
The year 1908 marked a decisive turning point in the history of the Ottoman Empire with the start of the second constitutional period, triggered by the Young Turks movement, represented mainly by the Union and Progress Committee (CUP). This movement, initially formed by reformist Ottoman officers and intellectuals, sought to modernise the Empire and save it from collapse.


Sous la pression du CUP, le sultan Abdülhamid II a été contraint de rétablir la constitution de 1876, suspendue depuis 1878, marquant ainsi le début de la deuxième période constitutionnelle. Cette restauration de la constitution était vue comme un pas vers la modernisation et la démocratisation de l'Empire, avec la promesse de garantir des droits civils et politiques plus étendus et d'établir un gouvernement parlementaire. Cependant, cette période de réforme a rapidement été confrontée à des défis majeurs. En 1909, les milieux traditionnels, conservateurs et religieux, mécontents des réformes et de l'influence croissante des Unionistes, ont tenté un coup d'État pour renverser le gouvernement constitutionnel et rétablir l'autorité absolue du sultan. Cette tentative a été motivée par une opposition à la modernisation rapide et aux politiques laïques promues par les Jeunes Turcs, ainsi que par la crainte d'une perte de privilèges et d'influence. Cependant, les Jeunes Turcs, utilisant cet épisode de contre-révolution comme prétexte, ont réussi à écraser la résistance et à consolider leur pouvoir. Cette période a été marquée par une répression accrue contre les opposants et une centralisation du pouvoir entre les mains du CUP.
Under pressure from the CUP, Sultan Abdülhamid II was forced to reinstate the 1876 constitution, which had been suspended since 1878, marking the start of the second constitutional period. This restoration of the constitution was seen as a step towards the modernisation and democratisation of the Empire, with the promise of more extensive civil and political rights and the establishment of parliamentary government. However, this period of reform soon came up against major challenges. In 1909, traditional conservative and religious circles, dissatisfied with the reforms and the growing influence of the Unionists, attempted a coup to overthrow the constitutional government and re-establish the absolute authority of the Sultan. This attempt was motivated by opposition to the rapid modernisation and secular policies promoted by the Young Turks, as well as fears of a loss of privileges and influence. However, the Young Turks, using this episode of counter-revolution as a pretext, succeeded in crushing the resistance and consolidating their power. This period was marked by increased repression against opponents and the centralisation of power in the hands of the CUP.


En 1913, la situation a culminé avec la prise du parlement par les leaders du CUP, un événement souvent décrit comme un coup d'État. Ce moment a marqué la fin de la brève expérience constitutionnelle et parlementaire de l'Empire et l'établissement d'un régime de plus en plus autoritaire dirigé par les Jeunes Turcs. Sous leur règne, l'Empire ottoman a connu des réformes substantielles mais également des politiques plus centralisatrices et nationalistes, jetant les bases des événements qui se dérouleraient pendant et après la Première Guerre mondiale. Cette période tumultueuse reflète les tensions et les luttes internes au sein de l'Empire ottoman, tiraillé entre les forces du changement et les traditions, et posant les jalons pour les transformations radicales qui allaient suivre dans les dernières années de l'empire.
In 1913, the situation culminated in the seizure of parliament by CUP leaders, an event often described as a coup d'état. This marked the end of the Empire's brief constitutional and parliamentary experiment and the establishment of an increasingly authoritarian regime led by the Young Turks. Under their rule, the Ottoman Empire saw substantial reforms but also more centralising and nationalist policies, laying the foundations for the events that would unfold during and after the First World War. This tumultuous period reflects the tensions and internal struggles within the Ottoman Empire, torn between the forces of change and tradition, and laying the groundwork for the radical transformations that would follow in the empire's later years.


En 1915, pendant la Première Guerre mondiale, l'Empire ottoman a entrepris ce qui est maintenant largement reconnu comme le génocide arménien, un épisode tragique et sombre de l'histoire. Cette politique a impliqué la déportation systématique, le massacre et la mort de masse de la population arménienne vivant dans l'empire. La campagne contre les Arméniens a commencé par des arrestations, des exécutions et des déportations de masse. Les hommes, les femmes, les enfants et les personnes âgées arméniens furent forcés de quitter leurs foyers et envoyés en marches de la mort à travers le désert syrien, où beaucoup sont morts de faim, de soif, de maladie ou à la suite de violences. De nombreuses communautés arméniennes, qui avaient une histoire riche et ancienne dans la région, ont été détruites.
In 1915, during the First World War, the Ottoman Empire undertook what is now widely recognised as the Armenian genocide, a tragic and dark episode in history. This policy involved the systematic deportation, mass murder and death of the Armenian population living in the Empire. The campaign against the Armenians began with arrests, executions and mass deportations. Armenian men, women, children and the elderly were forced from their homes and sent on death marches through the Syrian desert, where many died of hunger, thirst, disease or violence. Many Armenian communities, which had a long and rich history in the region, were destroyed.


Les estimations du nombre de victimes varient, mais on pense généralement qu'entre 800 000 et 1,5 million d'Arméniens ont péri pendant cette période. Ce génocide a eu des répercussions durables sur la communauté arménienne mondiale et reste un sujet de grande sensibilité et de controverse, notamment en raison du déni ou de la minimisation de ces événements par certains groupes. Le génocide arménien est souvent considéré comme l'un des premiers génocides modernes et a servi de sombre précurseur à d'autres atrocités de masse au cours du 20ème siècle. Il a également joué un rôle clé dans la formation de l'identité arménienne moderne, le souvenir du génocide continuant d'être un élément central de la conscience arménienne. La reconnaissance et la commémoration de ces événements continuent d'être un sujet important dans les relations internationales, en particulier dans les discussions sur les droits de l'homme et la prévention du génocide.
Estimates of the number of victims vary, but it is generally believed that between 800,000 and 1.5 million Armenians perished during this period. The genocide has had a lasting impact on the global Armenian community and remains a subject of great sensitivity and controversy, not least because of the denial or downplaying of these events by some groups. The Armenian genocide is often considered to be one of the first modern genocides and served as a dark precursor to other mass atrocities during the 20th century. It has also played a key role in the formation of modern Armenian identity, with the memory of the genocide continuing to be central to Armenian consciousness. The recognition and commemoration of these events continues to be an important issue in international relations, particularly in discussions on human rights and the prevention of genocide.


=L’Empire perse=
=The Persian Empire=


=== Les Origines et l'Achèvement de l'Empire Perse ===
=== The Origins and Completion of the Persian Empire ===
L'histoire de l'Empire perse, aujourd'hui connu sous le nom d'Iran, est caractérisée par une impressionnante continuité culturelle et politique, malgré les changements dynastiques et les invasions étrangères. Cette continuité est un élément clé pour comprendre l'évolution historique et culturelle de la région.  
The history of the Persian Empire, now known as Iran, is characterised by impressive cultural and political continuity, despite dynastic changes and foreign invasions. This continuity is a key element in understanding the historical and cultural evolution of the region.  


L'Empire des Mèdes, établi au début du 7ème siècle avant J-C, représente une des premières grandes puissances dans l'histoire de l'Iran. Cet empire a joué un rôle crucial dans l'établissement des fondations de la civilisation iranienne. Cependant, il a été renversé par Cyrus II de Perse, également connu sous le nom de Cyrus le Grand, vers 550 avant J-C. La conquête de la Médie par Cyrus a marqué le début de l'Empire achéménide, une période de grande expansion et de rayonnement culturel. Les Achéménides ont créé un vaste empire qui s'étendait de l'Indus à la Grèce, et leur règne a été caractérisé par une administration efficace et une politique de tolérance envers les différentes cultures et religions au sein de l'empire. La chute de cet empire a été provoquée par Alexandre le Grand en 330 avant J-C, mais cela n'a pas mis fin à la continuité culturelle perse.
The Medes Empire, established in the early 7th century BC, was one of the first great powers in the history of Iran. This empire played a crucial role in laying the foundations of Iranian civilisation. However, it was overthrown by Cyrus II of Persia, also known as Cyrus the Great, around 550 BC. Cyrus' conquest of Media marked the beginning of the Achaemenid Empire, a period of great expansion and cultural influence. The Achaemenids created a vast empire stretching from the Indus to Greece, and their reign was characterised by efficient administration and a policy of tolerance towards the different cultures and religions within the empire. The fall of this empire was brought about by Alexander the Great in 330 BC, but this did not put an end to Persian cultural continuity.


Après une période de domination hellénistique et de fragmentation politique, la dynastie sassanide a émergé en 224 après J-C. Fondée par Ardashir I, elle a marqué le début d'une ère nouvelle pour la région, s'étendant jusqu'en 624 après J-C. Sous les Sassanides, le Grand Iran a connu une période de renaissance culturelle et politique. La capitale, Ctésiphon, est devenue un centre de pouvoir et de culture, reflétant la grandeur et l'influence de l'empire. Les Sassanides ont joué un rôle important dans le développement de l'art, de l'architecture, de la littérature et de la religion dans la région. Ils ont été les champions du zoroastrisme, qui a influencé profondément la culture et l'identité perses. Leur empire a été marqué par des conflits constants avec l'Empire romain et plus tard l'Empire byzantin, culminant dans des guerres coûteuses qui ont affaibli les deux empires. La chute de la dynastie sassanide est survenue à la suite des conquêtes musulmanes du 7ème siècle, mais la culture et les traditions perses ont continué à influencer la région, y compris dans les périodes islamiques ultérieures. Cette résilience et cette capacité à intégrer de nouveaux éléments tout en préservant un noyau culturel distinct sont au cœur de la notion de continuité dans l'histoire perse.
After a period of Hellenistic domination and political fragmentation, the Sassanid dynasty emerged in 224 AD. Founded by Ardashir I, it marked the beginning of a new era for the region, lasting until 624 AD. Under the Sassanids, Greater Iran experienced a period of cultural and political renaissance. The capital, Ctesiphon, became a centre of power and culture, reflecting the grandeur and influence of the empire. The Sassanids played an important role in the development of art, architecture, literature and religion in the region. They championed Zoroastrianism, which had a profound influence on Persian culture and identity. Their empire was marked by constant conflict with the Roman Empire and later the Byzantine Empire, culminating in costly wars that weakened both empires. The fall of the Sassanid dynasty came in the wake of the Muslim conquests of the 7th century, but Persian culture and traditions continued to influence the region, even in later Islamic periods. This resilience and ability to integrate new elements while preserving a distinct cultural core is at the heart of the notion of continuity in Persian history.


=== L'Iran Sous l'Islam : Conquêtes et Transformations ===
=== Iran under Islam: Conquests and Transformations ===
À partir de 642, l'Iran entre dans une nouvelle ère de son histoire avec le début de la période islamique, suite aux conquêtes musulmanes. Cette période a marqué un tournant significatif non seulement dans l'histoire politique de la région mais aussi dans sa structure sociale, culturelle et religieuse. La conquête de l'Iran par les armées musulmanes a débuté peu après la mort du prophète Mahomet en 632. En 642, avec la prise de la capitale sassanide Ctésiphon, l'Iran est passé sous le contrôle de l'Empire islamique naissant. Cette transition a été un processus complexe, impliquant à la fois des conflits militaires et des négociations. Sous la domination musulmane, l'Iran a connu de profonds changements. L'islam s'est progressivement imposé comme la religion dominante, remplaçant le zoroastrisme, qui avait été la religion d'État sous les empires précédents. Cependant, cette transition ne s'est pas faite du jour au lendemain, et il y a eu une période de coexistence et d'interaction entre les différentes traditions religieuses.  
From 642 onwards, Iran entered a new era in its history with the start of the Islamic period, following the Muslim conquests. This period marked a significant turning point not only in the political history of the region, but also in its social, cultural and religious structure. The conquest of Iran by Muslim armies began shortly after the death of the prophet Mohammed in 632. In 642, with the capture of the Sassanid capital Ctesiphon, Iran came under the control of the nascent Islamic Empire. This transition was a complex process, involving both military conflict and negotiation. Under Muslim rule, Iran underwent profound changes. Islam gradually became the dominant religion, replacing Zoroastrianism, which had been the state religion under previous empires. However, this transition did not happen overnight, and there was a period of coexistence and interaction between the different religious traditions.  


La culture et la société iraniennes ont été profondément influencées par l'islam, mais elles ont également exercé une influence significative sur le monde islamique. L'Iran est devenu un centre important de la culture et du savoir islamiques, avec des contributions remarquables dans des domaines tels que la philosophie, la poésie, la médecine et l'astronomie. Des figures iraniennes emblématiques, telles que le poète Rumi ou le philosophe Avicenne (Ibn Sina), ont joué un rôle majeur dans le patrimoine culturel et intellectuel islamique. Cette période a également été marquée par des dynasties successives, comme les Omeyyades, les Abbassides, les Saffarides, les Samanides, les Bouyides, et plus tard les Seldjoukides, qui ont chacune contribué à la richesse et à la diversité de l'histoire iranienne. Chacune de ces dynasties a apporté ses propres nuances à la gouvernance, à la culture et à la société de la région.
Iranian culture and society were profoundly influenced by Islam, but they also exerted a significant influence on the Islamic world. Iran became an important centre of Islamic culture and knowledge, with remarkable contributions in fields such as philosophy, poetry, medicine and astronomy. Iconic Iranian figures such as the poet Rumi and the philosopher Avicenna (Ibn Sina) played a major role in Islamic cultural and intellectual heritage. This period was also marked by successive dynasties, such as the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Saffarids, the Samanids, the Bouyids and later the Seljuks, each of which contributed to the richness and diversity of Iranian history. Each of these dynasties brought its own nuances to the region's governance, culture and society.


=== Émergence et Influence des Séfévides ===
=== Emergence and influence of the Sefevids ===
En 1501, un événement majeur dans l'histoire de l'Iran et du Moyen-Orient a eu lieu avec l'établissement de l'Empire séfévide en Azerbaïdjan par Shah Ismail I. Cette fondation a marqué le début d'une nouvelle ère non seulement pour l'Iran mais aussi pour la région dans son ensemble, en raison de l'introduction du chiisme duodécimain comme religion d'État, un changement qui a profondément influencé l'identité religieuse et culturelle de l'Iran. L'Empire séfévide, qui a régné jusqu'en 1736, a joué un rôle crucial dans la consolidation de l'Iran en tant qu'entité politique et culturelle distincte. Shah Ismail I, un leader charismatique et un poète talentueux, a réussi à unifier diverses régions sous son contrôle, créant ainsi un État centralisé et puissant. L'une de ses décisions les plus significatives a été d'imposer le chiisme duodécimain comme religion officielle de l'empire, un acte qui a eu des implications profondes pour l'avenir de l'Iran et du Moyen-Orient.
In 1501, a major event in the history of Iran and the Middle East took place when Shah Ismail I established the Sefevid Empire in Azerbaijan. This marked the beginning of a new era not only for Iran but for the region as a whole, with the introduction of Duodeciman Shiism as the state religion, a change that profoundly influenced Iran's religious and cultural identity. The Sefevid Empire, which reigned until 1736, played a crucial role in consolidating Iran as a distinct political and cultural entity. Shah Ismail I, a charismatic leader and talented poet, succeeded in unifying various regions under his control, creating a centralised and powerful state. One of his most significant decisions was to impose Duodecimal Shiism as the official religion of the empire, an act that had profound implications for the future of Iran and the Middle East.


Cette "chiitisation" de l'Iran, qui impliquait la conversion forcée des populations sunnites et d'autres groupes religieux au chiisme, a été une stratégie délibérée pour différencier l'Iran de ses voisins sunnites, notamment l'Empire ottoman, et pour consolider le pouvoir des Séfévides. Cette politique a également eu pour effet de renforcer l'identité chiite de l'Iran, qui est devenue une caractéristique distincte de la nation iranienne jusqu'à aujourd'hui. Sous les Séfévides, l'Iran a connu une période de renaissance culturelle et artistique. La capitale, Ispahan, est devenue l'un des centres les plus importants de l'art, de l'architecture et de la culture dans le monde islamique. Les Séfévides ont encouragé le développement des arts, notamment la peinture, la calligraphie, la poésie, et l'architecture, créant ainsi un héritage culturel riche et durable. Cependant, l'empire a également été marqué par des conflits internes et externes, notamment des guerres contre l'Empire ottoman et les Ouzbeks. Ces conflits, ainsi que les défis internes, ont finalement contribué au déclin de l'empire au 18ème siècle.
This 'Shiitisation' of Iran, which involved the forced conversion of Sunni populations and other religious groups to Shiism, was a deliberate strategy to differentiate Iran from its Sunni neighbours, notably the Ottoman Empire, and to consolidate Sefevid power. This policy also had the effect of reinforcing Iran's Shiite identity, which has become a distinctive feature of the Iranian nation to this day. Under the Sefevids, Iran experienced a period of cultural and artistic renaissance. The capital, Isfahan, became one of the most important centres of art, architecture and culture in the Islamic world. The Sefevids encouraged the development of the arts, including painting, calligraphy, poetry and architecture, creating a rich and lasting cultural legacy. However, the empire was also marked by internal and external conflicts, including wars against the Ottoman Empire and the Uzbeks. These conflicts, along with internal challenges, ultimately contributed to the empire's decline in the 18th century.


La bataille de Tchaldiran, qui s'est déroulée en 1514, est un événement significatif dans l'histoire de l'Empire séfévide et de l'Empire ottoman, marquant non seulement un tournant militaire mais aussi la formation d'une importante ligne de démarcation politique entre les deux empires. Dans cette bataille, les forces séfévides, dirigées par Shah Ismail I, ont affronté l'armée ottomane sous le commandement du sultan Selim I. Les Séfévides, bien que vaillants au combat, ont été vaincus par les Ottomans, en grande partie à cause de la supériorité technologique de ces derniers, notamment leur utilisation efficace de l'artillerie. Cette défaite a eu des conséquences importantes pour l'Empire séfévide. L'un des résultats immédiats de la bataille de Tchaldiran a été la perte de territoires significatifs pour les Séfévides. Les Ottomans ont réussi à s'emparer de la moitié orientale de l'Anatolie, réduisant ainsi considérablement l'influence séfévide dans la région. Cette défaite a également établi une frontière politique durable entre les deux empires, qui est devenue un marqueur géopolitique important dans la région. En outre, la défaite des Séfévides a eu des répercussions sur les Alévis, une communauté religieuse qui était partisane de Shah Ismail I et de sa politique de chiitisation. Suite à la bataille, de nombreux Alévis ont été persécutés et massacrés durant la décennie qui a suivi, en raison de leur allégeance au Chah séfévide et de leurs croyances religieuses distinctes, qui étaient en désaccord avec les pratiques sunnites dominantes de l'Empire ottoman.
The Battle of Chaldiran, which took place in 1514, is a significant event in the history of the Sephardic Empire and the Ottoman Empire, marking not only a military turning point but also the formation of an important political dividing line between the two empires. In this battle, Sefevid forces, led by Shah Ismail I, clashed with the Ottoman army under the command of Sultan Selim I. The Sefevids, although valiant in battle, were defeated by the Ottomans, largely because of the latter's technological superiority, in particular their effective use of artillery. This defeat had major consequences for the Sephardic Empire. One of the immediate results of the Battle of Chaldiran was the loss of significant territory for the Sefevids. The Ottomans succeeded in seizing the eastern half of Anatolia, considerably reducing Sefevid influence in the region. This defeat also established a lasting political boundary between the two empires, which has become an important geopolitical marker in the region. The defeat of the Sefevids also had repercussions for the Alevis, a religious community that supported Shah Ismail I and his policy of Shiitisation. Following the battle, many Alevis were persecuted and massacred in the decade that followed, due to their allegiance to the Sefevid Shah and their distinct religious beliefs, which were at odds with the dominant Sunni practices of the Ottoman Empire.


Après sa victoire à Tchaldiran, le sultan Selim I a continué son expansion, et en 1517, il a conquis le Caire, mettant ainsi fin au califat abbasside. Cette conquête a non seulement étendu l'Empire ottoman jusqu'en Égypte mais a également renforcé la position du sultan comme un leader musulman influent, puisqu'il s'est emparé du titre de calife, symbolisant ainsi l'autorité religieuse et politique sur le monde musulman sunnite. La bataille de Tchaldiran et ses conséquences illustrent donc les rivalités intenses entre les deux grandes puissances musulmanes de l'époque, façonnant de manière significative l'histoire politique, religieuse et territoriale du Moyen-Orient.
After his victory at Chaldiran, Sultan Selim I continued his expansion, and in 1517 he conquered Cairo, putting an end to the Abbasid Caliphate. This conquest not only extended the Ottoman Empire as far as Egypt, but also strengthened the Sultan's position as an influential Muslim leader, as he assumed the title of Caliph, symbolising religious and political authority over the Sunni Muslim world. The Battle of Chaldiran and its aftermath therefore illustrate the intense rivalry between the two great Muslim powers of the time, significantly shaping the political, religious and territorial history of the Middle East.


=== La Dynastie Qajar et la Modernisation de l'Iran ===
=== The Qajar Dynasty and the Modernisation of Iran ===
En 1796, l'Iran a vu l'émergence d'une nouvelle dynastie au pouvoir, la dynastie Qajar (ou Kadjar), fondée par Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar. D'origine turkmène, cette dynastie a remplacé la dynastie Zand et a régné sur l'Iran jusqu'au début du 20ème siècle. Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar, après avoir unifié diverses factions et territoires en Iran, s'est proclamé Shah en 1796, marquant ainsi le début officiel du règne des Qajar. Cette période a été significative pour plusieurs raisons dans l'histoire iranienne. Sous les Qajar, l'Iran a connu une période de centralisation du pouvoir et de consolidation territoriale après des années de troubles et de divisions internes. La capitale a été transférée de Shiraz à Téhéran, qui est devenue le centre politique et culturel du pays. Cette période a également été marquée par des relations internationales complexes, notamment avec les puissances impérialistes de l'époque, la Russie et la Grande-Bretagne. Les Qajar ont dû naviguer dans un environnement international difficile, avec l'Iran souvent pris dans les rivalités géopolitiques des grandes puissances, en particulier dans le cadre du "Grand Jeu" entre la Russie et la Grande-Bretagne. Ces interactions ont souvent conduit à la perte de territoires et à des concessions économiques et politiques importantes pour l'Iran.
In 1796, Iran saw the emergence of a new ruling dynasty, the Qajar (or Kadjar) dynasty, founded by Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar. Of Turkmen origin, this dynasty replaced the Zand dynasty and ruled Iran until the early 20th century. Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar, after unifying various factions and territories in Iran, proclaimed himself Shah in 1796, marking the official start of Qajar rule. This period was significant for several reasons in Iranian history. Under the Qajars, Iran experienced a period of centralisation of power and territorial consolidation after years of turmoil and internal divisions. The capital was transferred from Shiraz to Tehran, which became the political and cultural centre of the country. This period was also marked by complex international relations, particularly with the imperialist powers of the time, Russia and Great Britain. The Qajars had to navigate a difficult international environment, with Iran often caught up in the geopolitical rivalries of the great powers, particularly in the 'Great Game' between Russia and Great Britain. These interactions often led to the loss of territory and major economic and political concessions for Iran.


Sur le plan culturel, la période Qajar est connue pour son art distinctif, notamment la peinture, l'architecture et les arts décoratifs. La cour Qajar était un centre de mécénat artistique, et cette période a vu un mélange unique de styles traditionnels iraniens avec des influences européennes modernes. Cependant, la dynastie Qajar a également été critiquée pour son incapacité à moderniser efficacement le pays et à répondre aux besoins de sa population. Cette lacune a conduit à des mécontentements internes et a jeté les bases des mouvements de réforme et des révolutions constitutionnelles qui se sont produits au début du 20ème siècle. La dynastie Qajar représente une période importante dans l'histoire iranienne, marquée par des efforts de centralisation du pouvoir, des défis diplomatiques et des contributions culturelles significatives, mais également par des luttes internes et des pressions extérieures qui ont façonné l'évolution ultérieure du pays.
Culturally, the Qajar period is known for its distinctive art, particularly painting, architecture and decorative arts. The Qajar court was a centre of artistic patronage, and this period saw a unique blend of traditional Iranian styles with modern European influences. However, the Qajar dynasty was also criticised for its inability to effectively modernise the country and meet the needs of its population. This failure led to internal discontent and laid the foundations for the reform movements and constitutional revolutions that occurred in the early 20th century. The Qajar dynasty represents an important period in Iranian history, marked by efforts to centralise power, diplomatic challenges and significant cultural contributions, but also by internal struggles and external pressures that shaped the country's subsequent development.


=== L'Iran au 20ème Siècle : Vers une Monarchie Constitutionnelle ===
=== Iran in the 20th Century: Towards a Constitutional Monarchy ===
En 1906, l'Iran a connu un moment historique avec le début de sa période constitutionnelle, une étape majeure dans la modernisation politique du pays et la lutte pour la démocratie. Cette évolution a été largement influencée par les mouvements sociaux et politiques qui exigeaient une limitation du pouvoir absolu du monarque et une gouvernance plus représentative et constitutionnelle. La Révolution constitutionnelle iranienne a abouti à l'adoption de la première constitution du pays en 1906, marquant la transition de l'Iran vers une monarchie constitutionnelle. Cette constitution prévoyait la création d'un parlement, ou Majlis, et mettait en place des lois et des structures visant à moderniser et à réformer la société et le gouvernement iraniens. Cependant, cette période a également été marquée par des ingérences étrangères et la division du pays en sphères d'influence. L'Iran était pris dans les rivalités entre la Grande-Bretagne et la Russie, chacune cherchant à étendre son influence dans la région. Ces puissances ont établi différents "ordres internationaux" ou zones d'influence, limitant ainsi la souveraineté de l'Iran.
In 1906, Iran experienced a historic moment with the start of its constitutional period, a major step in the country's political modernisation and the struggle for democracy. This development was largely influenced by social and political movements demanding a limitation of the absolute power of the monarch and more representative and constitutional governance. The Iranian Constitutional Revolution led to the adoption of the country's first constitution in 1906, marking Iran's transition to a constitutional monarchy. This constitution provided for the creation of a parliament, or Majlis, and put in place laws and structures to modernise and reform Iranian society and government. However, this period was also marked by foreign interference and the division of the country into spheres of influence. Iran was caught up in rivalries between Great Britain and Russia, each seeking to extend its influence in the region. These powers established different "international orders" or zones of influence, limiting Iran's sovereignty.


La découverte du pétrole en 1908-1909 a ajouté une nouvelle dimension à la situation en Iran. La découverte, faite dans la région de Masjed Soleyman, a rapidement attiré l'attention des puissances étrangères, en particulier de la Grande-Bretagne, qui a cherché à contrôler les ressources pétrolières iraniennes. Cette découverte a considérablement augmenté l'importance stratégique de l'Iran sur la scène internationale et a également complexifié la dynamique interne du pays. Malgré ces pressions extérieures et les enjeux liés aux ressources naturelles, l'Iran a maintenu une politique de neutralité, en particulier pendant les conflits mondiaux comme la Première Guerre mondiale. Cette neutralité était en partie une tentative de préserver son autonomie et de résister aux influences étrangères qui cherchaient à exploiter ses ressources et à contrôler sa politique. Le début du 20ème siècle a été une période de changement et de défi pour l'Iran, caractérisée par des efforts de modernisation politique, l'émergence de nouveaux enjeux économiques avec la découverte du pétrole, et la navigation dans un environnement international complexe.
The discovery of oil in 1908-1909 added a new dimension to the situation in Iran. The discovery, made in the Masjed Soleyman region, quickly attracted the attention of foreign powers, particularly Great Britain, which sought to control Iran's oil resources. This discovery considerably increased Iran's strategic importance on the international stage and also complicated the country's internal dynamics. Despite these external pressures and the stakes associated with natural resources, Iran maintained a policy of neutrality, particularly during global conflicts such as the First World War. This neutrality was in part an attempt to preserve its autonomy and resist foreign influences that sought to exploit its resources and control its politics. The early 20th century was a period of change and challenge for Iran, characterised by efforts at political modernisation, the emergence of new economic challenges with the discovery of oil, and navigation in a complex international environment.


=L’Empire ottoman dans la Première Guerre mondiale=
=The Ottoman Empire in the First World War=


[[Fichier:MOMCENC - empire ottoman en 1914.png|right|[http://www.atlas-historique.net/ atlas-historique.net]]]
[[Fichier:MOMCENC - empire ottoman en 1914.png|right|[http://www.atlas-historique.net/ atlas-historique.net]]]


=== Manœuvres Diplomatiques et Formation d'Alliances ===
=== Diplomatic manoeuvres and the formation of alliances ===
L'entrée de l'Empire ottoman dans la Première Guerre mondiale en 1914 a été précédée par une période de manœuvres diplomatiques et militaires complexes, impliquant plusieurs grandes puissances, y compris la Grande-Bretagne, la France et l'Allemagne. Après avoir exploré des alliances potentielles avec la Grande-Bretagne et la France, l'Empire ottoman a finalement opté pour une alliance avec l'Allemagne. Cette décision a été influencée par plusieurs facteurs, y compris les liens militaires et économiques préexistants entre les Ottomans et l'Allemagne, ainsi que les perceptions des intentions des autres grandes puissances européennes.
The Ottoman Empire's entry into the First World War in 1914 was preceded by a period of complex diplomatic and military manoeuvring, involving several major powers, including Britain, France and Germany. After exploring potential alliances with Britain and France, the Ottoman Empire finally opted for an alliance with Germany. This decision was influenced by several factors, including pre-existing military and economic ties between the Ottomans and Germany, as well as perceptions of the intentions of the other major European powers.


Malgré cette alliance, les Ottomans étaient réticents à entrer directement dans le conflit, conscient de leurs difficultés internes et de leurs limites militaires. Cependant, la situation a changé avec l'incident des Dardanelles. Les Ottomans ont utilisé des navires de guerre (dont certains avaient été acquis de l'Allemagne) pour bombarder des ports russes sur la mer Noire. Cette action a entraîné l'Empire ottoman dans la guerre aux côtés des Puissances centrales et contre les Alliés, notamment la Russie, la France et la Grande-Bretagne.
Despite this alliance, the Ottomans were reluctant to enter the conflict directly, aware of their internal difficulties and military limitations. However, the situation changed with the Dardanelles incident. The Ottomans used warships (some of which had been acquired from Germany) to bombard Russian ports on the Black Sea. This action drew the Ottoman Empire into the war alongside the Central Powers and against the Allies, notably Russia, France and Great Britain.


En réponse à l'entrée en guerre de l'Empire ottoman, les Britanniques ont lancé la Campagne des Dardanelles en 1915. L'objectif était de prendre le contrôle des Dardanelles et du Bosphore, ouvrant ainsi une voie maritime vers la Russie. Cependant, cette campagne s'est soldée par un échec pour les forces alliées et a entraîné de lourdes pertes des deux côtés. Parallèlement, la Grande-Bretagne a formalisé son contrôle sur l'Égypte, proclamant le protectorat britannique sur l'Égypte en 1914. Cette décision était stratégiquement motivée, en grande partie pour sécuriser le Canal de Suez, un point de passage vital pour les routes maritimes britanniques, en particulier pour l'accès aux colonies en Asie. Ces événements illustrent la complexité de la situation géopolitique au Moyen-Orient pendant la Première Guerre mondiale. Les décisions de l'Empire ottoman ont eu des implications importantes, non seulement pour leur propre empire mais aussi pour la configuration du Moyen-Orient dans l'après-guerre.
In response to the Ottoman Empire's entry into the war, the British launched the Dardanelles Campaign in 1915. The aim was to take control of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, opening up a sea route to Russia. However, the campaign ended in failure for the Allied forces and resulted in heavy casualties on both sides. At the same time, Britain formalised its control over Egypt, proclaiming the British Protectorate of Egypt in 1914. This decision was strategically motivated, largely to secure the Suez Canal, a vital crossing point for British shipping routes, particularly for access to the colonies in Asia. These events illustrate the complexity of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East during the First World War. The decisions taken by the Ottoman Empire had important implications, not only for their own empire but also for the configuration of the Middle East in the post-war period.


=== La Révolte Arabe et les Dynamiques Changeantes au Moyen-Orient ===
=== The Arab Revolt and Changing Dynamics in the Middle East ===
Pendant la Première Guerre mondiale, les Alliés ont cherché à affaiblir l'Empire ottoman en ouvrant un nouveau front dans le sud, ce qui a conduit à la célèbre Révolte arabe de 1916. Cette révolte a été un moment clé dans l'histoire du Moyen-Orient et a marqué le début du mouvement nationaliste arabe. Le chérif Hussein ben Ali, le chérif de La Mecque, a joué un rôle central dans cette révolte. Sous son impulsion, et avec l'encouragement et le soutien de figures telles que T.E. Lawrence, connu sous le nom de Lawrence d'Arabie, les Arabes se sont soulevés contre la domination ottomane dans l'espoir de créer un État arabe unifié. Cette aspiration à l'indépendance et à l'unification était motivée par un désir de libération nationale et par la promesse d'autonomie faite par les Britanniques, notamment par le général Henry MacMahon.
During the First World War, the Allies sought to weaken the Ottoman Empire by opening a new front in the south, leading to the famous Arab Revolt of 1916. This revolt was a key moment in the history of the Middle East and marked the beginning of the Arab nationalist movement. Hussein ben Ali, the Sherif of Mecca, played a central role in this revolt. Under his leadership, and with the encouragement and support of figures such as T.E. Lawrence, known as Lawrence of Arabia, the Arabs rose up against Ottoman domination in the hope of creating a unified Arab state. This aspiration for independence and unification was motivated by a desire for national liberation and by the promise of autonomy made by the British, in particular by General Henry MacMahon.


La Révolte arabe a eu plusieurs succès significatifs. En juin 1917, Fayçal, fils de Hussein ben Ali, a remporté la bataille d’Aqaba, un tournant stratégique dans la révolte. Cette victoire a permis d'ouvrir un front crucial contre les Ottomans et a renforcé le moral des forces arabes. Avec l'aide de Lawrence d'Arabie et d'autres officiers britanniques, Fayçal a réussi à unir plusieurs tribus arabes du Hedjaz, ce qui a abouti à la libération de Damas en 1917. En 1920, Fayçal s'est proclamé Roi de Syrie, affirmant l'aspiration arabe à l'autodétermination et à l'indépendance. Cependant, ses ambitions ont été confrontées à la réalité de la politique internationale. Les accords Sykes-Picot de 1916, un arrangement secret entre la Grande-Bretagne et la France, avaient déjà partagé de grandes parties du Moyen-Orient en zones d'influence, compromettant ainsi les espoirs d'un grand royaume arabe unifié. La Révolte arabe a été un facteur déterminant dans l'affaiblissement de l'Empire ottoman pendant la guerre et a posé les bases du nationalisme arabe moderne. Toutefois, l'après-guerre a vu la division du Moyen-Orient en plusieurs États-nations sous mandat européen, éloignant ainsi la réalisation d'un État arabe unifié, tel qu'envisagé par Hussein ben Ali et ses partisans.
The Arab Revolt had several significant successes. In June 1917, Faisal, son of Hussein ben Ali, won the Battle of Aqaba, a strategic turning point in the revolt. This victory opened up a crucial front against the Ottomans and boosted the morale of the Arab forces. With the help of Lawrence of Arabia and other British officers, Faisal succeeded in uniting several Arab tribes in the Hijaz, leading to the liberation of Damascus in 1917. In 1920, Faisal proclaimed himself King of Syria, affirming the Arab aspiration for self-determination and independence. However, his ambitions came up against the reality of international politics. The Sykes-Picot Accords of 1916, a secret arrangement between Britain and France, had already divided large parts of the Middle East into zones of influence, undermining hopes of a great unified Arab kingdom. The Arab Revolt was a decisive factor in weakening the Ottoman Empire during the war and laid the foundations for modern Arab nationalism. However, the post-war period saw the division of the Middle East into a number of nation-states under European mandate, putting the realisation of a unified Arab state, as envisaged by Hussein ben Ali and his supporters, a long way off.


=== Défis Internes et le Génocide Arménien ===
=== Internal challenges and the Armenian Genocide ===
La Première Guerre mondiale a été marquée par des développements complexes et des changements de dynamiques, notamment le retrait de la Russie du conflit en raison de la Révolution russe en 1917. Ce retrait a eu des implications significatives pour le cours de la guerre et pour les autres puissances belligérantes. Le retrait de la Russie a allégé la pression sur les Puissances centrales, notamment l'Allemagne, qui pouvait désormais concentrer ses forces sur le front occidental contre la France et ses alliés. Ce changement a inquiété la Grande-Bretagne et ses alliés, qui cherchaient des moyens de maintenir l'équilibre des forces.
The First World War was marked by complex developments and changing dynamics, including Russia's withdrawal from the conflict as a result of the Russian Revolution in 1917. This withdrawal had significant implications for the course of the war and for the other belligerent powers. Russia's withdrawal eased the pressure on the Central Powers, particularly Germany, which could now concentrate its forces on the Western Front against France and its allies. This change worried Great Britain and her allies, who were looking for ways to maintain the balance of power.


Concernant les juifs bolchéviques, il est important de noter que les révolutions russes de 1917 et l'ascension du bolchévisme ont été des phénomènes complexes influencés par divers facteurs internes à la Russie. Bien qu'il y ait eu des juifs parmi les bolchéviques, comme dans de nombreux mouvements politiques de l'époque, leur présence ne devrait pas être surinterprétée ou utilisée pour promouvoir des narratifs simplistes ou antisémites. En ce qui concerne l'Empire ottoman, Enver Pacha, l'un des leaders du mouvement des Jeunes Turcs et ministre de la Guerre, a joué un rôle clé dans la conduite de la guerre. En 1914, il a lancé une offensive désastreuse contre les Russes dans le Caucase, qui s'est soldée par une défaite majeure pour les Ottomans à la bataille de Sarikamish.
With regard to the Bolshevik Jews, it is important to note that the Russian revolutions of 1917 and the rise of Bolshevism were complex phenomena influenced by various factors within Russia. Although there were Jews among the Bolsheviks, as in many political movements of the time, their presence should not be over-interpreted or used to promote simplistic or anti-Semitic narratives. As far as the Ottoman Empire is concerned, Enver Pasha, one of the leaders of the Young Turk movement and Minister of War, played a key role in the conduct of the war. In 1914, he launched a disastrous offensive against the Russians in the Caucasus, which resulted in a major defeat for the Ottomans at the Battle of Sarikamish.


La défaite d'Enver Pacha a eu des conséquences tragiques, notamment le déclenchement du génocide arménien. En cherchant un bouc émissaire pour expliquer la défaite, Enver Pacha et d'autres dirigeants ottomans ont accusé la minorité arménienne de l'empire de collusion avec les Russes. Ces accusations ont alimenté une campagne de déportations, de massacres et d'exterminations systématiques contre les Arméniens, qui ont abouti à ce que l'on reconnaît aujourd'hui comme le génocide arménien. Ce génocide représente l'un des épisodes les plus sombres de la Première Guerre mondiale et de l'histoire de l'Empire ottoman, soulignant les horreurs et les conséquences tragiques des conflits à grande échelle et des politiques de haine ethnique.
Enver Pasha's defeat had tragic consequences, including the outbreak of the Armenian genocide. Looking for a scapegoat to explain the defeat, Enver Pasha and other Ottoman leaders accused the empire's Armenian minority of collusion with the Russians. These accusations fuelled a campaign of systematic deportations, massacres and exterminations against the Armenians, culminating in what is now recognised as the Armenian genocide. This genocide represents one of the darkest episodes of the First World War and the history of the Ottoman Empire, highlighting the horrors and tragic consequences of large-scale conflict and policies of ethnic hatred.


=== Règlement d'Après-Guerre et Redéfinition du Moyen-Orient ===
=== Post-war settlement and redefinition of the Middle East ===
La Conférence de paix de Paris, qui a débuté en janvier 1919, a été un moment crucial dans la redéfinition de l'ordre mondial après la Première Guerre mondiale. Cette conférence a rassemblé les dirigeants des principales puissances alliées pour discuter des termes de la paix et de l'avenir géopolitique, notamment des territoires de l'Empire ottoman défaillant. L'un des sujets majeurs abordés lors de la conférence concernait l'avenir des territoires ottomans au Moyen-Orient. Les Alliés envisageaient de redessiner les frontières de la région, influencés par diverses considérations politiques, stratégiques et économiques, y compris le contrôle des ressources pétrolières. Bien que la conférence ait théoriquement permis aux nations concernées de présenter leur point de vue, en pratique, plusieurs délégations ont été marginalisées ou leurs demandes ignorées. Par exemple, la délégation égyptienne, qui cherchait à discuter de l'indépendance de l'Égypte, a été confrontée à des obstacles, illustrés par l'exil de certains de ses membres à Malte. Cette situation reflète la dynamique de pouvoir inégale à la conférence, où les intérêts des puissances européennes prédominantes ont souvent prévalu.
The Paris Peace Conference, which began in January 1919, was a crucial moment in the redefinition of world order after the First World War. The conference brought together the leaders of the major Allied powers to discuss the terms of peace and the geopolitical future, including the territories of the failing Ottoman Empire. One of the major issues discussed at the conference concerned the future of the Ottoman territories in the Middle East. The Allies were considering redrawing the borders of the region, influenced by various political, strategic and economic considerations, including control of oil resources. Although the conference theoretically allowed the nations concerned to present their points of view, in practice several delegations were marginalised or their demands ignored. For example, the Egyptian delegation, which sought to discuss Egyptian independence, faced obstacles, illustrated by the exile of some of its members to Malta. This situation reflects the unequal power dynamics at the conference, where the interests of the predominant European powers often prevailed.


Fayçal, fils de Hussein ben Ali et leader de la Révolte arabe, a joué un rôle important lors de la conférence. Il a représenté les intérêts arabes et a plaidé pour la reconnaissance de l'indépendance et de l'autonomie arabe. En dépit de ses efforts, les décisions prises à la conférence n'ont pas pleinement répondu aux aspirations arabes pour un État indépendant et unifié. Fayçal a ensuite créé un État en Syrie, se proclamant roi de Syrie en 1920. Cependant, ses ambitions ont été de courte durée, car la Syrie a été placée sous mandat français après la Conférence de San Remo en 1920, une décision qui a fait partie de la division du Moyen-Orient entre les puissances européennes conformément aux accords Sykes-Picot de 1916. La Conférence de Paris et ses résultats ont donc eu des implications profondes pour le Moyen-Orient, jetant les bases de nombreuses tensions et conflits régionaux qui perdurent jusqu'à aujourd'hui. Les décisions prises ont reflété les intérêts des puissances victorieuses de la Première Guerre mondiale, souvent au détriment des aspirations nationales des peuples de la région.
Faisal, son of Hussein bin Ali and leader of the Arab Revolt, played an important role at the conference. He represented Arab interests and argued for the recognition of Arab independence and autonomy. Despite his efforts, the decisions taken at the conference did not fully meet Arab aspirations for an independent and unified state. Faisal went on to create a state in Syria, proclaiming himself King of Syria in 1920. However, his ambitions were short-lived, as Syria was placed under French mandate after the San Remo Conference in 1920, a decision that formed part of the division of the Middle East between the European powers in accordance with the Sykes-Picot agreements of 1916. The Paris Conference and its outcomes therefore had profound implications for the Middle East, laying the foundations for many of the regional tensions and conflicts that continue to this day. The decisions taken reflected the interests of the victorious powers of the First World War, often to the detriment of the national aspirations of the peoples of the region.


L'accord entre Georges Clemenceau, représentant de la France, et Fayçal, leader de la Révolte arabe, ainsi que les discussions autour de la création de nouveaux États au Moyen-Orient, sont des éléments clés de la période post-Première Guerre mondiale qui ont façonné l'ordre géopolitique de la région. L'accord Clemenceau-Fayçal était perçu comme étant très favorable à la France. Fayçal, cherchant à sécuriser une forme d'autonomie pour les territoires arabes, a dû faire des concessions significatives. La France, ayant des intérêts coloniaux et stratégiques dans la région, a utilisé sa position à la Conférence de Paris pour asseoir son contrôle, notamment sur des territoires comme la Syrie et le Liban. La délégation libanaise a obtenu le droit de créer un État distinct, le Grand Liban, sous mandat français. Cette décision a été influencée par les aspirations des communautés chrétiennes maronites du Liban, qui cherchaient à établir un État avec des frontières élargies et une certaine autonomie sous la tutelle française. Concernant la question kurde, des promesses ont été faites pour la création d'un Kurdistan. Ces promesses étaient en partie une reconnaissance des aspirations nationalistes kurdes et un moyen d'affaiblir l'Empire ottoman. Cependant, la mise en œuvre de cette promesse s'est avérée complexe et a finalement été largement ignorée dans les traités post-guerre.
The agreement between Georges Clemenceau, representing France, and Faisal, leader of the Arab Revolt, as well as the discussions around the creation of new states in the Middle East, are key elements of the post-First World War period that have shaped the geopolitical order of the region. The Clemenceau-Fayçal agreement was seen as highly favourable to France. Fayçal, seeking to secure a form of autonomy for the Arab territories, had to make significant concessions. France, which had colonial and strategic interests in the region, used its position at the Paris Conference to assert its control, particularly over territories such as Syria and Lebanon. The Lebanese delegation won the right to create a separate state, Greater Lebanon, under French mandate. This decision was influenced by the aspirations of Lebanon's Maronite Christian communities, who sought to establish a state with extended borders and a degree of autonomy under French tutelage. On the Kurdish question, promises were made to create a Kurdistan. These promises were in part a recognition of Kurdish nationalist aspirations and a means of weakening the Ottoman Empire. However, the implementation of this promise proved complex and was largely ignored in the post-war treaties.


Tous ces éléments ont convergé vers le Traité de Sèvres en 1920, qui a formalisé le démembrement de l'Empire ottoman. Ce traité a redessiné les frontières du Moyen-Orient, créant de nouveaux États sous mandats français et britannique. Le traité a également prévu la création d'une entité kurde autonome, bien que cette disposition n'ait jamais été mise en œuvre. Le Traité de Sèvres, bien que jamais pleinement ratifié et plus tard remplacé par le Traité de Lausanne en 1923, a été un moment décisif dans l'histoire de la région. Il a posé les bases de la structure politique moderne du Moyen-Orient mais a également semé les graines de nombreux conflits futurs, en raison de l'ignorance des réalités ethniques, culturelles et historiques de la région.
All these elements converged in the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, which formalised the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. This treaty redrew the borders of the Middle East, creating new states under French and British mandates. The treaty also provided for the creation of an autonomous Kurdish entity, although this provision was never implemented. The Treaty of Sèvres, although never fully ratified and later replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, was a decisive moment in the history of the region. It laid the foundations for the modern political structure of the Middle East, but also sowed the seeds of many future conflicts, due to ignorance of the ethnic, cultural and historical realities of the region.


=== La Transition vers la République et la Montée d'Atatürk ===
=== The Transition to the Republic and the Rise of Atatürk ===
Après la fin de la Première Guerre mondiale, l'Empire ottoman, affaibli et sous pression, a accepté de signer le Traité de Sèvres en 1920. Ce traité, qui démantelait l'Empire ottoman et redistribuait ses territoires, semblait marquer la conclusion de la longue "Question d'Orient" concernant le destin de l'empire. Cependant, loin de mettre fin aux tensions dans la région, le Traité de Sèvres a exacerbé les sentiments nationalistes et a conduit à de nouveaux conflits.
After the end of the First World War, the Ottoman Empire, weakened and under pressure, agreed to sign the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920. This treaty, which dismantled the Ottoman Empire and redistributed its territories, seemed to mark the conclusion of the long-running "Eastern Question" concerning the fate of the empire. However, far from ending tensions in the region, the Treaty of Sevres exacerbated nationalist feelings and led to new conflicts.


En Turquie, une forte résistance nationaliste, dirigée par Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, s'est formée en opposition au Traité de Sèvres. Ce mouvement nationaliste s'est opposé aux dispositions du traité qui imposaient des pertes territoriales sévères et une influence étrangère accrue sur le territoire ottoman. La résistance a combattu contre divers groupes, notamment les Arméniens, les Grecs en Anatolie et les Kurdes, dans le but de forger un nouvel État-nation turc homogène. La Guerre d'indépendance turque, qui a suivi, a été une période de conflit intense et de recomposition territoriale. Les forces nationalistes turques ont réussi à repousser les armées grecques en Anatolie et à contrer les autres groupes contestataires. Cette victoire militaire a été un élément clé dans la fondation de la République de Turquie en 1923.
In Turkey, a strong nationalist resistance, led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, formed in opposition to the Treaty of Sèvres. This nationalist movement opposed the treaty's provisions, which imposed severe territorial losses and increased foreign influence on Ottoman territory. The resistance fought against various groups, including the Armenians, the Greeks in Anatolia and the Kurds, with the aim of forging a new, homogenous Turkish nation-state. The ensuing War of Turkish Independence was a period of intense conflict and territorial recomposition. The Turkish nationalist forces succeeded in pushing back the Greek armies in Anatolia and countering the other rebel groups. This military victory was a key element in the foundation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923.


En conséquence de ces événements, le Traité de Sèvres a été remplacé par le Traité de Lausanne en 1923. Ce nouveau traité a reconnu les frontières de la nouvelle République de Turquie et a annulé les dispositions les plus punitives du Traité de Sèvres. Le Traité de Lausanne a marqué une étape importante dans l'établissement de la Turquie moderne en tant qu'État souverain et indépendant, redéfinissant son rôle dans la région et dans les affaires internationales. Ces événements ont non seulement redessiné la carte politique du Moyen-Orient mais ont également marqué la fin de l'Empire ottoman et ont ouvert un nouveau chapitre dans l'histoire de la Turquie, avec des répercussions qui continuent d'influencer la région et le monde jusqu'à aujourd'hui.
As a result of these events, the Treaty of Sèvres was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. This new treaty recognised the borders of the new Republic of Turkey and cancelled the most punitive provisions of the Treaty of Sevres. The Treaty of Lausanne marked an important stage in the establishment of modern Turkey as a sovereign and independent state, redefining its role in the region and in international affairs. Not only did these events redraw the political map of the Middle East, they also marked the end of the Ottoman Empire and opened a new chapter in Turkey's history, with repercussions that continue to influence the region and the world to this day.


=== L'Abolition du Califat et ses Répercussions ===
=== Abolition of the Caliphate and its repercussions ===
L'abolition du califat en 1924 est un événement majeur dans l'histoire moderne du Moyen-Orient, marquant la fin d'une institution islamique qui avait duré pendant des siècles. Cette décision a été prise par Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, le fondateur de la République de Turquie, dans le cadre de ses réformes visant à séculariser et moderniser le nouvel État turc. La suppression du califat a été un coup porté à la structure traditionnelle de l'autorité islamique. Le calife était considéré comme le chef spirituel et temporel de la communauté musulmane (oumma) depuis l'époque du prophète Mahomet. Avec l'abolition du califat, cette institution centrale de l'islam sunnite a disparu, laissant un vide dans le leadership musulman.
The abolition of the Caliphate in 1924 was a major event in the modern history of the Middle East, marking the end of an Islamic institution that had lasted for centuries. The decision was taken by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey, as part of his reforms to secularise and modernise the new Turkish state. The abolition of the Caliphate was a blow to the traditional structure of Islamic authority. The Caliph had been considered the spiritual and temporal head of the Muslim community (ummah) since the time of the Prophet Mohammed. With the abolition of the Caliphate, this central institution of Sunni Islam disappeared, leaving a vacuum in Muslim leadership.


En réaction à l'abolition du califat par la Turquie, Hussein ben Ali, qui était devenu le roi du Hedjaz après la chute de l'Empire ottoman, s'est proclamé calife. Hussein, membre de la famille hachémite et descendant direct du prophète Mahomet, cherchait à revendiquer cette position pour maintenir une forme de continuité spirituelle et politique dans le monde musulman. Cependant, la prétention de Hussein au califat n'a pas été largement reconnue et a été de courte durée. Sa position était affaiblie par des défis internes et externes, notamment l'opposition de la famille Saoud, qui contrôlait une grande partie de la péninsule Arabique. La montée en puissance des Saouds, sous la direction d'Abdelaziz Ibn Saoud, a finalement conduit à la conquête du Hedjaz et à l'établissement du royaume d'Arabie saoudite. L'éviction de Hussein ben Ali par les Saouds a symbolisé le changement radical de pouvoir dans la péninsule Arabique et a marqué la fin de ses ambitions de califat. Cet événement a également mis en évidence les transformations politiques et religieuses en cours dans le monde musulman, marquant le début d'une nouvelle ère dans laquelle la politique et la religion commenceraient à suivre des chemins plus distincts dans de nombreux pays musulmans.
In response to Turkey's abolition of the Caliphate, Hussein ben Ali, who had become King of the Hijaz after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, proclaimed himself Caliph. Hussein, a member of the Hashemite family and a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed, sought to claim this position in order to maintain a form of spiritual and political continuity in the Muslim world. However, Hussein's claim to the Caliphate was not widely recognised and was short-lived. His position was weakened by internal and external challenges, including opposition from the Saud family, which controlled much of the Arabian Peninsula. The rise of the Sauds, under the leadership of Abdelaziz Ibn Saud, eventually led to the conquest of Hijaz and the establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The ousting of Hussein bin Ali by the Sauds symbolised the radical shift in power in the Arabian Peninsula and marked the end of his ambitions for a caliphate. This event also highlighted the political and religious transformations underway in the Muslim world, marking the beginning of a new era in which politics and religion would begin to follow more distinct paths in many Muslim countries.


La période suivant la Première Guerre mondiale a été cruciale pour la redéfinition politique du Moyen-Orient, avec des interventions significatives des puissances européennes, notamment la France et la Grande-Bretagne. En 1920, un événement majeur a eu lieu en Syrie, marquant un tournant dans l'histoire de la région. Fayçal, le fils de Hussein ben Ali et figure centrale de la Révolte arabe, avait établi un royaume arabe en Syrie après la chute de l'Empire ottoman, aspirant à réaliser le rêve d'un État arabe unifié. Cependant, ses ambitions se heurtèrent à la réalité des intérêts coloniaux français. Après la bataille de Maysaloun en juillet 1920, les Français, agissant sous leur mandat de la Société des Nations, prirent le contrôle de Damas et démantelèrent l'État arabe de Fayçal, mettant ainsi fin à son règne en Syrie. Cette intervention française a reflété les dynamiques complexes de l'après-guerre, où les aspirations nationales des peuples du Moyen-Orient ont souvent été éclipsées par les intérêts stratégiques des puissances européennes. Fayçal, déchu de son trône syrien, a toutefois trouvé un nouveau destin en Irak. En 1921, sous l'égide britannique, il fut installé comme le premier roi de la monarchie hachémite d'Irak, un mouvement stratégique de la part des Britanniques pour assurer un leadership favorable et une stabilité dans cette région riche en pétrole.
The period following the First World War was crucial for the political redefinition of the Middle East, with significant interventions by European powers, notably France and Great Britain. In 1920, a major event took place in Syria, marking a turning point in the history of the region. Faisal, the son of Hussein ben Ali and a central figure in the Arab Revolt, had established an Arab kingdom in Syria after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, aspiring to realise the dream of a unified Arab state. However, his ambitions came up against the reality of French colonial interests. After the Battle of Maysaloun in July 1920, the French, acting under their League of Nations mandate, took control of Damascus and dismantled Faisal's Arab state, ending his reign in Syria. This French intervention reflected the complex dynamics of the post-war period, in which the national aspirations of the peoples of the Middle East were often overshadowed by the strategic interests of the European powers. Fayçal, deposed from his Syrian throne, nevertheless found a new destiny in Iraq. In 1921, under British auspices, he was installed as the first king of the Hashemite monarchy of Iraq, a strategic move on the part of the British to ensure favourable leadership and stability in this oil-rich region.


Parallèlement, en Transjordanie, une autre manœuvre politique a été mise en œuvre par les Britanniques. Pour contrecarrer les aspirations sionistes en Palestine et maintenir un équilibre dans leur mandat, ils ont créé le royaume de Transjordanie en 1921 et y ont installé Abdallah, un autre fils de Hussein ben Ali. Cette décision visait à fournir à Abdallah un territoire sur lequel régner, tout en conservant la Palestine sous contrôle britannique direct. La création de la Transjordanie a été une étape importante dans la formation de l'État moderne de Jordanie et a illustré la manière dont les intérêts coloniaux ont façonné les frontières et les structures politiques du Moyen-Orient moderne. Ces développements dans la région après la Première Guerre mondiale démontrent la complexité de la politique du Moyen-Orient dans la période de l'entre-deux-guerres. Les décisions prises par les puissances mandataires européennes, influencées par leurs propres intérêts stratégiques et géopolitiques, ont eu des conséquences durables, posant les fondements des structures étatiques et des conflits qui continuent d'affecter le Moyen-Orient. Ces événements soulignent également la lutte entre les aspirations nationales des peuples de la région et les réalités du pouvoir colonial européen, un thème récurrent dans l'histoire du Moyen-Orient au XXe siècle.
At the same time, in Transjordan, another political manoeuvre was implemented by the British. To thwart Zionist aspirations in Palestine and maintain a balance in their mandate, they created the Kingdom of Transjordan in 1921 and installed Abdallah, another son of Hussein ben Ali, there. This decision was intended to provide Abdallah with a territory over which to rule, while keeping Palestine under direct British control. The creation of Transjordan was an important step in the formation of the modern state of Jordan and illustrated how colonial interests shaped the borders and political structures of the modern Middle East. These developments in the region after the First World War demonstrate the complexity of Middle Eastern politics in the inter-war period. The decisions taken by the European proxy powers, influenced by their own strategic and geopolitical interests, had lasting consequences, laying the foundations for the state structures and conflicts that continue to affect the Middle East. These events also highlight the struggle between the national aspirations of the peoples of the region and the realities of European colonial rule, a recurring theme in the history of the Middle East in the twentieth century.


=== Les Répercussions de la Conférence de San Remo ===
=== The repercussions of the San Remo Conference ===
La Conférence de San Remo, tenue en avril 1920, a été un moment déterminant dans l'histoire post-première Guerre mondiale, en particulier pour le Moyen-Orient. Elle a principalement porté sur l'attribution des mandats sur les anciennes provinces de l'Empire ottoman, suite à sa défaite et à sa dislocation. Lors de cette conférence, les puissances alliées victorieuses ont décidé de la répartition des mandats. La France a obtenu le mandat sur la Syrie et le Liban, prenant ainsi le contrôle de deux régions stratégiquement importantes et culturellement riches. De leur côté, les Britanniques ont été chargés des mandats sur la Transjordanie, la Palestine et la Mésopotamie, cette dernière étant rebaptisée Irak. Ces décisions reflétaient les intérêts géopolitiques et économiques des puissances coloniales, notamment en termes d'accès aux ressources et de contrôle stratégique.
The San Remo Conference, held in April 1920, was a defining moment in post-First World War history, particularly for the Middle East. It focused on the allocation of mandates over the former provinces of the Ottoman Empire, following its defeat and break-up. At this conference, the victorious Allied Powers decided on the distribution of the mandates. France obtained the mandate over Syria and Lebanon, thereby taking control of two strategically important and culturally rich regions. For their part, the British were given mandates over Transjordan, Palestine and Mesopotamia, the latter being renamed Iraq. These decisions reflected the geopolitical and economic interests of the colonial powers, particularly in terms of access to resources and strategic control.


Parallèlement à ces développements, la Turquie, sous la direction de Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, était engagée dans un processus de redéfinition nationale. Après la guerre, la Turquie a cherché à établir de nouvelles frontières nationales. Cette période a été marquée par des conflits tragiques, notamment l'écrasement des Arméniens, qui a fait suite au génocide arménien perpétré pendant la guerre. En 1923, après plusieurs années de luttes et de négociations diplomatiques, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk a réussi à renégocier les termes du traité de Sèvres, qui avait été imposé à la Turquie en 1920 et qui était largement considéré comme humiliant et inacceptable par les nationalistes turcs. Le traité de Lausanne, signé en juillet 1923, a remplacé le traité de Sèvres et a reconnu la souveraineté et les frontières de la nouvelle République de Turquie. Ce traité a marqué la fin officielle de l'Empire ottoman et a établi les fondements de l'État turc moderne.
In parallel with these developments, Turkey, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, was engaged in a process of national redefinition. After the war, Turkey sought to establish new national borders. This period was marked by tragic conflicts, notably the crushing of the Armenians, which followed the Armenian genocide perpetrated during the war. In 1923, after several years of struggle and diplomatic negotiations, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk succeeded in renegotiating the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres, which had been imposed on Turkey in 1920 and was widely regarded as humiliating and unacceptable by Turkish nationalists. The Treaty of Lausanne, signed in July 1923, replaced the Treaty of Sevres and recognised the sovereignty and borders of the new Republic of Turkey. This treaty marked the official end of the Ottoman Empire and laid the foundations of the modern Turkish state.


Le traité de Lausanne est considéré comme un succès majeur pour Mustafa Kemal et le mouvement nationaliste turc. Il a non seulement redéfini les frontières de la Turquie mais a également permis à la nouvelle république de prendre un nouveau départ sur la scène internationale, libérée des restrictions du traité de Sèvres. Ces événements de la Conférence de San Remo à la signature du traité de Lausanne ont eu un impact profond sur le Moyen-Orient, façonnant les frontières nationales, les relations internationales et les dynamiques politiques dans la région pour les décennies à venir.
The Treaty of Lausanne is considered a major success for Mustafa Kemal and the Turkish nationalist movement. Not only did it redefine Turkey's borders, but it also enabled the new republic to make a fresh start on the international stage, freed from the restrictions of the Treaty of Sèvres. These events, from the San Remo Conference to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, had a profound impact on the Middle East, shaping national borders, international relations and political dynamics in the region for decades to come.


=== Promesses des Alliés et revendications arabes ===
=== Allied promises and Arab demands ===
Durant la Première Guerre mondiale, le démantèlement et le partage de l'Empire ottoman étaient au cœur des préoccupations des puissances alliées, principalement la Grande-Bretagne, la France et la Russie. Ces puissances, anticipant une victoire sur l'Empire ottoman, allié des Puissances centrales, ont commencé à planifier le partage de ses vastes territoires.  
During the First World War, the dismantling and partition of the Ottoman Empire was at the heart of the concerns of the Allied powers, mainly Great Britain, France and Russia. These powers, anticipating a victory over the Ottoman Empire, an ally of the Central Powers, began planning the partition of its vast territories.  


En 1915, alors que la Première Guerre mondiale faisait rage, des négociations cruciales ont eu lieu à Constantinople, impliquant des représentants de la Grande-Bretagne, de la France et de la Russie. Ces discussions étaient centrées sur l'avenir des territoires de l'Empire ottoman, qui était alors allié aux Puissances centrales. L'Empire ottoman, affaibli et en déclin, était perçu par les Alliés comme un territoire à diviser en cas de victoire. Ces négociations à Constantinople étaient fortement motivées par des intérêts stratégiques et coloniaux. Chaque puissance cherchait à étendre son influence dans la région, qui était stratégiquement importante en raison de sa position géographique et de ses ressources. La Russie était particulièrement intéressée par le contrôle des détroits du Bosphore et des Dardanelles, qui étaient essentiels pour son accès à la Méditerranée. La France et la Grande-Bretagne, quant à elles, cherchaient à étendre leurs empires coloniaux et à sécuriser leur accès aux ressources, notamment le pétrole de la région. Cependant, il est important de noter que, bien que ces discussions aient eu un impact important sur l'avenir des territoires ottomans, les accords les plus significatifs et les plus détaillés concernant leur partage ont été formalisés plus tard, notamment dans l'accord Sykes-Picot de 1916.
In 1915, as the First World War raged, crucial negotiations took place in Constantinople, involving representatives of Great Britain, France and Russia. These discussions centred on the future of the territories of the Ottoman Empire, which was then allied to the Central Powers. The Ottoman Empire, weakened and in decline, was seen by the Allies as a territory to be divided in the event of victory. These negotiations in Constantinople were strongly motivated by strategic and colonial interests. Each power sought to extend its influence in the region, which was strategically important because of its geographical position and resources. Russia was particularly interested in controlling the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, which were essential for its access to the Mediterranean. France and Britain, meanwhile, were looking to expand their colonial empires and secure their access to the region's resources, particularly oil. However, it is important to note that, although these discussions had a significant impact on the future of the Ottoman territories, the most significant and detailed agreements concerning their division were formalised later, notably in the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916.


L'accord Sykes-Picot de 1916, conclu par les diplomates britannique Mark Sykes et français François Georges-Picot, représente un moment clé dans l'histoire du Moyen-Orient, influençant profondément la configuration géopolitique de la région après la Première Guerre mondiale. Cet accord a été conçu pour définir le partage des territoires de l'Empire ottoman entre la Grande-Bretagne, la France et, dans une certaine mesure, la Russie, bien que la participation russe ait été rendue caduque par la Révolution russe de 1917. L'accord Sykes-Picot a établi des zones d'influence et de contrôle pour la France et la Grande-Bretagne dans le Moyen-Orient. Selon cet accord, la France devait obtenir un contrôle direct ou une influence sur la Syrie et le Liban, tandis que la Grande-Bretagne devait avoir un contrôle similaire sur l'Irak, la Jordanie et une région autour de la Palestine. Cependant, cet accord n'a pas défini précisément les frontières des futurs États, laissant cela à des négociations et des accords ultérieurs.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, concluded by British diplomat Mark Sykes and French diplomat François Georges-Picot, represents a key moment in the history of the Middle East, profoundly influencing the geopolitical configuration of the region after the First World War. This agreement was designed to define the division of the territories of the Ottoman Empire between Great Britain, France and, to a certain extent, Russia, although Russian participation was rendered null and void by the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Sykes-Picot Agreement established zones of influence and control for France and Britain in the Middle East. Under this agreement, France was to gain direct control or influence over Syria and Lebanon, while Britain was to have similar control over Iraq, Jordan and an area around Palestine. However, this agreement did not precisely define the borders of the future states, leaving that to later negotiations and agreements.


L'importance de l'accord Sykes-Picot réside dans son rôle en tant que "genèse" des mémoires collectives concernant l'espace géographique au Moyen-Orient. Il symbolise l'intervention impérialiste et les manipulations des puissances européennes dans la région, souvent au mépris des identités ethniques, religieuses et culturelles locales. Bien que l'accord ait influencé la création des États dans le Moyen-Orient, les frontières réelles de ces États ont été déterminées par des rapports de force ultérieurs, des négociations diplomatiques et des réalités géopolitiques qui ont évolué après la Première Guerre mondiale. Les conséquences de l'accord Sykes-Picot se sont manifestées dans les mandats de la Société des Nations attribués à la France et à la Grande-Bretagne après la guerre, conduisant à la formation de plusieurs États modernes du Moyen-Orient. Cependant, les frontières tracées et les décisions prises ont souvent ignoré les réalités ethniques et religieuses sur le terrain, semant les graines de futurs conflits et tensions dans la région. L'héritage de l'accord reste un sujet de débat et de mécontentement dans le Moyen-Orient contemporain, symbolisant les interventions et les divisions imposées par des puissances étrangères.[[Fichier:MOMCENC - promesses des Alliés et revendications arabes.png|centré|]]
The importance of the Sykes-Picot agreement lies in its role as the "genesis" of collective memories concerning the geographical space in the Middle East. It symbolises the imperialist intervention and manipulations of the European powers in the region, often in defiance of local ethnic, religious and cultural identities. Although the agreement influenced the creation of states in the Middle East, the actual borders of these states were determined by subsequent balances of power, diplomatic negotiations and geopolitical realities that evolved after the First World War. The consequences of the Sykes-Picot agreement were reflected in the League of Nations mandates given to France and Great Britain after the war, leading to the formation of several modern Middle Eastern states. However, the borders drawn and decisions taken often ignored the ethnic and religious realities on the ground, sowing the seeds of future conflict and tension in the region. The legacy of the agreement remains a subject of debate and discontent in the contemporary Middle East, symbolising the interventions and divisions imposed by foreign powers.


[[Fichier:MOMCENC - promesses des Alliés et revendications arabes.png|centré|]]


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


Cette carte illustre la division des territoires de l'Empire ottoman telle que prévue par les accords Sykes-Picot de 1916 entre la France et la Grande-Bretagne, avec des zones d'administration directe et des zones d'influence.
The "Blue Zone", representing direct French administration, covered the regions that would later become Syria and Lebanon. This shows that France intended to exercise direct control over strategic urban centres and coastal regions. The "Red Zone", under direct British administration, encompassed the future Iraq with key cities such as Baghdad and Basra, as well as Kuwait, which was represented in a detached manner. This zone reflected the British interest in the oil-producing regions and their strategic importance as a gateway to the Persian Gulf. The "Brown Zone", representing Palestine (including places such as Haifa, Jerusalem and Gaza), is not explicitly defined in the Sykes-Picot Agreement in terms of direct control, but is generally associated with British influence. It later became a British mandate and the focus of political tension and conflict as a result of the Balfour Declaration and the Zionist movement.


La "Zone Bleue", représentant l'administration directe française, couvre les régions qui deviendront plus tard la Syrie et le Liban. Cela montre que la France avait l'intention d'exercer un contrôle direct sur les centres urbains et les régions côtières stratégiques. La "Zone Rouge", sous administration directe britannique, englobe le futur Irak avec des villes clés comme Bagdad et Bassora, ainsi que le Koweït, qui est représenté de manière détachée. Cette zone reflète l'intérêt britannique pour les régions pétrolifères et leur importance stratégique en tant que voie d'accès au Golfe Persique. La "Zone Brune", représentant la Palestine (y compris des lieux tels que Haïfa, Jérusalem et Gaza), n'est pas explicitement définie dans l'accord Sykes-Picot en termes de contrôle direct, mais elle est généralement associée à l'influence britannique. Plus tard, cette région deviendra un mandat britannique et le foyer de tensions politiques et de conflits en raison de la Déclaration Balfour et du mouvement sioniste.
Arab Areas A and B" were regions where Arab autonomy was to be recognised under French and British supervision respectively. This was interpreted as a concession to Arab aspirations for some form of autonomy or independence, which had been encouraged by the Allies during the war to win Arab support against the Ottoman Empire. What this map does not show is the complexity and multiple promises made by the Allies during the war, which were often contradictory and led to feelings of betrayal among local populations after the agreement was revealed. The map represents a simplification of the Sykes-Picot agreements, which in reality were much more complex and underwent changes over time as a result of political developments, conflicts and international pressure.


Les "Zones Arabes A et B" sont des régions où l'autonomie arabe devait être reconnue sous la supervision française et britannique respectivement. Cela a été interprété comme une concession aux aspirations arabes pour une certaine forme d'autonomie ou d'indépendance, qui avaient été encouragées par les Alliés pendant la guerre pour gagner un soutien arabe contre l'Empire ottoman. Ce que cette carte ne montre pas, c'est la complexité et les multiples promesses faites par les Alliés pendant la guerre, qui ont souvent été contradictoires et ont conduit à des sentiments de trahison parmi les populations locales après la révélation de l'accord. La carte représente une simplification des accords Sykes-Picot, qui, dans la réalité, ont été beaucoup plus complexes et ont subi des modifications au fil du temps en raison des évolutions politiques, des conflits et des pressions internationales.
The revelation of the Sykes-Picot agreements by the Russian Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution of 1917 had a resounding impact, not only in the Middle East region, but also on the international scene. By exposing these secret agreements, the Bolsheviks sought to criticise the imperialism of the Western powers, particularly France and Britain, and to demonstrate their own commitment to the principles of self-determination and transparency. The Sykes-Picot agreements were not the beginning, but rather a culmination of the long process of the "Oriental Question", a complex diplomatic issue that had preoccupied European powers throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. This process concerned the management and sharing of influence over the territories of the declining Ottoman Empire, and the Sykes-Picot agreements were a decisive step in this process.


La révélation des accords Sykes-Picot par les bolchéviques russes après la Révolution russe de 1917 a eu un impact retentissant, non seulement dans la région du Moyen-Orient, mais aussi sur la scène internationale. En exposant ces accords secrets, les bolchéviques cherchaient à critiquer l'impérialisme des puissances occidentales, notamment la France et la Grande-Bretagne, et à démontrer leur propre engagement envers les principes d'autodétermination et de transparence. Les accords Sykes-Picot ne marquaient pas le début, mais plutôt un point culminant du long processus de la "Question d'Orient", une question diplomatique complexe qui avait préoccupé les puissances européennes pendant tout le 19ème siècle et le début du 20ème siècle. Ce processus concernait la gestion et le partage de l'influence sur les territoires de l'Empire ottoman en déclin, et les accords Sykes-Picot en étaient une étape décisive.
Under these agreements, a French zone of influence was established in Syria and Lebanon, while Britain gained control or influence over Iraq, Jordan and a region around Palestine. The intention was to create buffer zones between the spheres of influence of the great powers, including between the British and the Russians, who had competing interests in the region. This configuration was partly a response to the difficulty of cohabitation between these powers, as demonstrated by their competition in India and elsewhere. The publication of the Sykes-Picot agreements provoked a strong reaction in the Arab world, where they were seen as a betrayal of the promises made to Arab leaders during the war. This revelation exacerbated feelings of mistrust towards the Western powers and fuelled nationalist and anti-imperialist aspirations in the region. The impact of these agreements is still felt today, as they laid the foundations for the modern borders of the Middle East and the political dynamics that continue to influence the region.


Selon ces accords, une zone d'influence française était établie en Syrie et au Liban, tandis que la Grande-Bretagne obtenait le contrôle ou l'influence sur l'Irak, la Jordanie et une région autour de la Palestine. L'intention était de créer des zones-tampons entre les sphères d'influence des grandes puissances, y compris entre les Britanniques et les Russes, qui avaient des intérêts concurrents dans la région. Cette configuration était en partie une réponse à la difficulté de cohabitation entre ces puissances, comme l'avait démontré leur compétition en Inde et ailleurs. La publication des accords Sykes-Picot a suscité une vive réaction dans le monde arabe, où ils étaient perçus comme une trahison des promesses faites aux leaders arabes pendant la guerre. Cette révélation a exacerbé les sentiments de méfiance envers les puissances occidentales et a alimenté les aspirations nationalistes et anti-impérialistes dans la région. L'impact de ces accords se fait encore sentir aujourd'hui, car ils ont jeté les bases des frontières modernes du Moyen-Orient et des dynamiques politiques qui continuent d'influencer la région.
=The Armenian Genocide=


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


=== Contexte Historique et Début du Génocide (1915-1917) ===
During this tragic period, Ottoman Armenians, a minority Christian ethnic group in the Ottoman Empire, were systematically targeted by campaigns of forced deportations, mass executions, death marches and planned famines. The Ottoman authorities, using the war as a cover and pretext to resolve what they considered to be an "Armenian problem", orchestrated these actions with the aim of eliminating the Armenian population from Anatolia and other regions of the Empire. Estimates of the number of victims vary, but it is widely accepted that up to 1.5 million Armenians perished. The Armenian genocide has left a profound mark on the Armenian collective memory and has had a lasting impact on the global Armenian community. It is considered one of the first modern genocides and cast a shadow over Turkish-Armenian relations for more than a century.
La Première Guerre mondiale a été une période de conflits intenses et de bouleversements politiques, mais elle a également été marquée par l'un des événements les plus tragiques du début du XXe siècle : le génocide arménien. Ce génocide a été perpétré par le gouvernement Jeunes-Turcs de l'Empire ottoman entre 1915 et 1917, bien que des actes de violence et de déportation aient commencé avant et se soient poursuivis après ces dates.


Au cours de cet événement tragique, les Arméniens ottomans, un groupe ethnique chrétien minoritaire dans l'Empire ottoman, ont été systématiquement visés par des campagnes de déportations forcées, d'exécutions massives, de marches de la mort et de famines planifiées. Les autorités ottomanes, utilisant la guerre comme couverture et prétexte pour résoudre ce qu'elles considéraient comme un "problème arménien", ont orchestré ces actions dans le but d'éliminer la population arménienne de l'Anatolie et d'autres régions de l'empire. Les estimations du nombre de victimes varient, mais il est largement reconnu que jusqu'à 1,5 million d'Arméniens ont péri. Le génocide arménien a profondément marqué la mémoire collective arménienne et a eu des répercussions durables sur la communauté arménienne mondiale. Il est considéré comme l'un des premiers génocides modernes et a jeté une ombre sur les relations turco-arméniennes pendant plus d'un siècle.
Recognition of the Armenian genocide remains a sensitive and controversial issue. Many countries and international organisations have formally recognised the genocide, but certain debates and diplomatic tensions persist, particularly with Turkey, which disputes the characterisation of the events as genocide. The Armenian genocide has also had implications for international law, influencing the development of the notion of genocide and motivating efforts to prevent such atrocities in the future. This sombre event underlines the importance of historical memory and recognition of past injustices in building a common future based on understanding and reconciliation.


La reconnaissance du génocide arménien reste un sujet sensible et controversé. De nombreux pays et organisations internationales ont reconnu formellement le génocide, mais certains débats et des tensions diplomatiques persistent, notamment avec la Turquie, qui conteste la caractérisation des événements en tant que génocide. Le génocide arménien a également eu des implications pour le droit international, en influençant le développement de la notion de génocide et en motivant les efforts pour prévenir de telles atrocités à l'avenir. Cet événement sombre souligne l'importance de la mémoire historique et de la reconnaissance des injustices passées dans la construction d'un avenir commun basé sur la compréhension et la réconciliation.
=== Armenia's historical roots ===
The Armenian people have a rich and ancient history, dating back to well before the Christian era. According to Armenian nationalist tradition and mythology, their roots go back as far as 200 BC, and even earlier. This is supported by archaeological and historical evidence showing that Armenians have occupied the Armenian plateau for millennia. Historic Armenia, often referred to as Upper Armenia or Greater Armenia, was located in an area that included parts of eastern modern Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, modern Iran and Iraq. This region was the birthplace of the kingdom of Urartu, considered to be a precursor of ancient Armenia, which flourished from the 9th to the 6th century BC. The kingdom of Armenia was formally established and recognised at the beginning of the 6th century BC, after the fall of Urartu and through integration into the Achaemenid Empire. It reached its apogee under the reign of Tigran the Great in the 1st century BC, when it briefly expanded to form an empire stretching from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean.  


=== Racines Historiques de l'Arménie ===
The historical depth of the Armenian presence in the region is also illustrated by the early adoption of Christianity as the state religion in 301 AD, making Armenia the first country to do so officially. Armenians have maintained a distinct cultural and religious identity throughout the centuries, despite invasions and the domination of various foreign empires. This long history has forged a strong national identity that has survived through the ages, even in the face of severe hardship such as the Armenian genocide in the early 20th century. Armenian mythological and historical accounts, although sometimes embellished in a nationalist spirit, are based on a real and significant history that has contributed to the cultural richness and resilience of the Armenian people.
Le peuple arménien possède une histoire antique et riche, remontant bien avant l'ère chrétienne. Selon la tradition et certaines mythologies nationalistes arméniennes, leurs racines seraient établies dès 200 avant J-C, et même plus tôt. Cela est soutenu par des preuves archéologiques et historiques montrant que les Arméniens ont occupé le plateau arménien depuis des millénaires. L'Arménie historique, souvent appelée l'Arménie Haute ou Grande Arménie, était située dans une région comprenant des parties de l'est de la Turquie moderne, de l'Arménie, de l'Azerbaïdjan, de la Géorgie, de l'Iran et de l'Irak actuels. Cette région a vu naître le royaume d'Urartu, considéré comme un précurseur de l'Arménie antique, qui a prospéré du 9ème au 6ème siècle avant J-C. Le royaume d'Arménie a été établi et reconnu formellement au début du 6ème siècle avant J-C, après la chute d'Urartu et à travers l'intégration dans l'empire achéménide. Il a atteint son apogée sous le règne de Tigrane le Grand au 1er siècle avant J-C, où il s'est brièvement étendu pour former un empire allant de la mer Caspienne à la Méditerranée.  


La profondeur historique de la présence arménienne dans la région est également illustrée par l'adoption précoce du christianisme comme religion d'État en 301 après J-C, faisant de l'Arménie le premier pays à le faire officiellement. Les Arméniens ont maintenu une identité culturelle et religieuse distincte tout au long des siècles, malgré les invasions et la domination de divers empires étrangers. Cette longue histoire a forgé une forte identité nationale qui a survécu à travers les âges, même face à de graves épreuves telles que le génocide arménien du début du XXe siècle. Les récits mythologiques et historiques arméniens, bien que parfois embellis dans un esprit nationaliste, s'appuient sur une histoire réelle et significative qui a contribué à la richesse culturelle et à la résilience du peuple arménien.
=== Armenia, the first Christian state ===
Armenia holds the historic title of being the first kingdom to officially adopt Christianity as its state religion. This monumental event took place in 301 AD, during the reign of King Tiridates III, and was largely influenced by the missionary activity of Saint Gregory the Illuminator, who became the first head of the Armenian Church. The conversion of the Kingdom of Armenia to Christianity preceded that of the Roman Empire, which, under Emperor Constantine, began to adopt Christianity as its dominant religion after the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. The Armenian conversion was a significant process that profoundly influenced the cultural and national identity of the Armenian people. The adoption of Christianity led to the development of Armenian culture and religious art, including the unique architecture of Armenian churches and monasteries, as well as the creation of the Armenian alphabet by Saint Mesrop Mashtots in the early 5th century. This alphabet enabled Armenian literature to flourish, including the translation of the Bible and other important religious texts, thus helping to strengthen the Armenian Christian identity. Armenia's position as the first Christian state also had political and geopolitical implications, as it was often placed on the border of major competing empires and surrounded by non-Christian neighbours. This distinction has helped to shape Armenia's role and history over the centuries, making it an important player in the history of Christianity and in the regional history of the Middle East and the Caucasus.  


=== L'Arménie, Premier État Chrétien ===
Armenia's history after the adoption of Christianity as the state religion was complex and often tumultuous. After several centuries of conflict with neighbouring empires and periods of relative autonomy, the Armenians experienced a major change with the Arab conquests in the 7th century.  
L'Arménie détient le titre historique d'être le premier royaume à adopter officiellement le christianisme comme religion d'État. Cet événement monumental a eu lieu en l'an 301 après J-C, sous le règne du roi Tiridate III, et a été largement influencé par l'activité missionnaire de Saint Grégoire l'Illuminateur, qui est devenu le premier chef de l'Église arménienne. La conversion du royaume d'Arménie au christianisme a précédé celle de l'Empire romain, qui, sous l'empereur Constantin, a commencé à adopter le christianisme comme religion dominante après l'édit de Milan en 313 après J-C. La conversion arménienne a été un processus significatif qui a profondément influencé l'identité culturelle et nationale du peuple arménien. L'adoption du christianisme a conduit au développement de la culture et de l'art religieux arméniens, y compris l'architecture unique des églises et des monastères arméniens, ainsi que la création de l'alphabet arménien par Saint Mesrop Mashtots au début du 5ème siècle. Cet alphabet a permis la floraison de la littérature arménienne, notamment la traduction de la Bible et d'autres textes religieux importants, contribuant ainsi à renforcer l'identité chrétienne arménienne. La position de l'Arménie en tant que premier État chrétien a également eu des implications politiques et géopolitiques, souvent placée à la frontière de grands empires en compétition et entourée de voisins non chrétiens. Cette distinction a contribué à façonner le rôle et l'histoire de l'Arménie à travers les siècles, en faisant un acteur important dans l'histoire du christianisme et dans l'histoire régionale du Moyen-Orient et du Caucase.  


L'histoire de l'Arménie après l'adoption du christianisme comme religion d'État a été complexe et souvent tumultueuse. Après plusieurs siècles de conflits avec des empires voisins et des périodes d'autonomie relative, les Arméniens ont connu un changement majeur avec les conquêtes arabes au 7ème siècle.  
With the rapid spread of Islam following the death of the prophet Mohammed, Arab forces conquered vast swathes of the Middle East, including much of Armenia, around 640 AD. This period saw Armenia divided between Byzantine influence and the Arab caliphate, resulting in a cultural and political division of the Armenian region. During the period of Arab rule, and later under the Ottoman Empire, Armenians, as Christians, were generally classified as "dhimmis" - a protected but inferior category of non-Muslims under Islamic law. This status gave them a degree of protection and allowed them to practise their religion, but they were also subject to specific taxes and social and legal restrictions. The largest part of historic Armenia found itself caught between the Ottoman and Russian empires in the 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period, Armenians sought to preserve their cultural and religious identity, while facing increasing political challenges.


Avec l'expansion rapide de l'islam à la suite de la mort du prophète Mahomet, les forces arabes ont conquis de vastes étendues du Moyen-Orient, y compris une grande partie de l'Arménie, autour de l'an 640. Cette période a vu l'Arménie être divisée entre l'influence byzantine et le califat arabe, ce qui a entraîné une division culturelle et politique de la région arménienne. Pendant la période de domination arabe, et plus tard sous l'Empire ottoman, les Arméniens, en tant que chrétiens, étaient généralement classés comme "dhimmis" – une catégorie protégée mais inférieure de non-musulmans sous la loi islamique. Ce statut leur conférait une certaine protection et leur permettait de pratiquer leur religion, mais ils étaient également soumis à des taxes spécifiques et à des restrictions sociales et légales. La partie la plus importante de l'Arménie historique s'est retrouvée prise en étau entre l'Empire ottoman et l'Empire russe au 19ème et au début du 20ème siècle. Durant cette période, les Arméniens ont cherché à préserver leur identité culturelle et religieuse, tout en étant confrontés à des défis politiques croissants.
Under the reign of Sultan Abdülhamid II (late 19th century), the Ottoman Empire adopted a pan-Islamist policy, seeking to unite the diverse Muslim peoples of the empire in response to the decline of Ottoman power and internal and external pressures. This policy often exacerbated ethnic and religious tensions within the Empire, leading to violence against Armenians and other non-Muslim groups. The Hamidian massacres of the late 19th century, in which tens of thousands of Armenians were killed, are a tragic example of the violence that preceded and foreshadowed the Armenian genocide of 1915. These events highlighted the difficulties faced by Armenians and other minorities in an empire seeking political and religious unity in the face of emerging nationalism and imperial decline.


Sous le règne du Sultan Abdülhamid II (fin du 19ème siècle), l'Empire ottoman a adopté une politique panislamiste, cherchant à unir les divers peuples musulmans de l'empire en réponse au déclin de la puissance ottomane et aux pressions internes et externes. Cette politique a souvent exacerbé les tensions ethniques et religieuses au sein de l'Empire, ce qui a conduit à des violences contre les Arméniens et d'autres groupes non-musulmans. Les massacres hamidiens de la fin du 19ème siècle, durant lesquels des dizaines de milliers d'Arméniens ont été tués, sont un exemple tragique de la violence qui a précédé et préfiguré le génocide arménien de 1915. Ces événements ont mis en lumière les difficultés rencontrées par les Arméniens et d'autres minorités dans un empire en quête d'unité politique et religieuse face à l'émergence du nationalisme et du déclin impérial.
=== The Treaty of San Stefano and the Congress of Berlin ===
The Treaty of San Stefano, signed in 1878, was a pivotal moment for the Armenian question, which became a matter of international concern. The treaty was concluded at the end of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, which saw a significant defeat for the Ottoman Empire at the hands of the Russian Empire. One of the most remarkable aspects of the Treaty of San Stefano was the clause requiring the Ottoman Empire to implement reforms in favour of the Christian populations, particularly the Armenians, and to improve their living conditions. This implicitly recognised the mistreatment that the Armenians had suffered and the need for international protection. However, implementation of the reforms promised in the treaty was largely ineffective. The Ottoman Empire, weakened by the war and internal pressures, was reluctant to grant concessions that might have been perceived as foreign interference in its internal affairs. In addition, the provisions of the Treaty of San Stefano were reworked later that year by the Congress of Berlin, which adjusted the terms of the treaty to accommodate the concerns of other major powers, notably Great Britain and Austria-Hungary.  


=== Le Traité de San Stefano et le Congrès de Berlin ===
The Congress of Berlin nevertheless kept up the pressure on the Ottoman Empire to reform, but in practice little was done to actually improve the situation of the Armenians. This lack of action, combined with political instability and growing ethnic tensions within the Empire, created an environment that eventually led to the Hamidian massacres of the 1890s and, later, the Armenian genocide of 1915. The internationalisation of the Armenian question by the Treaty of San Stefano thus marked the beginning of a period in which the European powers began to exert more direct influence over the affairs of the Ottoman Empire, often under the guise of protecting Christian minorities. However, the gap between promises of reform and their implementation left a legacy of unfulfilled commitments with tragic consequences for the Armenian people.
Le Traité de San Stefano, signé en 1878, a été un moment charnière pour la question arménienne, qui est devenue un sujet de préoccupation internationale. Le traité a été conclu à la fin de la guerre russo-turque de 1877-1878, qui a vu une défaite significative pour l'Empire ottoman face à l'Empire russe. L'un des aspects les plus remarquables du Traité de San Stefano était la clause qui demandait à l'Empire ottoman de mettre en œuvre des réformes en faveur des populations chrétiennes, notamment les Arméniens, et d'améliorer leurs conditions de vie. Cela reconnaissait implicitement les mauvais traitements que les Arméniens avaient subis et la nécessité d'une protection internationale. Cependant, la mise en œuvre des réformes promises dans le traité a été largement inefficace. L'Empire ottoman, affaibli par la guerre et les pressions internes, était réticent à accorder des concessions qui auraient pu être perçues comme une ingérence étrangère dans ses affaires intérieures. De plus, les dispositions du Traité de San Stefano ont été remaniées plus tard cette année-là par le Congrès de Berlin, qui a ajusté les termes du traité pour répondre aux préoccupations des autres grandes puissances, notamment la Grande-Bretagne et l'Autriche-Hongrie.  


Le Congrès de Berlin a néanmoins maintenu la pression sur l'Empire ottoman pour qu'il procède à des réformes, mais en pratique, peu de changements ont été effectués pour améliorer réellement la situation des Arméniens. Ce manque d'action, combiné à l'instabilité politique et aux tensions ethniques croissantes au sein de l'Empire, a créé un environnement qui a finalement conduit aux massacres hamidiens des années 1890 et, plus tard, au génocide arménien de 1915. La question arménienne internationalisée par le Traité de San Stefano a donc marqué le début d'une période où les puissances européennes ont commencé à exercer une influence plus directe sur les affaires de l'Empire ottoman, souvent sous le couvert de protéger les minorités chrétiennes. Cependant, l'écart entre les promesses de réformes et leur mise en œuvre a laissé un héritage d'engagements non tenus qui a eu des conséquences tragiques pour le peuple arménien.
The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were a period of great violence for the Armenian and Assyrian communities of the Ottoman Empire. In particular, the years 1895 and 1896 were marked by large-scale massacres, often referred to as the Hamidian massacres, named after Sultan Abdülhamid II. These massacres were carried out in response to Armenian protests against oppressive taxes, persecution and the lack of reforms promised by the Treaty of San Stefano. The Young Turks, a reformist nationalist movement that came to power after a coup in 1908, were initially seen as a source of hope for minorities in the Ottoman Empire. However, a radical faction of this movement ended up adopting an even more aggressive and nationalist policy than their predecessors. Convinced of the need to create a homogenous Turkish state, they saw Armenians and other non-Turkish minorities as obstacles to their national vision. Systematic discrimination against Armenians increased, fuelled by accusations of treason and collusion with the enemies of the Empire, notably Russia. This atmosphere of suspicion and hatred created the breeding ground for the genocide that began in 1915. One of the first acts of this genocidal campaign was the arrest and murder of Armenian intellectuals and leaders in Constantinople on 24 April 1915, a date that is now commemorated as the start of the Armenian genocide.  


La fin du XIXe siècle et le début du XXe siècle ont été une période de grande violence pour les communautés arméniennes et assyriennes de l'Empire ottoman. Les années 1895 et 1896 ont notamment été marquées par des massacres à grande échelle, souvent appelés les massacres hamidiens, du nom du sultan Abdülhamid II. Ces massacres ont été perpétrés en réponse aux manifestations arméniennes contre les taxes oppressives, les persécutions, et le manque de réformes promises par le traité de San Stefano. Les Jeunes Turcs, un mouvement nationaliste réformiste qui a pris le pouvoir après un coup d'État en 1908, étaient initialement perçus comme une source d'espoir pour les minorités de l'Empire ottoman. Cependant, une faction radicale de ce mouvement a fini par adopter une politique encore plus agressive et nationaliste que leurs prédécesseurs. Convaincus de la nécessité de créer un État turc homogène, ils ont considéré les Arméniens et d'autres minorités non turques comme des obstacles à leur vision nationale. La discrimination systématique contre les Arméniens a augmenté, alimentée par des accusations de trahison et de collusion avec les ennemis de l'Empire, notamment la Russie. Cette atmosphère de suspicion et de haine a créé le terreau pour le génocide qui a débuté en 1915. L'une des premières actions de cette campagne génocidaire a été l'arrestation et l'assassinat d'intellectuels et de leaders arméniens à Constantinople le 24 avril 1915, une date qui est maintenant commémorée comme le début du génocide arménien.  
Mass deportations, death marches to the Syrian desert and massacres followed, with estimates of up to 1.5 million Armenians killed. In addition to the death marches, there are reports of Armenians being forced to board ships that were intentionally sunk in the Black Sea. In the face of these horrors, some Armenians converted to Islam to survive, while others went into hiding or were protected by sympathetic neighbours, including Kurds. At the same time, the Assyrian population also suffered similar atrocities between 1914 and 1920. As a millet, or autonomous community recognised by the Ottoman Empire, the Assyrians should have enjoyed some protection. However, in the context of the First World War and Turkish nationalism, they were the target of systematic extermination campaigns. These tragic events show how discrimination, dehumanisation and extremism can lead to acts of mass violence. The Armenian genocide and the massacres of the Assyrians are dark chapters in history that underline the importance of remembrance, recognition and prevention of genocide to ensure that such atrocities never happen again.


Les déportations massives, les marches de la mort vers le désert syrien et les massacres ont suivi, avec des estimations allant jusqu'à 1,5 million d'Arméniens tués. En plus des marches de la mort, des rapports attestent que des Arméniens ont été forcés de monter à bord de bateaux qui ont été intentionnellement coulés en mer Noire. Face à ces horreurs, certains Arméniens se sont convertis à l'islam pour survivre, tandis que d'autres se sont cachés ou ont été protégés par des voisins sympathiques, y compris des Kurdes. En parallèle, la population assyrienne a également subi des atrocités similaires entre 1914 et 1920. En tant que millet, ou communauté autonome reconnue par l'Empire ottoman, les Assyriens auraient dû bénéficier d'une certaine protection. Cependant, dans le contexte de la Première Guerre mondiale et du nationalisme turc, ils ont été la cible de campagnes d'extermination systématiques. Ces événements tragiques montrent comment la discrimination, la déshumanisation et l'extrémisme peuvent conduire à des actes de violence de masse. Le génocide arménien et les massacres des Assyriens sont des chapitres sombres de l'histoire qui soulignent l'importance de la mémoire, de la reconnaissance et de la prévention du génocide pour que de telles atrocités ne se reproduisent plus.
=== Towards the Republic of Turkey and the Denial of Genocide ===
The occupation of Istanbul by the Allies in 1919 and the establishment of a court martial to try those Ottoman officials responsible for the atrocities committed during the war marked an attempt to bring justice for the crimes committed, in particular the Armenian genocide. However, the situation in Anatolia remained unstable and complex. The nationalist movement in Turkey, led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, grew rapidly in response to the terms of the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, which dismembered the Ottoman Empire and imposed severe sanctions on Turkey. The Kemalists rejected the treaty as a humiliation and a threat to Turkey's sovereignty and territorial integrity.


=== Vers la République de Turquie et le Déni du Génocide ===
One of the sticking points was the question of the Greek Orthodox populations in Turkey, which were protected by the provisions of the treaty but were at stake in the Greek-Turkish conflict. Tensions between the Greek and Turkish communities led to large-scale violence and population exchanges, exacerbated by the war between Greece and Turkey from 1919 to 1922. Mustafa Kemal, who had been a prominent member of the Young Turks and gained fame as the defender of the Dardanelles during the First World War, is sometimes quoted as having described the Armenian genocide as a "shameful act". However, these claims are subject to controversy and historical debate. The official position of Kemal and the nascent Republic of Turkey on the genocide was to deny it and attribute it to wartime circumstances and civil unrest rather than to a deliberate policy of extermination.
L'occupation d'Istanbul par les Alliés en 1919 et la mise en place d'une cour martiale pour juger les responsables ottomans des atrocités commises pendant la guerre ont marqué une tentative de rendre justice pour les crimes commis, notamment le génocide arménien. Toutefois, la situation en Anatolie restait instable et complexe. Le mouvement nationaliste en Turquie, mené par Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, s'est rapidement développé en réponse aux conditions du Traité de Sèvres de 1920, qui démembré l'Empire ottoman et imposé des sanctions sévères à la Turquie. Les kémalistes ont rejeté ce traité, le considérant comme une humiliation et une menace pour la souveraineté et l'intégrité territoriale de la Turquie.


Un des points de friction était la question des populations orthodoxes grecques en Turquie, qui étaient protégées par les dispositions du traité mais se trouvaient être un enjeu dans le conflit gréco-turc. Les tensions entre les communautés grecques et turques ont conduit à des violences et à des échanges de populations à grande échelle, exacerbées par la guerre entre la Grèce et la Turquie de 1919 à 1922. Mustafa Kemal, qui avait été un membre éminent des Jeunes Turcs et avait acquis une renommée en tant que défenseur des Dardanelles pendant la Première Guerre mondiale, est parfois cité comme ayant qualifié le génocide arménien d'"acte honteux". Cependant, ces affirmations sont sujettes à controverse et à débat historique. La position officielle de Kemal et de la République de Turquie naissante sur le génocide a été de le nier et de l'attribuer aux circonstances de guerre et aux troubles civils plutôt qu'à une politique délibérée d'extermination.
During the resistance for Anatolia and the struggle to establish the Republic of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal and his supporters focused on building a unified Turkish nation-state, and any acknowledgement of past events that might have divided or weakened this national project was avoided. The period following the First World War was therefore marked by major political changes, attempts at post-conflict justice, and the emergence of new nation-states in the region, with the nascent Republic of Turkey seeking to define its own identity and politics independently of the Ottoman legacy.


Lors de la résistance pour l'Anatolie et la lutte pour l'établissement de la République de Turquie, Mustafa Kemal et ses partisans se sont concentrés sur la construction d'un État-nation turc unifié, et toute reconnaissance des événements passés qui auraient pu diviser ou affaiblir ce projet national était évitée. La période suivant la Première Guerre mondiale a donc été marquée par des changements politiques majeurs, des tentatives de justice post-conflit, et l'émergence de nouveaux États-nations dans la région, avec la République de Turquie naissante cherchant à définir sa propre identité et politique indépendamment de l'héritage ottoman.
=The founding of Turkey=


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


=== Le Traité de Lausanne et la Nouvelle Réalité Politique (1923) ===
At the same time, the treaty formalised the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey, which led to the "expulsion of Greeks from Turkish territories", a painful episode marked by the forced displacement of populations and the end of historic communities in Anatolia and Thrace. After the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, the Union and Progress Committee (CUP), better known as the Young Turks, which had been in power during the First World War, was officially dissolved. Several of its leaders went into exile, and some were assassinated in retaliation for their role in the Armenian genocide and the destructive policies of the war.
Le traité de Lausanne, signé le 24 juillet 1923, a marqué un tournant décisif dans l'histoire contemporaine de la Turquie et du Moyen-Orient. Après l'échec du traité de Sèvres, principalement dû à la résistance nationale turque dirigée par Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, les Alliés ont été contraints de renégocier. Épuisées par la guerre et confrontées à la réalité d'une Turquie déterminée à défendre son intégrité territoriale, les puissances alliées ont dû reconnaître la nouvelle réalité politique établie par les nationalistes turcs. Le traité de Lausanne a établi les frontières internationalement reconnues de la République de Turquie moderne et a annulé les dispositions du traité de Sèvres, qui avait prévu la création d'un État kurde et reconnu un certain degré de protection pour les Arméniens. En n'incluant pas de disposition pour la création d'un Kurdistan ni de mesure pour les Arméniens, le traité de Lausanne a fermé la porte à la "question kurde" et à la "question arménienne" sur le plan international, laissant ces problématiques non résolues.


Dans le même temps, le traité a formalisé l'échange de populations entre la Grèce et la Turquie, ce qui a conduit à la "chasse des Grecs hors des territoires turcs", un épisode douloureux marqué par le déplacement forcé de populations et la fin de communautés historiques en Anatolie et en Thrace. Après la signature du traité de Lausanne, le Comité Union et Progrès (CUP), plus connu sous le nom de Jeunes Turcs, qui avait été au pouvoir pendant la Première Guerre mondiale, a été officiellement dissous. Plusieurs de ses dirigeants ont été exilés, et certains ont été assassinés dans le cadre d'opérations de représailles pour leur rôle dans le génocide arménien et les politiques destructrices de la guerre.
In the years that followed, the Republic of Turkey was consolidated, and several nationalist associations emerged with the aim of defending the sovereignty and integrity of Anatolia. Religion played a role in the construction of national identity, with a distinction often drawn between the "Christian West" and "Muslim Anatolia". This discourse was used to reinforce national cohesion and to justify resistance against any foreign influence or intervention perceived as a threat to the Turkish nation. The Treaty of Lausanne is therefore regarded as the cornerstone of the modern Republic of Turkey, and its legacy continues to shape Turkey's domestic and foreign policy, as well as its relations with its neighbours and minority communities within its borders.


Dans les années qui ont suivi, la République de Turquie a été consolidée, et plusieurs associations nationalistes ont émergé avec pour objectif de défendre la souveraineté et l'intégrité de l'Anatolie. La religion a joué un rôle dans la construction de l'identité nationale, avec une distinction souvent évoquée entre l'"Occident chrétien" et l'"Anatolie musulmane". Ce discours a été utilisé pour renforcer la cohésion nationale et pour justifier la résistance contre toute influence ou intervention étrangère perçue comme une menace pour la nation turque. Le traité de Lausanne est donc considéré comme la pierre angulaire de la République de Turquie moderne, et son héritage continue de façonner la politique intérieure et extérieure de la Turquie, ainsi que ses relations avec ses voisins et les communautés minoritaires au sein de ses frontières.
=== The Arrival of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the Turkish National Resistance (1919) ===
The arrival of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Anatolia in May 1919 marked the beginning of a new phase in the struggle for Turkish independence and sovereignty. Opposing the Allied occupation and the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres, he established himself as the leader of the Turkish national resistance. In the years that followed, Mustafa Kemal led several crucial military campaigns. He fought on various fronts: against the Armenians in 1921, against the French in southern Anatolia to redefine borders, and against the Greeks, who had occupied the city of Izmir in 1919 and advanced into western Anatolia. These conflicts were key elements in the Turkish nationalist movement to establish a new nation state on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. British strategy in the region was complex. Faced with the possibility of a wider conflict between Greeks and Turks on the one hand, and Turks and British on the other, Britain saw an advantage in letting the Greeks and Turks fight each other, which would allow them to concentrate their efforts elsewhere, notably in Iraq, an oil-rich and strategically important territory.


=== L'Arrivée de Mustafa Kemal Atatürk et la Résistance Nationale Turque (1919) ===
The Greek-Turkish war culminated in the Turkish victory and Greek withdrawal from Anatolia in 1922, which resulted in the Asia Minor catastrophe for Greece and a major victory for Turkish nationalist forces. Mustafa Kemal's victorious military campaign enabled the terms of the Treaty of Sevres to be renegotiated and led to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which recognised the sovereignty of the Republic of Turkey and redefined its borders. At the same time as the Treaty of Lausanne, a convention for the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey was drawn up. This led to the forced exchange of Greek Orthodox and Turkish Muslim populations between the two countries, with the aim of creating more ethnically homogenous states. After repelling the French forces, concluding border agreements and signing the Treaty of Lausanne, Mustafa Kemal proclaimed the Republic of Turkey on 29 October 1923, becoming its first president. The proclamation of the Republic marked the culmination of Mustafa Kemal's efforts to found a modern, secular and nationalist Turkish state on the remnants of the multi-ethnic and multi-faith Ottoman Empire.
L'arrivée de Mustafa Kemal Atatürk en Anatolie en mai 1919 a marqué le début d'une nouvelle phase dans la lutte pour l'indépendance et la souveraineté turque. S'opposant à l'occupation alliée et aux termes du traité de Sèvres, il s'est établi comme le leader de la résistance nationale turque. Dans les années qui ont suivi, Mustafa Kemal a mené plusieurs campagnes militaires cruciales. Il a combattu sur différents fronts : contre les Arméniens en 1921, contre les Français dans le sud de l'Anatolie pour redéfinir les frontières, et contre les Grecs, qui avaient occupé la ville d'Izmir en 1919 et avancé dans l'ouest de l'Anatolie. Ces conflits ont été des éléments clés du mouvement nationaliste turc pour établir un nouvel État-nation sur les ruines de l'Empire ottoman. La stratégie britannique dans la région était complexe. Confrontée à la possibilité d'un conflit élargi entre Grecs et Turcs d'une part, et entre Turcs et Britanniques de l'autre, la Grande-Bretagne a vu un avantage dans le fait de laisser les Grecs et les Turcs s'affronter, ce qui leur permettrait de concentrer leurs efforts ailleurs, notamment en Irak, un territoire riche en pétrole et stratégiquement important.


La guerre gréco-turque a culminé avec la victoire turque et le retrait grec de l'Anatolie en 1922, qui a abouti à la catastrophe d'Asie Mineure pour la Grèce et à une victoire majeure pour les forces nationalistes turques. La campagne militaire victorieuse de Mustafa Kemal a permis de renégocier les termes du traité de Sèvres et a abouti à la signature du traité de Lausanne en 1923, qui a reconnu la souveraineté de la République de Turquie et redéfini ses frontières. Parallèlement au traité de Lausanne, une convention pour l'échange de populations entre la Grèce et la Turquie a été établie. Cette convention a conduit à l'échange forcé de populations grecques orthodoxes et de populations turques musulmanes entre les deux pays, dans le but de créer des États ethniquement plus homogènes. Après avoir repoussé les forces françaises, conclu des accords de frontières et signé le traité de Lausanne, Mustafa Kemal a proclamé la République de Turquie le 29 octobre 1923, devenant son premier président. La proclamation de la République a marqué l'aboutissement des efforts de Mustafa Kemal pour fonder un État turc moderne, laïc et nationaliste sur les vestiges de l'Empire ottoman multiethnique et multiconfessionnel.
=== Border formation and the Mosul and Antioch issues ===
After the conclusion of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which marked the international recognition of the Republic of Turkey and redefined its borders, there were still unresolved border issues, particularly concerning the city of Antioch and the Mosul region. These issues required further negotiations and the intervention of international organisations in order to be resolved. The city of Antioch, located in the historically rich and culturally diverse region of southern Anatolia, was a subject of contention between Turkey and France, the latter exercising a mandate over Syria, including Antioch. The city, with its multicultural past and strategic importance, was a point of tension between the two countries. Eventually, after negotiations, Antioch was awarded to Turkey, although the decision was a source of controversy and tension. The issue of the Mosul region was even more complex. Rich in oil, the Mosul region was claimed by both Turkey and Great Britain, which had a mandate over Iraq. Turkey, on the basis of historical and demographic arguments, wanted to include it within its borders, while Great Britain supported its inclusion in Iraq for strategic and economic reasons, in particular because of the presence of oil.


=== La Formation des Frontières et les Questions de Mossoul et Antioche ===
The League of Nations, forerunner of the United Nations, intervened to resolve the dispute. After a series of negotiations, an agreement was reached in 1925. Under this agreement, the Mosul region would become part of Iraq, but Turkey would receive financial compensation, notably in the form of a share of oil revenues. The agreement also stipulated that Turkey should officially recognise Iraq and its borders. This decision was crucial in stabilising relations between Turkey, Iraq and Great Britain and played an important role in defining Iraq's borders, influencing future developments in the Middle East. These negotiations and the resulting agreements illustrate the complexity of post-First World War dynamics in the Middle East. They show how the modern borders of the region have been shaped by a mixture of historical claims, strategic and economic considerations, and international interventions, often reflecting the interests of the colonial powers rather than those of the local populations.
Après la conclusion du traité de Lausanne en 1923, qui a marqué la reconnaissance internationale de la République de Turquie et redéfini ses frontières, il restait encore des questions frontalières non résolues, notamment concernant la ville d'Antioche et la région de Mossoul. Ces questions ont nécessité des négociations supplémentaires et l'intervention d'organisations internationales pour être résolues. La ville d'Antioche, située dans la région historiquement riche et culturellement diverse du sud de l'Anatolie, était un sujet de revendication entre la Turquie et la France, cette dernière exerçant un mandat sur la Syrie, y compris Antioche. Cette ville, avec son passé multiculturel et son importance stratégique, était un point de tension entre les deux pays. Finalement, après des négociations, Antioche a été attribuée à la Turquie, bien que la décision ait été source de controverses et de tensions. La question de la région de Mossoul était encore plus complexe. Riche en pétrole, la région de Mossoul était revendiquée à la fois par la Turquie et par la Grande-Bretagne, qui détenait un mandat sur l'Irak. La Turquie, s'appuyant sur des arguments historiques et démographiques, souhaitait l'inclure dans ses frontières, tandis que la Grande-Bretagne soutenait son inclusion dans l'Irak pour des raisons stratégiques et économiques, notamment en raison de la présence de pétrole.


La Société des Nations, précurseur de l'Organisation des Nations Unies, est intervenue pour résoudre ce différend. Après une série de négociations, un accord a été conclu en 1925. Selon cet accord, la région de Mossoul serait intégrée à l'Irak, mais la Turquie recevrait une compensation financière, notamment sous la forme d'une part des revenus pétroliers. Cet accord stipulait également que la Turquie devait reconnaître officiellement l'Irak et ses frontières. Cette décision a été cruciale pour la stabilisation des relations entre la Turquie, l'Irak et la Grande-Bretagne et a joué un rôle important dans la définition des frontières de l'Irak, influençant les développements futurs du Moyen-Orient. Ces négociations et les accords qui en ont résulté illustrent la complexité des dynamiques post-première Guerre mondiale au Moyen-Orient. Elles montrent comment les frontières modernes de la région ont été façonnées par un mélange de revendications historiques, de considérations stratégiques et économiques, et d'interventions internationales, souvent reflétant les intérêts des puissances coloniales plutôt que ceux des populations locales.
=== The Radical Reforms of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk ===
The post-First World War period in Turkey was marked by radical reforms and transformations led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who sought to modernise and secularise the new Republic of Turkey. In 1922, a crucial step was taken with the abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate by the Turkish Parliament, a decision that ended centuries of imperial rule and consolidated political power in Ankara, Turkey's new capital. The year 1924 saw another major reform with the abolition of the Caliphate. This decision eliminated the Islamic religious and political leadership that had been a feature of the Ottoman Empire and represented a decisive step towards the secularisation of the state. In parallel with this abolition, the Turkish government created the Diyanet, or the Presidency of Religious Affairs, an institution designed to supervise and regulate religious matters in the country. The aim of this organisation was to place religious affairs under the control of the state and to ensure that religion was not used for political ends. Mustafa Kemal then implemented a series of reforms aimed at modernising Turkey, often referred to as "authoritarian modernisation". These reforms included the secularisation of education, the reform of the dress code, the adoption of a Gregorian calendar, and the introduction of civil law to replace Islamic religious law.


=== Les Réformes Radicales de Mustafa Kemal Atatürk ===
As part of the creation of a homogenous Turkish nation-state, assimilation policies were put in place for minorities and different ethnic groups. These policies included the creation of Turkish surnames for all citizens, encouragement to adopt the Turkish language and culture, and the closure of religious schools. These measures aimed to unify the population under a common Turkish identity, but they also raised issues of cultural rights and autonomy for minorities. These radical reforms transformed Turkish society and laid the foundations for modern Turkey. They reflected Mustafa Kemal's desire to create a modern, secular and unitary state, while navigating the complex post-war context of nationalist aspirations. These changes had a profound effect on Turkish history and continue to influence Turkish politics and society today.
La période post-première Guerre mondiale en Turquie a été marquée par des réformes radicales et des transformations menées par Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, qui a cherché à moderniser et séculariser la nouvelle République de Turquie. En 1922, une étape cruciale a été franchie avec l'abolition du sultanat ottoman par le parlement turc, une décision qui a mis fin à des siècles de règne impérial et a consolidé le pouvoir politique à Ankara, la nouvelle capitale de la Turquie. L'année 1924 a vu une autre réforme majeure avec l'abolition du califat. Cette décision a éliminé le leadership religieux et politique islamique qui avait été une caractéristique de l'Empire ottoman et a représenté un pas décisif vers la laïcisation de l'État. Parallèlement à cette suppression, le gouvernement turc a créé la Diyanet, ou la Présidence des affaires religieuses, une institution destinée à superviser et à réguler les questions religieuses dans le pays. Cette organisation avait pour but de placer les affaires religieuses sous le contrôle de l'État et de garantir que la religion ne serait pas utilisée à des fins politiques. Mustafa Kemal a ensuite mis en œuvre une série de réformes visant à moderniser la Turquie, souvent qualifiées de "modernisation autoritaire". Ces réformes comprenaient la laïcisation de l'éducation, la réforme du code vestimentaire, l'adoption d'un calendrier grégorien, et l'introduction de la loi civile en remplacement de la loi religieuse islamique.


Dans le cadre de la création d'un État-nation turc homogène, des politiques d'assimilation ont été mises en place à l'égard des minorités et des différentes ethnies. Ces politiques incluaient la création de patronymes turcs pour tous les citoyens, l'encouragement à adopter la langue turque et la culture turque, et la fermeture des écoles religieuses. Ces mesures visaient à unifier la population sous une identité turque commune, mais elles ont également soulevé des questions de droits culturels et d'autonomie pour les minorités. Ces réformes radicales ont transformé la société turque et ont jeté les bases de la Turquie moderne. Elles reflètent la volonté de Mustafa Kemal de créer un État moderne, laïc et unitaire, tout en naviguant dans le contexte complexe de l'après-guerre et des aspirations nationalistes. Ces changements ont profondément marqué l'histoire turque et continuent d'influencer la politique et la société turques aujourd'hui.
The period of the 1920s and 1930s in Turkey, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, was characterised by a series of radical reforms aimed at modernising and westernising the country. These reforms affected almost every aspect of Turkish social, cultural and political life. One of the first measures was the creation of the Ministry of Education, which played a central role in reforming the education system and promoting Kemalist ideology. In 1925, one of the most symbolic reforms was the imposition of the European hat, replacing the traditional fez, as part of a policy to modernise the appearance and dress of Turkish citizens.


La période des années 1920 et 1930 en Turquie, sous la direction de Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, a été caractérisée par une série de réformes radicales visant à moderniser et occidentaliser le pays. Ces réformes ont touché presque tous les aspects de la vie sociale, culturelle et politique turque. L'une des premières mesures a été la création du ministère de l'Éducation, qui a joué un rôle central dans la réforme du système éducatif et la promotion de l'idéologie kémaliste. En 1925, l'une des réformes les plus symboliques a été l'imposition du port du chapeau européen, remplaçant le fez traditionnel, dans le cadre d'une politique visant à moderniser l'apparence et les coutumes vestimentaires des citoyens turcs.
Legal reforms were also significant, with the adoption of legal codes inspired by Western models, notably the Swiss civil code. The aim of these reforms was to replace the Ottoman legal system, based on Sharia (Islamic law), with a modern, secular legal system. Turkey also adopted the metric system, a Gregorian calendar and changed its day of rest from Friday (traditionally observed in Muslim countries) to Sunday, bringing the country into line with Western standards. One of the most radical reforms was the change of alphabet in 1928 from Arabic to a modified Latin script. The aim of this reform was to increase literacy and modernise the Turkish language. The Institute of Turkish History, created in 1931, was part of a wider effort to reinterpret Turkish history and promote Turkish national identity. In the same spirit, the policy of purifying the Turkish language was aimed at eliminating Arabic and Persian borrowings and reinforcing the "Sun Language" theory, a nationalist ideology that asserted the ancient origin and superiority of the Turkish language and culture.


Les réformes juridiques ont également été importantes, avec l'adoption de codes juridiques inspirés de modèles occidentaux, notamment le code civil suisse. Ces réformes visaient à remplacer le système juridique ottoman, fondé sur la charia (loi islamique), par un système juridique moderne et laïque. La Turquie a également adopté le système métrique, un calendrier grégorien et a changé son jour de repos de vendredi (traditionnellement observé dans les pays musulmans) à dimanche, alignant ainsi le pays sur les normes occidentales. L'une des réformes les plus radicales a été le changement de l'alphabet en 1928, passant de l'écriture arabe à un alphabet latin modifié. Cette réforme visait à accroître l'alphabétisation et à moderniser la langue turque. L'Institut de l'histoire turque, créé en 1931, faisait partie d'un effort plus large pour réinterpréter l'histoire turque et promouvoir l'identité nationale turque. Dans le même esprit, la politique de purification de la langue turque visait à éliminer les emprunts arabes et persans et à renforcer la théorie de la "Langue-soleil", une idéologie nationaliste qui affirmait l'origine ancienne et la supériorité de la langue et de la culture turques.
On the Kurdish question, the Kemalist government pursued a policy of assimilation, considering the Kurds as "mountain Turks" and attempting to integrate them into the Turkish national identity. This policy led to tensions and conflicts, particularly during the repression of Kurdish and non-Muslim populations in 1938. The Kemalist period was an era of profound transformation for Turkey, marked by efforts to create a modern, secular and homogenous nation-state. However, these reforms, while progressive in their intent to modernise, were also accompanied by authoritarian policies and efforts at assimilation that have left a complex and sometimes controversial legacy in contemporary Turkey.


Concernant la question kurde, le gouvernement kémaliste a poursuivi une politique d'assimilation, considérant les Kurdes comme des "Turcs montagnards" et tentant de les intégrer dans l'identité nationale turque. Cette politique a conduit à des tensions et des conflits, notamment lors des répressions contre les populations kurdes et non musulmanes en 1938. La période kémaliste a été une ère de transformation profonde pour la Turquie, marquée par des efforts pour créer un État-nation moderne, laïc et homogène. Cependant, ces réformes, tout en étant progressistes dans leur intention de modernisation, ont également été accompagnées de politiques autoritaires et d'efforts d'assimilation qui ont laissé un héritage complexe et parfois controversé dans la Turquie contemporaine.
The Kemalist period in Turkey, which began with the founding of the Republic in 1923, was characterised by a series of reforms aimed at centralising, nationalising and secularising the state, as well as Europeanising society. These reforms, led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, aimed to break with the Ottoman Empire's imperial and Islamic past, which was seen as an obstacle to progress and modernisation. The aim was to create a modern Turkey aligned with Western values and standards. From this perspective, the Ottoman and Islamic heritage was often portrayed in a negative light, associated with backwardness and obscurantism. The shift towards the West was evident in politics, culture, law, education and even in everyday life.  


La période kémaliste en Turquie, qui a débuté avec la fondation de la République en 1923, a été caractérisée par une série de réformes visant à centraliser, nationaliser et séculariser l'État, ainsi qu'à européaniser la société. Ces réformes, menées par Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, visaient à rompre avec le passé impérial et islamique de l'Empire ottoman, perçu comme un obstacle au progrès et à la modernisation. L'objectif était de créer une Turquie moderne, alignée sur les valeurs et les normes occidentales. Dans cette perspective, l'héritage ottoman et islamique était souvent dépeint de manière négative, associé à l'arriération et à l'obscurantisme. Le tournant vers l'Occident se manifestait dans les domaines de la politique, de la culture, du droit, de l'éducation, et même dans le mode de vie quotidien.  
=== Multipartyism and the Tensions between Modernisation and Tradition (Post-1950) ===
However, with the arrival of the multi-party system in the 1950s, the Turkish political landscape began to change. Turkey, which had operated as a one-party state under the Republican People's Party (CHP), began to open up to political pluralism. This transition was not without its tensions. Conservatives, who had often been marginalised during the Kemalist period, began to question some of the Kemalist reforms, particularly those concerning secularism and westernisation. The debate between secularism and traditional values, between westernisation and Turkish and Islamic identity, has become a recurring theme in Turkish politics. Conservative and Islamist parties have gained ground, questioning the Kemalist heritage and calling for a return to certain traditional and religious values.


=== Le Multipartisme et les Tensions entre Modernisation et Tradition (Post-1950) ===
This political dynamic has sometimes led to repression and tension, as different governments seek to consolidate their power while navigating an increasingly diverse political environment. Periods of political tension and repression, notably during the military coups of 1960, 1971, 1980 and the attempted coup of 2016, bear witness to the challenges Turkey has faced in its quest to strike a balance between modernisation and tradition, secularism and religiosity, Westernisation and Turkish identity. The post-1950 period in Turkey has seen a complex and sometimes conflicting rebalancing between the Kemalist heritage and the aspirations of part of the population for a return to traditional values, reflecting the ongoing tensions between modernity and tradition in contemporary Turkish society.
Toutefois, avec l'arrivée du multipartisme dans les années 1950, le paysage politique turc a commencé à changer. La Turquie, qui avait fonctionné comme un État à parti unique sous le régime du Parti républicain du peuple (CHP), a commencé à s'ouvrir au pluralisme politique. Cette transition n'a pas été sans tensions. Les conservateurs, qui avaient souvent été marginalisés pendant la période kémaliste, ont commencé à remettre en question certaines des réformes kémalistes, en particulier celles concernant la laïcité et l'occidentalisation. Le débat entre laïcité et valeurs traditionnelles, entre occidentalisation et identité turque et islamique, est devenu un thème récurrent dans la politique turque. Les partis conservateurs et islamistes ont gagné du terrain, remettant en question l'héritage kémaliste et plaidant pour un retour à certaines valeurs traditionnelles et religieuses.


Cette dynamique politique a parfois conduit à des répressions et à des tensions, les différents gouvernements cherchant à consolider leur pouvoir tout en naviguant dans un environnement politique de plus en plus diversifié. Les périodes de tensions politiques et de répressions, notamment lors des coups d'État militaires de 1960, 1971, 1980 et de la tentative de 2016, témoignent des défis auxquels la Turquie a été confrontée dans sa quête d'équilibre entre modernisation et tradition, laïcité et religiosité, occidentalisation et identité turque. Ainsi, la période post-1950 en Turquie a vu un rééquilibrage complexe et parfois conflictuel entre l'héritage kémaliste et les aspirations d'une partie de la population à un retour aux valeurs traditionnelles, reflétant les tensions continues entre modernité et tradition dans la société turque contemporaine.
=== Turkey and its Internal Challenges: Managing Ethnic and Religious Diversity ===
As a strategic ally of the West, particularly since joining NATO in 1952, Turkey has had to reconcile its relations with the West with its own internal political dynamics. The multi-party system introduced in the 1950s was a key element in this reconciliation, reflecting a transition towards a more democratic form of governance. However, this transition has been marked by periods of instability and military intervention. Indeed, Turkey has experienced several military coups, approximately every ten years, notably in 1960, 1971, 1980, and an attempt in 2016. These coups were often justified by the military as being necessary to restore order and protect the principles of the Turkish Republic, in particular Kemalism and secularism. After each coup d'état, the army generally called new elections to return to civilian rule, although the army continued to play the role of guardian of Kemalist ideology.


=== La Turquie et ses Défis Internes : Gestion de la Diversité Ethnique et Religieuse ===
However, since the 2000s, the Turkish political landscape has undergone a significant change with the rise of conservative and Islamist parties, in particular the Justice and Development Party (AKP). Under the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the AKP won several elections and held power for an extended period. The AKP government, despite advocating more conservative and Islamic values, has not been overthrown by the military. This represents a change from previous decades when governments perceived to deviate from Kemalist principles were often targeted by military intervention. This relative stability of conservative government in Turkey suggests a rebalancing of power between the military and civilian political parties. This can be attributed to a series of reforms aimed at reducing the political power of the army, as well as a change in the attitude of the Turkish population, which has become increasingly receptive to governance reflecting conservative and Islamic values. The political dynamics of contemporary Turkey reflect the challenges of a country navigating between its secular Kemalist heritage and growing conservative and Islamist tendencies, while maintaining its commitment to multi-partyism and Western alliances.
La Turquie, en tant qu'alliée stratégique de l'Occident, notamment depuis son adhésion à l'OTAN en 1952, a dû concilier ses relations avec l'Occident et ses propres dynamiques politiques internes. Le multipartisme, introduit dans les années 1950, a été un élément clé de cette conciliation, reflétant une transition vers une forme plus démocratique de gouvernance. Cependant, cette transition a été marquée par des périodes d'instabilité et d'intervention militaire. En effet, la Turquie a connu plusieurs coups d'État militaires, environ tous les dix ans, notamment en 1960, 1971, 1980, et une tentative en 2016. Ces coups d'État étaient souvent justifiés par les militaires comme étant nécessaires pour restaurer l'ordre et protéger les principes de la République turque, notamment le kémalisme et la laïcité. Après chaque coup d'État, l'armée a généralement convoqué de nouvelles élections pour revenir à un régime civil, bien que l'armée ait continué à jouer un rôle de gardien de l'idéologie kémaliste.


Cependant, depuis les années 2000, le paysage politique turc a connu un changement significatif avec l'ascension des partis conservateurs et islamistes, en particulier le Parti de la justice et du développement (AKP). Sous la direction de Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, l'AKP a remporté plusieurs élections et a conservé le pouvoir pendant une période prolongée. Le gouvernement de l'AKP, bien qu'il prône des valeurs plus conservatrices et islamiques, n'a pas été renversé par l'armée. Cela représente un changement par rapport aux décennies précédentes où les gouvernements perçus comme s'écartant des principes kémalistes étaient souvent ciblés par des interventions militaires. Cette stabilité relative du gouvernement conservateur en Turquie suggère un rééquilibrage des forces entre l'armée et les partis politiques civils. Cela peut être attribué à une série de réformes visant à réduire le pouvoir politique de l'armée, ainsi qu'à un changement dans l'attitude de la population turque, qui est devenue de plus en plus réceptive à une gouvernance reflétant des valeurs conservatrices et islamiques. La dynamique politique de la Turquie contemporaine reflète les défis d'un pays naviguant entre son héritage kémaliste laïque et les tendances conservatrices et islamistes croissantes, tout en maintenant son engagement envers le multipartisme et les alliances occidentales.
Modern Turkey has faced various internal challenges, including the management of its ethnic and religious diversity. Assimilation policies, particularly towards the Kurdish population, have played a significant role in strengthening Turkish nationalism. This situation has led to tensions and conflicts, particularly with the Kurdish minority, which has not benefited from the millet (autonomous community) status granted to certain religious minorities under the Ottoman Empire. The influence of European anti-Semitism and racism during the 20th century also had an impact on Turkey. In the 1930s, discriminatory and xenophobic ideas, influenced by political and social currents in Europe, began to manifest themselves in Turkey. This led to tragic events such as the pogroms against Jews in Thrace in 1934, where Jewish communities were targeted, attacked and forced to flee their homes.


La Turquie moderne a été confrontée à divers défis internes, y compris la gestion de sa diversité ethnique et religieuse. Les politiques d'assimilation, en particulier envers les populations kurdes, ont joué un rôle significatif dans le renforcement du nationalisme turc. Cette situation a engendré des tensions et des conflits, notamment avec la minorité kurde, qui n'a pas bénéficié du statut de millet (communauté autonome) qui était accordé à certaines minorités religieuses sous l'Empire ottoman. L'influence de l'antisémitisme et du racisme européens au cours du 20ème siècle a également eu un impact sur la Turquie. Dans les années 1930, des idées discriminatoires et xénophobes, influencées par les courants politiques et sociaux en Europe, ont commencé à se manifester en Turquie. Cela a abouti à des événements tragiques tels que les pogroms contre les Juifs en Thrace en 1934, où des communautés juives ont été ciblées, attaquées et contraintes de fuir leurs domiciles.
In addition, the Wealth Tax Law (Varlık Vergisi) introduced in 1942 was another discriminatory measure that mainly affected non-Turkish and non-Muslim minorities, including Jews, Armenians and Greeks. This law imposed exorbitant taxes on wealth, disproportionately high for non-Muslims, and those who could not pay were sent to labour camps, notably in Aşkale, in eastern Turkey. These policies and events reflected ethnic and religious tensions within Turkish society and a period when Turkish nationalism was sometimes interpreted in an exclusive and discriminatory way. They also highlighted the complexity of the process of forming a nation-state in a region as diverse as Anatolia, where a multitude of ethnic and religious groups coexisted. The treatment of minorities in Turkey during this period remains a sensitive and controversial subject, reflecting the challenges the country faced in its quest for a unified national identity while managing its internal diversity. These events also had a long-term impact on relations between different ethnic and religious groups in Turkey.


En outre, la loi d'imposition sur la richesse (Varlık Vergisi) introduite en 1942 a été une autre mesure discriminatoire qui a affecté principalement les minorités non turques et non musulmanes, y compris les Juifs, les Arméniens et les Grecs. Cette loi imposait des taxes exorbitantes sur la richesse, disproportionnellement élevées pour les non-musulmans, et ceux qui ne pouvaient pas payer étaient envoyés dans des camps de travail, notamment à Aşkale, dans l'est de la Turquie. Ces politiques et événements ont été le reflet de tensions ethniques et religieuses au sein de la société turque et d'une période où le nationalisme turc a parfois été interprété de manière exclusive et discriminatoire. Ils ont également souligné la complexité du processus de formation d'un État-nation dans une région aussi diverse que l'Anatolie, où une multitude de groupes ethniques et religieux coexistaient. Le traitement des minorités en Turquie pendant cette période reste un sujet sensible et controversé, reflétant les défis auxquels le pays a été confronté dans sa quête d'une identité nationale unifiée tout en gérant sa diversité interne. Ces événements ont également eu des répercussions à long terme sur les relations entre différents groupes ethniques et religieux en Turquie.
=== Separation between Secularism and Secularism: The Legacy of the Kemalist Period ===
The distinction between secularisation and secularism is important for understanding social and political dynamics in different historical and geographical contexts. Secularisation refers to a historical and cultural process in which societies, institutions and individuals begin to detach themselves from religious influence and norms. In a secularised society, religion gradually loses its influence over public life, laws, education, politics and other areas. This process does not necessarily mean that individuals become less religious on a personal level, but rather that religion becomes a private matter, separate from public affairs and the State. Secularisation is often associated with modernisation, scientific and technological development, and changing social norms. Secularism, on the other hand, is an institutional and legal policy by which a state declares itself neutral in matters of religion. It is a decision to separate the state from religious institutions, ensuring that government decisions and public policies are not influenced by specific religious doctrines. Secularism can coexist with a deeply religious society; it is mainly about how the state manages its relationship with different religions. In theory, secularism aims to guarantee freedom of religion, treating all religions equally and avoiding favouritism towards any specific religion.


=== Séparation entre Sécularisation et Laïcité : L'Héritage de la Période Kémaliste ===
Historical and contemporary examples show different combinations of these two concepts. For example, some European countries have undergone significant secularisation while maintaining official links between the state and certain churches (such as the United Kingdom with the Church of England). On the other hand, countries such as France have adopted a strict policy of secularism (laïcité), while historically being societies strongly imbued with religious traditions. In Turkey, the Kemalist period saw the introduction of a strict form of secularism with the separation of mosque and state, while living in a society where the Muslim religion continued to play a significant role in people's private lives. The Kemalist policy of secularism aimed to modernise and unify Turkey, drawing inspiration from Western models, while navigating the complex context of a society with a long history of social and political organisation around Islam.
La distinction entre sécularisation et laïcité est importante pour comprendre les dynamiques sociales et politiques dans divers contextes historiques et géographiques. La sécularisation se réfère à un processus historique et culturel au cours duquel les sociétés, les institutions et les individus commencent à se détacher de l'influence et des normes religieuses. Dans une société sécularisée, la religion perd progressivement son influence sur la vie publique, les lois, l'éducation, la politique, et d'autres domaines. Ce processus ne signifie pas nécessairement que les individus deviennent moins religieux sur le plan personnel, mais plutôt que la religion devient une affaire privée, distincte des affaires publiques et de l'État. La sécularisation est souvent associée à la modernisation, au développement scientifique et technologique, et à l'évolution des normes sociales. La laïcité, en revanche, est une politique institutionnelle et légale par laquelle un État se déclare neutre en matière de religion. Il s'agit d'une décision de séparer l'État des institutions religieuses, garantissant que les décisions gouvernementales et les politiques publiques ne sont pas influencées par des doctrines religieuses spécifiques. La laïcité peut coexister avec une société profondément religieuse; elle concerne surtout la manière dont l'État gère sa relation avec les différentes religions. En théorie, la laïcité vise à garantir la liberté de religion, en traitant toutes les religions de manière égale et en évitant le favoritisme envers une religion spécifique.


Les exemples historiques et contemporains montrent différentes combinaisons de ces deux concepts. Par exemple, certains pays européens ont connu une sécularisation importante tout en maintenant des liens officiels entre l'État et certaines églises (comme le Royaume-Uni avec l'Église d'Angleterre). D'autre part, des pays comme la France ont adopté une politique stricte de laïcité (laïcité), tout en étant historiquement des sociétés fortement imprégnées de traditions religieuses. En Turquie, la période kémaliste a vu l'introduction d'une forme stricte de laïcité avec la séparation de la mosquée et de l'État, tout en vivant dans une société où la religion musulmane a continué à jouer un rôle significatif dans la vie privée des individus. La politique de laïcité kémaliste visait à moderniser et à unifier la Turquie, s'inspirant des modèles occidentaux, tout en naviguant dans le contexte complexe d'une société qui avait une longue histoire d'organisation sociale et politique autour de l'islam.
The post-Second World War period in Turkey was marked by a number of incidents that exacerbated ethnic and religious tensions in the country, particularly affecting minorities. Among these incidents, the bombing of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's birthplace in Thessaloniki (then in Greece) in 1955 served as a catalyst for one of the most tragic events in modern Turkish history: the Istanbul pogroms. The Istanbul pogroms, also known as the events of 6-7 September 1955, were a series of violent attacks directed mainly against the city's Greek community, but also against other minorities, notably Armenians and Jews. These attacks were triggered by rumours of the bombing of Atatürk's birthplace and were exacerbated by nationalist and anti-minority sentiments. The riots resulted in massive destruction of property, violence and the displacement of many people.
This event marked a turning point in the history of minorities in Turkey, leading to a significant decrease in the Greek population of Istanbul and a general feeling of insecurity among other minorities. The Istanbul pogroms also revealed the underlying tensions within Turkish society over issues of national identity, ethnic and religious diversity, and the challenges of maintaining harmony in a diverse nation-state. Since then, the proportion of ethnic and religious minorities in Turkey has declined considerably due to a variety of factors, including emigration, assimilation policies, and sometimes inter-communal tensions and conflicts. Although modern Turkey has endeavoured to promote an image of a tolerant and diverse society, the legacy of these historical events continues to influence relations between the different communities and the State's policy towards minorities. The situation of minorities in Turkey remains a sensitive issue, illustrating the challenges faced by many states in managing diversity and preserving the rights and security of all communities within their borders.


La période postérieure à la Seconde Guerre mondiale en Turquie a été marquée par plusieurs incidents qui ont exacerbé les tensions ethniques et religieuses dans le pays, affectant notamment les minorités. Parmi ces incidents, l'attentat à la bombe dans la maison natale de Mustafa Kemal Atatürk à Thessalonique en 1955 (alors en Grèce) a servi de catalyseur à un des événements les plus tragiques de l'histoire moderne turque : les pogroms d'Istanbul. Les pogroms d'Istanbul, également connus sous le nom d'événements du 6-7 septembre 1955, ont été une série de violentes attaques principalement dirigées contre la communauté grecque de la ville, mais aussi contre d'autres minorités, notamment arméniennes et juives. Ces attaques ont été déclenchées par des rumeurs sur l'attentat à la bombe contre la maison natale d'Atatürk et ont été exacerbées par des sentiments nationalistes et anti-minoritaires. Les émeutes se sont traduites par des destructions massives de propriétés, des violences et le déplacement de nombreuses personnes.
=The Alevis=
 
Cet événement a marqué un tournant dans l'histoire des minorités en Turquie, entraînant une diminution significative de la population grecque d'Istanbul et un sentiment général d'insécurité parmi les autres minorités. Les pogroms d'Istanbul ont également révélé les tensions sous-jacentes au sein de la société turque concernant les questions d'identité nationale, de diversité ethnique et religieuse, et les défis de maintenir l'harmonie dans un État-nation diversifié. Depuis lors, la proportion de minorités ethniques et religieuses en Turquie a considérablement diminué en raison de divers facteurs, notamment l'émigration, les politiques d'assimilation, et parfois les tensions et conflits intercommunautaires. Bien que la Turquie moderne se soit efforcée de promouvoir une image de société tolérante et diversifiée, l'héritage de ces événements historiques continue d'influencer les relations entre les différentes communautés et la politique de l'État envers les minorités. La situation des minorités en Turquie reste un sujet sensible, illustrant les défis auxquels sont confrontés de nombreux États dans la gestion de la diversité et dans la préservation des droits et de la sécurité de toutes les communautés au sein de leurs frontières.
=== The Impact of the Foundation of the Republic of Turkey on the Alevis (1923) ===
The creation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 and the secularist reforms initiated by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had a significant impact on various religious and ethnic groups in Turkey, including the Alevi community. The Alevis, a distinct religious and cultural group within Islam, practising a form of belief that differs from mainstream Sunnism, greeted the founding of the Turkish Republic with a degree of optimism. The promise of secularism and secularisation offered the hope of greater equality and religious freedom, compared with the period of the Ottoman Empire when they had often been the subject of discrimination and sometimes violence.  
=Les Alévis=


=== L'Impact de la Fondation de la République de Turquie sur les Alévis (1923) ===
However, with the creation of the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) after the abolition of the Caliphate in 1924, the Turkish government sought to regulate and control religious affairs. Although the Diyanet was designed to exercise state control over religion and promote an Islam compatible with republican and secular values, in practice it has often favoured Sunni Islam, which is the majority branch in Turkey. This policy has caused problems for the Alevi community, who have felt marginalised by the state's promotion of a form of Islam that does not correspond to their religious beliefs and practices. Although the situation of Alevis under the Turkish Republic was much better than under the Ottoman Empire, where they were frequently persecuted, they continued to face challenges regarding their religious recognition and rights.
La création de la République de Turquie en 1923 et les réformes laïques et sécularisatrices initiées par Mustafa Kemal Atatürk ont eu un impact significatif sur divers groupes religieux et ethniques en Turquie, y compris la communauté alévie. Les Alévis, un groupe religieux et culturel distinct au sein de l'Islam, pratiquant une forme de croyance qui diffère du sunnisme majoritaire, ont accueilli avec un certain optimisme la fondation de la République turque. La promesse de laïcité et de sécularisation offrait l'espoir d'une plus grande égalité et d'une liberté religieuse accrue, comparativement à la période de l'Empire ottoman où ils avaient souvent été l'objet de discriminations et parfois de violences.  


Cependant, avec la création de la Direction des Affaires Religieuses (Diyanet) après l'abolition du califat en 1924, le gouvernement turc a cherché à réguler et à contrôler les affaires religieuses. Bien que la Diyanet ait été conçue pour exercer un contrôle étatique sur la religion et promouvoir un islam compatible avec les valeurs républicaines et laïques, en pratique, elle a souvent favorisé l'islam sunnite, qui est la branche majoritaire en Turquie. Cette politique a posé des problèmes pour la communauté alévie, qui s'est sentie marginalisée par la promotion étatique d'une forme d'islam qui ne correspondait pas à leurs croyances et pratiques religieuses. Bien que la situation des Alévis sous la République turque fût nettement meilleure que sous l'Empire ottoman, où ils étaient fréquemment persécutés, ils ont continué à faire face à des défis concernant leur reconnaissance et leurs droits religieux.
Over the years, Alevis have fought for official recognition of their places of worship (cemevis) and for fair representation in religious affairs. Despite the progress made in terms of secularism and civil rights in Turkey, the Alevi question remains an important issue, reflecting Turkey's wider challenges in managing its religious and ethnic diversity within a secular framework. The situation of the Alevis in Turkey is therefore an example of the complex relationship between the state, religion and minorities in a context of modernisation and secularisation, illustrating how state policies can influence social and religious dynamics within a nation.


Au fil des ans, les Alévis ont lutté pour une reconnaissance officielle de leurs lieux de culte (cemevis) et pour une représentation équitable dans les affaires religieuses. Malgré les progrès réalisés en termes de laïcité et de droits civils en Turquie, la question alévie reste un enjeu important, reflétant les défis plus larges de la Turquie dans la gestion de sa diversité religieuse et ethnique dans un cadre laïc. La situation des Alévis en Turquie est donc un exemple de la complexité des relations entre l'État, la religion et les minorités dans un contexte de modernisation et de laïcisation, illustrant comment les politiques d'état peuvent influencer la dynamique sociale et religieuse au sein d'une nation.
=== Alevi Political Engagement in the 1960s ===
In the 1960s, Turkey experienced a period of significant political and social change, with the emergence of various political parties and movements representing a range of views and interests. It was a time of political dynamism, marked by a greater expression of political identities and demands, including those of minority groups such as the Alevis. The creation of the first Alevi political party during this period was an important development, reflecting a growing willingness on the part of this community to engage in the political process and defend its specific interests. Alevis, with their distinct beliefs and practices, have often sought to promote greater recognition and respect for their religious and cultural rights. However, it is also true that other political parties, particularly those of the left or communist persuasion, have responded to the demands of the Kurdish and Alevi electorate. By promoting ideas of social justice, equality and minority rights, these parties have attracted significant support from these communities. Issues of minority rights, social justice and secularism were often at the heart of their political platforms, which resonated with the concerns of Alevis and Kurds.


=== L'Engagement Politique des Alévis dans les Années 1960 ===
In the context of 1960s Turkey, marked by growing political tension and ideological divides, left-wing parties were often seen as champions of the underclass, minorities and marginalised groups. This led to a situation where Alevi political parties, although directly representing this community, were sometimes overshadowed by broader, more established parties addressing broader issues of social justice and equality. Thus, Turkish politics in this period reflected a growing diversity and complexity of political identities and affiliations, illustrating how issues of minority rights, social justice and identity played a central role in Turkey's emerging political landscape.
Dans les années 1960, la Turquie a connu une période de changements politiques et sociaux significatifs, avec l'émergence de divers mouvements et partis politiques représentant une gamme de vues et d'intérêts. C'était une époque de dynamisme politique, marquée par une plus grande expression des identités et des revendications politiques, y compris celles des groupes minoritaires comme les Alévis. La création du premier parti politique alévi durant cette période a été un développement important, reflétant une volonté croissante de la part de cette communauté de s'engager dans le processus politique et de défendre ses intérêts spécifiques. Les Alévis, avec leurs croyances et pratiques distinctes, ont souvent cherché à promouvoir une plus grande reconnaissance et respect de leurs droits religieux et culturels. Cependant, il est également vrai que d'autres partis politiques, notamment ceux de gauche ou communistes, ont répondu aux demandes de l'électorat kurde et alévi. Ces partis, en promouvant des idées de justice sociale, d'égalité et de droits des minorités, ont attiré un soutien significatif de ces communautés. Les questions de droits des minorités, de justice sociale, et de laïcité étaient souvent au cœur de leurs plateformes politiques, ce qui résonnait avec les préoccupations des Alévis et des Kurdes.


Dans le contexte de la Turquie des années 1960, marquée par une tension politique croissante et des clivages idéologiques, les partis de gauche ont souvent été perçus comme des champions des classes défavorisées, des minorités et des groupes marginalisés. Cela a conduit à une situation où les partis politiques alévis, bien que représentant directement cette communauté, ont parfois été éclipsés par des partis plus larges et plus établis qui abordaient des questions plus générales de justice sociale et d'égalité. Ainsi, la politique turque de cette période a reflété une diversité croissante et une complexité des identités et des affiliations politiques, illustrant comment les questions de droits des minorités, de justice sociale et d'identité ont joué un rôle central dans le paysage politique émergent de la Turquie.
=== Alevis Facing Extremism and Violence in the 1970s and 1980s ===
The 1970s were a period of great social and political tension in Turkey, marked by increasing polarisation and the emergence of extremist groups. During this period, the far right in Turkey, represented in part by nationalist and ultranationalist groups, gained in visibility and influence. This rise in extremism has had tragic consequences, particularly for minority communities such as the Alevis. Alevis, because of their beliefs and practices distinct from the majority Sunni Islam, have often been targeted by ultra-nationalist and conservative groups. These groups, fuelled by nationalist and sometimes sectarian ideologies, have carried out violent attacks against Alevi communities, including massacres and pogroms. The most notorious incidents include the massacres at Maraş in 1978 and Çorum in 1980. These events were characterised by extreme violence, mass murder, and other atrocities, including scenes of beheading and mutilation. These attacks were not isolated incidents, but part of a wider trend of violence and discrimination against Alevis, which exacerbated social divisions and tensions in Turkey.


=== Les Alévis face à l'Extrémisme et la Violence dans les Années 1970 et 1980 ===
The violence of the 1970s and early 1980s contributed to the instability that led to the military coup of 1980. Following the coup, the army established a regime that cracked down on many political groups, including the far right and the far left, in an attempt to restore order and stability. However, the underlying problems of discrimination and tension between different communities have remained, posing ongoing challenges to Turkey's social and political cohesion. The situation of the Alevis in Turkey is therefore a poignant example of the difficulties faced by religious and ethnic minorities in a context of political polarisation and rising extremism. It also highlights the need for an inclusive approach that respects the rights of all communities in order to maintain social peace and national unity.
Les années 1970 ont été une période de forte tension sociale et politique en Turquie, marquée par une polarisation croissante et l'émergence de groupes extrémistes. Durant cette période, l'extrême droite en Turquie, représentée en partie par des groupes nationalistes et ultranationalistes, a gagné en visibilité et en influence. Cette montée de l'extrémisme a eu des conséquences tragiques, en particulier pour les communautés minoritaires comme les Alévis. Les Alévis, en raison de leurs croyances et pratiques distinctes de l'islam sunnite majoritaire, ont souvent été ciblés par des groupes ultranationalistes et conservateurs. Ces groupes, alimentés par des idéologies nationalistes et parfois sectaires, ont mené des attaques violentes contre les communautés alévies, y compris des massacres et des pogroms. Les incidents les plus notoires comprennent les massacres de Maraş en 1978 et de Çorum en 1980. Ces événements ont été caractérisés par des violences extrêmes, des meurtres de masse, et d'autres atrocités, y compris des scènes de décapitation et de mutilation. Ces attaques n'étaient pas des incidents isolés, mais faisaient partie d'une tendance plus large de violence et de discrimination à l'encontre des Alévis, qui a exacerbé les divisions et les tensions sociales en Turquie.


La violence des années 1970 et le début des années 1980 a contribué à l'instabilité qui a mené au coup d'État militaire de 1980. Après le coup d'État, l'armée a mis en place un régime qui a réprimé de nombreux groupes politiques, y compris l'extrême droite et l'extrême gauche, dans une tentative de restaurer l'ordre et la stabilité. Cependant, les problèmes sous-jacents de discrimination et de tension entre différentes communautés sont restés, posant des défis continus pour la cohésion sociale et politique de la Turquie. La situation des Alévis en Turquie est donc un exemple poignant des difficultés rencontrées par les minorités religieuses et ethniques dans un contexte de polarisation politique et de montée de l'extrémisme. Elle souligne également la nécessité d'une approche inclusive et respectueuse des droits de toutes les communautés pour maintenir la paix sociale et l'unité nationale.
=== The Tragedies of Sivas and Gazi in the 1990s ===
The 1990s in Turkey continued to witness tensions and violence, particularly against the Alevi community, which was the target of several tragic attacks. In 1993, a particularly shocking event occurred in Sivas, a town in central Turkey. On 2 July 1993, during the Pir Sultan Abdal cultural festival, a group of Alevi intellectuals, artists and writers, as well as spectators, were attacked by an extremist mob. The Madımak Hotel, where they were staying, was set on fire, resulting in the deaths of 37 people. This incident, known as the Sivas massacre or Madımak tragedy, was one of the darkest events in modern Turkish history and highlighted the vulnerability of Alevis to extremism and religious intolerance. Two years later, in 1995, another violent incident took place in the Gazi district of Istanbul, an area with a large Alevi population. Violent clashes broke out after an unknown gunman fired on cafés frequented by Alevis, killing one person and injuring several others. The following days were marked by riots and clashes with the police, which led to many more casualties.


=== Les Tragédies de Sivas et de Gazi dans les Années 1990 ===
These incidents exacerbated tensions between the Alevi community and the Turkish state, and highlighted the persistence of prejudice and discrimination against Alevis. They also raised questions about the protection of minorities in Turkey and the State's ability to ensure security and justice for all its citizens. The violence in Sivas and Gazi marked a turning point in awareness of the situation of Alevis in Turkey, leading to stronger calls for recognition of their rights and for greater understanding and respect for their unique cultural and religious identity. These tragic events remain etched in Turkey's collective memory, symbolising the challenges the country faces in terms of religious diversity and peaceful coexistence.
Les années 1990 en Turquie ont continué à être témoins de tensions et de violences, en particulier à l'encontre de la communauté alévie, qui a été la cible de plusieurs attaques tragiques. En 1993, un événement particulièrement choquant s'est produit à Sivas, une ville du centre de la Turquie. Le 2 juillet 1993, lors du festival culturel Pir Sultan Abdal, un groupe d'intellectuels alévis, artistes et écrivains, ainsi que des spectateurs, ont été attaqués par une foule extrémiste. L'hôtel Madımak, où ils se trouvaient, a été incendié, entraînant la mort de 37 personnes. Cet incident, connu sous le nom de massacre de Sivas ou tragédie de Madımak, a été l'un des événements les plus sombres de l'histoire moderne turque et a souligné la vulnérabilité des Alévis face à l'extrémisme et à l'intolérance religieuse. Deux ans plus tard, en 1995, un autre incident violent a eu lieu dans le quartier de Gazi à Istanbul, une zone à forte population alévie. Des affrontements violents ont éclaté après qu'un inconnu a tiré sur des cafés fréquentés par des Alévis, tuant une personne et en blessant plusieurs autres. Les jours suivants ont été marqués par des émeutes et des affrontements avec la police, qui ont conduit à de nombreuses autres victimes.


Ces incidents ont exacerbé les tensions entre la communauté alévie et l'État turc, et ont mis en évidence la persistance des préjugés et de la discrimination à l'encontre des Alévis. Ils ont également soulevé des questions sur la protection des minorités en Turquie et sur la capacité de l'État à assurer la sécurité et la justice pour tous ses citoyens. Les violences de Sivas et de Gazi ont marqué un tournant dans la prise de conscience de la situation des Alévis en Turquie, menant à des appels plus forts pour la reconnaissance de leurs droits et pour une meilleure compréhension et respect de leur identité culturelle et religieuse unique. Ces événements tragiques restent gravés dans la mémoire collective en Turquie, symbolisant les défis auxquels le pays est confronté en matière de diversité religieuse et de coexistence pacifique.
=== Alevis under the AKP: Identity Challenges and Conflicts ===
Since the Justice and Development Party (AKP), led by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, came to power in 2002, Turkey has seen significant changes in its policy towards Islam and religious minorities, including the Alevi community. The AKP, often perceived as a party with Islamist or conservative leanings, has been criticised for favouring Sunni Islam, raising concerns among religious minorities, particularly the Alevis. Under the AKP, the government strengthened the role of the Diyanet (Presidency of Religious Affairs), which was accused of promoting a Sunni version of Islam. This has caused problems for the Alevi community, which practises a form of Islam that is markedly different from the dominant Sunnism. Alevis do not go to traditional mosques to worship; instead, they use "cemevi" for their religious ceremonies and gatherings. However, the Diyanet does not officially recognise cemevi as places of worship, which has been a source of frustration and conflict for the Alevis. The issue of assimilation is also of concern to Alevis, as the government has been perceived as seeking to integrate all religious and ethnic communities into a homogenous Sunni Turkish identity. This policy is reminiscent of the assimilation efforts of the Kemalist era, although the motivations and contexts are different.


=== Les Alévis sous l'Ère AKP : Défis et Conflits Identitaires ===
The Alevis are an ethnically and linguistically diverse group, with both Turkish-speaking and Kurdish-speaking members. Although their identity is largely defined by their distinct faith, they also share cultural and linguistic aspects with other Turks and Kurds. However, their unique religious practice and history of marginalisation sets them apart within Turkish society. The situation of the Alevis in Turkey since 2002 reflects the continuing tensions between the State and religious minorities. It raises important questions about religious freedom, minority rights and the state's ability to accommodate diversity within a secular and democratic framework. How Turkey manages these issues remains a crucial aspect of its domestic policy and its image on the international stage.
Depuis l'arrivée au pouvoir du Parti de la justice et du développement (AKP) en 2002, dirigé par Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, la Turquie a connu des changements notables dans sa politique vis-à-vis de l'islam et des minorités religieuses, y compris la communauté alévie. L'AKP, souvent perçu comme un parti à tendance islamiste ou conservatrice, a été critiqué pour favoriser l'islam sunnite, ce qui a soulevé des inquiétudes parmi les minorités religieuses, en particulier les Alévis. Sous l'AKP, le gouvernement a renforcé le rôle de la Diyanet (Présidence des Affaires Religieuses), qui a été accusée de promouvoir une version sunnite de l'islam. Cette situation a posé des problèmes pour la communauté alévie, qui pratique une forme de l'islam nettement différente du sunnisme dominant. Les Alévis ne se rendent pas dans les mosquées traditionnelles pour leur culte; ils utilisent plutôt des "cemevi" pour leurs cérémonies et rassemblements religieux. Cependant, la Diyanet ne reconnaît pas officiellement les cemevi comme des lieux de culte, ce qui a été source de frustration et de conflit pour les Alévis. La question de l'assimilation est également préoccupante pour les Alévis, car le gouvernement a été perçu comme cherchant à intégrer toutes les communautés religieuses et ethniques dans une identité turque sunnite homogène. Cette politique rappelle les efforts d'assimilation de l'ère kémaliste, bien que les motivations et les contextes soient différents.


Les Alévis sont un groupe ethniquement et linguistiquement diversifié, avec des membres turcophones et kurdophones. Bien que leur identité soit en grande partie définie par leur foi distincte, ils partagent également des aspects culturels et linguistiques avec d'autres Turcs et Kurdes. Cependant, leur pratique religieuse unique et leur histoire de marginalisation les distinguent au sein de la société turque. La situation des Alévis en Turquie depuis 2002 reflète les tensions continues entre l'État et les minorités religieuses. Elle soulève des questions importantes sur la liberté religieuse, les droits des minorités et la capacité de l'État à accommoder la diversité dans un cadre laïc et démocratique. La manière dont la Turquie gère ces enjeux reste un aspect crucial de sa politique intérieure et de son image sur la scène internationale.
=Iran=


=L'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.


=== Défis et Influences Extérieures au Début du 20ème Siècle ===
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.
L'histoire de la modernisation en Iran est un cas fascinant qui illustre comment les influences externes et les dynamiques internes peuvent façonner le parcours d'un pays. Au début du 20ème siècle, l'Iran (alors connu sous le nom de Perse) faisait face à de multiples défis qui ont culminé dans un processus de modernisation autoritaire. Dans les années précédant la Première Guerre mondiale, notamment en 1907, l'Iran était au bord de l'implosion. Le pays avait subi des pertes territoriales significatives et luttait contre une faiblesse administrative et militaire. L'armée iranienne, en particulier, n'était pas en mesure de gérer efficacement l'influence de l'État ou de protéger ses frontières contre les incursions étrangères. Ce contexte difficile a été exacerbé par les intérêts concurrents des puissances impérialistes, en particulier la Grande-Bretagne et la Russie. En 1907, la Grande-Bretagne et la Russie, malgré leurs rivalités historiques, ont conclu l'Entente anglo-russe. Dans cet accord, elles se sont partagé des sphères d'influence en Iran, la Russie dominant le nord et la Grande-Bretagne le sud. Cette entente était une reconnaissance tacite de leurs intérêts impérialistes respectifs dans la région et a eu un impact profond sur la politique iranienne.


L'Entente anglo-russe a non seulement limité la souveraineté de l'Iran, mais a également entravé le développement d'un pouvoir central fort. La Grande-Bretagne, en particulier, était réticente à l'idée d'un Iran centralisé et puissant qui pourrait menacer ses intérêts, notamment en ce qui concerne l'accès au pétrole et le contrôle des routes commerciales. Ce cadre international a posé des défis majeurs à l'Iran et a influencé son parcours vers la modernisation. La nécessité de naviguer entre les intérêts impérialistes étrangers et les besoins internes de réforme et de renforcement de l'État a conduit à une série de tentatives de modernisation, certaines plus autoritaires que d'autres, au cours du 20ème siècle. Ces efforts ont culminé avec la période du règne de Reza Shah Pahlavi, qui a entrepris un programme ambitieux de modernisation et de centralisation, souvent par des moyens autoritaires, dans le but de transformer l'Iran en un État-nation moderne.[[Fichier:MOMCENC - iran après accord anglo russe de 1907.png|centré|]]
[[Fichier:MOMCENC - iran après accord anglo russe de 1907.png|centré|]]


=== Le Coup d'État de 1921 et l'Ascension de Reza Khan ===
=== The coup of 1921 and the rise of Reza Khan ===
Le coup d'État de 1921 en Iran, mené par Reza Khan (qui deviendra plus tard Reza Shah Pahlavi), a été un tournant décisif dans l'histoire moderne du pays. Reza Khan, un officier militaire, a pris le contrôle du gouvernement dans un contexte de faiblesse politique et d'instabilité, avec l'ambition de centraliser le pouvoir et de moderniser l'Iran. Après le coup d'État, Reza Khan a entrepris une série de réformes visant à renforcer l'État et à consolider son pouvoir. Il a créé un gouvernement centralisé, réorganisé l'administration et modernisé l'armée. Ces réformes étaient essentielles pour établir une structure étatique forte et efficace capable de promouvoir le développement et la modernisation du pays. Un aspect clé de la consolidation du pouvoir de Reza Khan a été la négociation d'accords avec des puissances étrangères, notamment la Grande-Bretagne, qui avait des intérêts économiques et stratégiques importants en Iran. La question du pétrole était particulièrement cruciale, car l'Iran avait un potentiel pétrolier considérable, et le contrôle et l'exploitation de cette ressource étaient au cœur des enjeux géopolitiques.
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 a réussi à naviguer dans ces eaux complexes, trouvant un équilibre entre la coopération avec les puissances étrangères et la protection de la souveraineté iranienne. Bien qu'il ait dû faire des concessions, notamment en matière d'exploitation pétrolière, son gouvernement a travaillé à garantir que l'Iran bénéficie d'une part plus juste des revenus du pétrole et à limiter l'influence étrangère directe dans les affaires internes du pays. En 1925, Reza Khan a été couronné Reza Shah Pahlavi, devenant ainsi le premier Shah de la dynastie Pahlavi. Sous son règne, l'Iran a connu des transformations radicales, y compris la modernisation de l'économie, la réforme de l'éducation, l'occidentalisation des normes sociales et culturelles, et une politique d'industrialisation. Ces réformes, bien que souvent menées de manière autoritaire, ont marqué l'entrée de l'Iran dans l'ère moderne et ont jeté les bases du développement ultérieur du pays.
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.


=== L'Ère de Reza Shah Pahlavi : Modernisation et Centralisation ===
=== The era of Reza Shah Pahlavi: Modernisation and Centralisation ===
L'avènement de Reza Shah Pahlavi en Iran en 1925 a marqué un changement radical dans le paysage politique et social du pays. Après la chute de la dynastie Kadjar, Reza Shah, s'inspirant des réformes de Mustafa Kemal Atatürk en Turquie, a initié une série de transformations profondes visant à moderniser l'Iran et à le forger en un État-nation puissant et centralisé. Son règne a été caractérisé par une modernisation autoritaire, où le pouvoir était fortement concentré et les réformes imposées de manière top-down. La centralisation du pouvoir a été une étape cruciale, avec Reza Shah cherchant à éliminer les pouvoirs intermédiaires traditionnels tels que les chefs tribaux et les notables locaux. Cette consolidation de l'autorité visait à renforcer le gouvernement central et à assurer un contrôle plus strict sur l'ensemble du pays. Dans le cadre de ses efforts de modernisation, il a également introduit le système métrique, modernisé les réseaux de transport avec la construction de nouvelles routes et chemins de fer, et mis en œuvre des réformes culturelles et vestimentaires pour aligner l'Iran sur les standards occidentaux.
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 a également promu un nationalisme fort, glorifiant le passé impérial perse et la langue persane. Cette exaltation du passé iranien avait pour but de créer un sentiment d'unité nationale et d'identité commune parmi la population diversifiée de l'Iran. Cependant, ces réformes ont eu un coût élevé en termes de libertés individuelles. Le régime de Reza Shah était marqué par la censure, la répression des libertés d'expression et de la dissidence politique, et un contrôle strict des appareils politiques. Dans le domaine législatif, des codes civils et pénaux modernes ont été introduits, et des réformes vestimentaires ont été imposées pour moderniser l'apparence de la population. Ces réformes, bien que contribuant à la modernisation de l'Iran, ont été mises en œuvre de manière autoritaire, sans participation démocratique significative, ce qui a semé les graines de tensions futures. La période de Reza Shah a donc été une ère de contradictions en Iran. D'un côté, elle a représenté un bond en avant significatif dans la modernisation et la centralisation du pays. De l'autre, elle a posé des fondations pour des conflits futurs en raison de son approche autoritaire et de l'absence de canaux pour l'expression politique libre. Cette période a donc été déterminante dans l'histoire moderne de l'Iran, façonnant sa trajectoire politique, sociale et économique pour les décennies à venir.
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.


=== Changement de Nom : De la Perse à l'Iran ===
=== Name change: From Persia to Iran ===
Le changement de nom de la Perse en Iran en décembre 1934 est un exemple fascinant de la façon dont la politique internationale et les influences idéologiques peuvent façonner l'identité nationale d'un pays. Sous le règne de Reza Shah Pahlavi, la Perse, qui était le nom historique et occidental du pays, est officiellement devenue l'Iran, un terme qui avait été utilisé au sein du pays depuis longtemps et qui signifie "terre des Aryens". Ce changement de nom était en partie un effort pour renforcer les liens avec l'Occident et pour souligner l'héritage aryen de la nation, dans le contexte de l'émergence des idéologies nationalistes et raciales en Europe. À cette époque, la propagande nazie avait un certain écho dans plusieurs pays du Moyen-Orient, y compris en Iran. Reza Shah, cherchant à contrebalancer l'influence britannique et soviétique en Iran, a vu dans l'Allemagne nazie un potentiel allié stratégique. Cependant, sa politique de rapprochement avec l'Allemagne a suscité l'inquiétude des Alliés, notamment de la Grande-Bretagne et de l'Union Soviétique, qui craignaient une collaboration iranienne avec l'Allemagne nazie pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale.
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.


En raison de ces inquiétudes, et du rôle stratégique de l'Iran en tant que voie de transit pour le ravitaillement des forces soviétiques, le pays est devenu un point focal dans la guerre. En 1941, les forces britanniques et soviétiques ont envahi l'Iran, forçant Reza Shah à abdiquer en faveur de son fils, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Mohammed Reza, encore jeune et inexpérimenté, a accédé au trône dans un contexte de tensions internationales et de présence militaire étrangère. L'invasion et l'occupation de l'Iran par les forces alliées ont eu un impact profond sur le pays, accélérant la fin de la politique de neutralité de Reza Shah et ouvrant une nouvelle ère dans l'histoire iranienne. Sous Mohammed Reza Shah, l'Iran deviendrait un allié clé de l'Occident pendant la Guerre froide, bien que cela soit accompagné de défis internes et de tensions politiques qui culmineraient finalement avec la Révolution iranienne de 1979.
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.


=== La Nationalisation du Pétrole et la Chute de Mossadegh ===
=== Oil nationalisation and the fall of Mossadegh ===
L'épisode de la nationalisation du pétrole en Iran et la chute de Mohammad Mossadegh en 1953 constituent un chapitre crucial dans l'histoire du Moyen-Orient et sont révélateurs des dynamiques de pouvoir et des intérêts géopolitiques pendant la Guerre froide. En 1951, Mohammad Mossadegh, un politicien nationaliste élu Premier Ministre, a pris une mesure audacieuse en nationalisant l'industrie pétrolière iranienne, qui était alors contrôlée par la compagnie britannique Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC, aujourd'hui BP). Mossadegh considérait que la maîtrise des ressources naturelles du pays, en particulier le pétrole, était essentielle pour l'indépendance économique et politique de l'Iran. Cette décision de nationalisation a été extrêmement populaire en Iran, mais elle a provoqué une crise internationale. Le Royaume-Uni, perdant son accès privilégié aux ressources pétrolières iraniennes, a cherché à contrecarrer cette initiative par des moyens diplomatiques et économiques, y compris en imposant un embargo pétrolier. Face à l'impasse avec l'Iran et incapable de résoudre la situation par des moyens conventionnels, le gouvernement britannique a sollicité l'aide des États-Unis. Initialement réticents, les États-Unis ont finalement été persuadés, en partie en raison de la montée des tensions de la Guerre froide et des craintes d'une influence communiste en Iran.  
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.  


En 1953, la CIA, avec le soutien du MI6 britannique, a lancé l'opération Ajax, un coup d'État qui a abouti à la destitution de Mossadegh et au renforcement du pouvoir du Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Ce coup d'État a marqué un tournant décisif dans l'histoire iranienne, renforçant la monarchie et augmentant l'influence occidentale, en particulier celle des États-Unis, en Iran. Cependant, l'intervention étrangère et la suppression des aspirations nationalistes et démocratiques ont également engendré un profond ressentiment en Iran, qui contribuerait à alimenter les tensions politiques internes et, finalement, à la Révolution iranienne de 1979. L'opération Ajax est souvent citée comme un exemple classique de l'interventionnisme de la Guerre froide et de ses conséquences à long terme, non seulement pour l'Iran, mais aussi pour la région du Moyen-Orient dans son ensemble.
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.


L'événement de 1953 en Iran, marqué par la destitution du Premier ministre Mohammad Mossadegh, est une période charnière qui a eu un impact profond sur l'évolution politique du pays. Mossadegh, bien qu'élu démocratiquement et extrêmement populaire pour ses politiques nationalistes, notamment la nationalisation de l'industrie pétrolière iranienne, a été renversé à la suite d'un coup d'État orchestré par la CIA américaine et le MI6 britannique, connu sous le nom d'opération Ajax.  
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.  


=== La "Révolution Blanche" du Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi ===
=== The "White Revolution" of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi ===
Après le départ de Mossadegh, le Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi a consolidé son pouvoir et est devenu de plus en plus autoritaire. Le Shah, soutenu par les États-Unis et d'autres puissances occidentales, a lancé un programme ambitieux de modernisation et de développement en Iran. Ce programme, connu sous le nom de "Révolution Blanche", lancé en 1963, visait à transformer rapidement l'Iran en une nation moderne et industrialisée. Les réformes du Shah comprenaient la redistribution des terres, une campagne d'alphabétisation massive, la modernisation de l'économie, l'industrialisation, et l'octroi de droits de vote aux femmes. Ces réformes étaient censées renforcer l'économie iranienne, réduire la dépendance à l'égard du pétrole, et améliorer les conditions de vie des citoyens iraniens. Cependant, le règne du Shah était également caractérisé par un contrôle politique strict et une répression de la dissidence. La police secrète du Shah, la SAVAK, créée avec l'aide des États-Unis et d'Israël, était notoire pour sa brutalité et ses tactiques répressives. Le manque de libertés politiques, la corruption, et les inégalités sociales croissantes ont suscité un mécontentement généralisé parmi la population iranienne. Bien que le Shah ait réussi à réaliser certains progrès en matière de modernisation et de développement, l'absence de réformes politiques démocratiques et la répression des voix d'opposition ont finalement contribué à l'aliénation de larges segments de la société iranienne. Cette situation a préparé le terrain pour la Révolution iranienne de 1979, qui a renversé la monarchie et a établi la République islamique d'Iran.
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.


=== Renforcement des Liens avec l'Occident et Impact Social ===
=== Strengthening ties with the West and social impact ===
Depuis 1955, l'Iran, sous la direction du Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a cherché à renforcer ses liens avec l'Occident, en particulier avec les États-Unis, dans le contexte de la Guerre froide. L'adhésion de l'Iran au Pacte de Bagdad en 1955 était un élément clé de cette orientation stratégique. Ce pacte, qui incluait également l'Irak, la Turquie, le Pakistan et le Royaume-Uni, était une alliance militaire visant à contenir l'expansion du communisme soviétique au Moyen-Orient. Dans le cadre de son rapprochement avec l'Occident, le Shah a lancé la "Révolution Blanche", un ensemble de réformes visant à moderniser l'Iran. Ces réformes, largement influencées par le modèle américain, comprenaient des changements dans les modes de production et de consommation, une réforme agraire, une campagne d'alphabétisation et des initiatives visant à promouvoir l'industrialisation et le développement économique. L'implication étroite des États-Unis dans le processus de modernisation de l'Iran a également été symbolisée par la présence d'experts et de conseillers américains sur le sol iranien. Ces experts bénéficiaient souvent de privilèges et d'immunités, ce qui a suscité des tensions au sein de divers secteurs de la société iranienne, notamment parmi les milieux religieux et les nationalistes.  
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.  


Les réformes du Shah, bien qu'ayant entraîné une modernisation économique et sociale, ont également été perçues par beaucoup comme une forme d'américanisation et d'érosion des valeurs et traditions iraniennes. Cette perception a été exacerbée par la nature autoritaire du régime du Shah et par l'absence de libertés politiques et de participation populaire. La présence et l'influence américaines en Iran, ainsi que les réformes de la "Révolution Blanche", ont alimenté un ressentiment croissant, en particulier dans les milieux religieux. Les chefs religieux, avec à leur tête l'Ayatollah Khomeini, ont commencé à articuler une opposition de plus en plus forte au Shah, le critiquant pour sa dépendance vis-à-vis des États-Unis et pour son éloignement des valeurs islamiques. Cette opposition a finalement joué un rôle clé dans la mobilisation qui a conduit à la Révolution iranienne de 1979.
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.


Les réformes de la "Révolution Blanche" en Iran, initiées par le Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi dans les années 1960, comprenaient une réforme agraire importante qui a eu des répercussions profondes sur la structure sociale et économique du pays. Cette réforme visait à moderniser l'agriculture iranienne et à réduire la dépendance du pays à l'égard des exportations de pétrole, tout en améliorant les conditions de vie des paysans. La réforme agraire a rompu avec les pratiques traditionnelles, en particulier celles qui étaient liées à l'islam, comme les offrandes des imams. Elle a plutôt favorisé une approche axée sur l'économie de marché, avec pour objectif d'augmenter la productivité et de stimuler le développement économique. Les terres ont été redistribuées, réduisant le pouvoir des grands propriétaires terriens et des élites religieuses qui contrôlaient de vastes étendues de terres agricoles. Cependant, cette réforme, ainsi que d'autres initiatives de modernisation, ont été réalisées de manière autoritaire et top-down, sans consultation ni participation significative de la population. La répression de l'opposition, y compris des groupes de gauche et communistes, a également été une caractéristique du régime du Shah. La SAVAK, la police secrète du Shah, était tristement célèbre pour ses méthodes brutales et sa surveillance étendue.  
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.  


L'approche autoritaire du Shah, combinée à l'impact économique et social des réformes, a créé des mécontentements croissants au sein de divers segments de la société iranienne. Les religieux chiites, les nationalistes, les communistes, les intellectuels et d'autres groupes ont trouvé un terrain d'entente dans leur opposition au régime. Au fil du temps, cette opposition disparate s'est consolidée en un mouvement de plus en plus coordonné. La Révolution iranienne de 1979 peut être vue comme le résultat de cette convergence des oppositions. La répression du Shah, l'influence étrangère perçue, les réformes économiques perturbatrices et la marginalisation des valeurs traditionnelles et religieuses ont créé un terreau fertile pour une révolte populaire. Cette révolution a finalement renversé la monarchie et a établi la République islamique d'Iran, marquant un tournant radical dans l'histoire du pays.
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.


La célébration du 2 500e anniversaire de l'Empire perse en 1971, organisée par le Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a été un événement monumental conçu pour souligner la grandeur et la continuité historique de l'Iran. Cette célébration fastueuse, qui a eu lieu à Persépolis, l'ancienne capitale de l'Empire achéménide, était destinée à établir un lien entre le régime du Shah et la glorieuse histoire impériale de la Perse. Dans le cadre de son effort pour renforcer l'identité nationale iranienne et pour mettre en avant les racines historiques de l'Iran, Mohammad Reza Shah a effectué un changement significatif dans le calendrier iranien. Ce changement a vu le calendrier islamique, qui était basé sur l'Hégire (la migration du prophète Mahomet de La Mecque à Médine), être remplacé par un calendrier impérial qui débutait avec la fondation de l'Empire achéménide par Cyrus le Grand en 559 avant J-C.
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.


Cependant, ce changement de calendrier a été controversé et a été perçu par beaucoup comme une tentative du Shah de minimiser l'importance de l'islam dans l'histoire et la culture iraniennes au profit d'une glorification du passé impérial préislamique. Cette démarche s'inscrivait dans le cadre des politiques de modernisation et de sécularisation du Shah, mais elle a également alimenté le mécontentement parmi les groupes religieux et les personnes attachées aux traditions islamiques. Quelques années plus tard, à la suite de la Révolution iranienne de 1979, l'Iran est revenu à l'usage du calendrier islamique. La révolution, menée par l'Ayatollah Khomeini, a renversé la monarchie Pahlavi et a établi la République islamique d'Iran, marquant un rejet profond des politiques et du style de gouvernance du Shah, y compris ses tentatives de promouvoir un nationalisme basé sur l'histoire préislamique de l'Iran. La question du calendrier et la célébration du 2 500e anniversaire de l'Empire perse sont des exemples de la façon dont l'histoire et la culture peuvent être mobilisées dans la politique, et comment de telles actions peuvent avoir des répercussions importantes sur la dynamique sociale et politique d'un pays.
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.


=== La Révolution Iranienne de 1979 et ses Impacts ===
=== The Iranian Revolution of 1979 and its Impact ===
La Révolution iranienne de 1979 est un événement marquant dans l'histoire contemporaine, non seulement pour l'Iran mais aussi pour la géopolitique mondiale. Cette révolution a vu l'effondrement de la monarchie sous le Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi et l'établissement d'une République islamique sous la direction de l'Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini. Dans les années précédant la révolution, l'Iran a été secoué par des manifestations massives et des troubles populaires. Ces manifestations étaient motivées par une multitude de griefs contre le Shah, y compris sa politique autoritaire, la perception de corruption et de dépendance vis-à-vis de l'Occident, la répression politique, et les inégalités sociales et économiques exacerbées par les politiques de modernisation rapide. De plus, la maladie du Shah et son incapacité à répondre efficacement aux demandes croissantes de réformes politiques et sociales ont contribué à un sentiment général de mécontentement et de désillusion.
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.


En janvier 1979, face à l'intensification des troubles, le Shah a quitté l'Iran pour s'exiler. Peu de temps après, l'Ayatollah Khomeini, le chef spirituel et politique de la révolution, est revenu en Iran après 15 ans d'exil. Khomeini était une figure charismatique et respectée, dont l'opposition à la monarchie Pahlavi et l'appel à un État islamique avaient gagné un large soutien parmi divers segments de la société iranienne. Lorsque Khomeini est arrivé en Iran, il a été accueilli par des millions de partisans. Peu après, les forces armées iraniennes ont déclaré leur neutralité, un signe clair que le régime du Shah était irrémédiablement affaibli. Khomeini a rapidement pris les rênes du pouvoir, déclarant la fin de la monarchie et établissant un gouvernement provisoire.
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.


La Révolution iranienne a abouti à la création de la République islamique d'Iran, un État théocratique basé sur les principes de l'islam chiite et dirigé par les clercs religieux. Khomeini est devenu le Guide suprême de l'Iran, un poste qui lui conférait un pouvoir considérable sur les aspects politiques et religieux de l'État. La révolution a non seulement transformé l'Iran, mais a également eu un impact significatif sur la politique régionale et internationale, notamment en intensifiant les tensions entre l'Iran et les États-Unis, et en influençant les mouvements islamistes dans d'autres parties du monde musulman.
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.


La Révolution iranienne de 1979 a attiré l'attention mondiale et a été soutenue par divers groupes, y compris par certains intellectuels occidentaux qui y voyaient un mouvement de libération ou un renouveau spirituel et politique. Parmi eux, le philosophe français Michel Foucault a été particulièrement remarqué pour ses écrits et ses commentaires sur la révolution. Foucault, connu pour ses analyses critiques des structures de pouvoir et de la gouvernance, s'est intéressé à la Révolution iranienne en tant qu'événement significatif qui remettait en question les normes politiques et sociales contemporaines. Il a été fasciné par l'aspect populaire et spirituel de la révolution, voyant en elle une forme de résistance politique qui dépassait les catégories occidentales traditionnelles de gauche et de droite. Cependant, sa position a été source de controverses et de débats, en particulier en raison de la nature de la République islamique qui a émergé après la révolution.
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.


La Révolution iranienne a conduit à l'établissement d'une théocratie chiite, où les principes de la gouvernance islamique, basés sur la loi chiite (la Charia), ont été intégrés dans les structures politiques et juridiques de l'État. Sous la direction de l'Ayatollah Khomeini, le nouveau régime a mis en place une structure politique unique connue sous le nom de "Velayat-e Faqih" (la tutelle du juriste islamique), dans laquelle une autorité religieuse suprême, le Guide suprême, détient un pouvoir considérable. La transition de l'Iran vers une théocratie a entraîné des changements profonds dans tous les aspects de la société iranienne. Bien que la révolution ait initialement bénéficié du soutien de divers groupes, y compris des nationalistes, des gauchistes et des libéraux, en plus des religieux, les années qui ont suivi ont vu une consolidation du pouvoir entre les mains des clercs chiites et une répression croissante des autres groupes politiques. La nature de la République islamique, avec son mélange de théocratie et de démocratie, a continué à être un sujet de débat et d'analyse, tant au sein de l'Iran qu'à l'échelle internationale. La révolution a profondément transformé l'Iran et a eu un impact durable sur la politique régionale et mondiale, en redéfinissant les relations entre la religion, la politique et le pouvoir.
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.


=== La Guerre Iran-Irak et ses Effets sur la République Islamique ===
=== The Iran-Iraq War and its Effects on the Islamic Republic ===
L'invasion de l'Iran par l'Irak en 1980, sous le régime de Saddam Hussein, a joué un rôle paradoxal dans la consolidation de la République islamique d'Iran. Ce conflit, connu sous le nom de guerre Iran-Irak, a duré de septembre 1980 à août 1988 et a été l'un des conflits les plus longs et les plus sanglants du 20ème siècle. Au moment de l'attaque de l'Irak, la République islamique d'Iran était encore dans ses premières années d'existence, après la révolution de 1979 qui avait renversé la monarchie Pahlavi. Le régime iranien, dirigé par l'Ayatollah Khomeini, était en train de consolider son pouvoir, mais faisait face à des tensions internes et à des défis significatifs. L'invasion irakienne a eu un effet unificateur en Iran, renforçant le sentiment national et le soutien au régime islamique. Confronté à une menace extérieure, le peuple iranien, y compris de nombreux groupes qui étaient auparavant en désaccord avec le gouvernement, s'est rallié autour de la défense nationale. La guerre a également permis au régime de Khomeini de renforcer son emprise sur le pays, en mobilisant la population sous la bannière de la défense de la République islamique et de l'islam chiite. La guerre Iran-Irak a également renforcé l'importance du pouvoir religieux en Iran. Le régime a utilisé la rhétorique religieuse pour mobiliser la population et légitimer ses actions, s'appuyant sur le concept de "défense de l'islam" pour unir les Iraniens de différentes tendances politiques et sociales.
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.


La République islamique d'Iran n'a pas été proclamée de manière formelle, mais a émergé de la révolution islamique de 1979. La nouvelle constitution de l'Iran, adoptée après la révolution, a établi une structure politique théocratique unique, où les principes et les valeurs islamiques chiites sont au cœur du système de gouvernement. La laïcité n'est pas une caractéristique de la constitution iranienne, qui fusionne plutôt la gouvernance religieuse et politique sous la doctrine du "Velayat-e Faqih" (la tutelle du juriste islamique).
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).


=L'Égypte=
=Egypt=


=== L'Égypte Antique et ses Successions ===
=== Ancient Egypt and its Successions ===
L'Égypte, avec son histoire riche et complexe, est un berceau de civilisations anciennes et a connu une succession de dominations au fil des siècles. La région qui constitue aujourd'hui l'Égypte a été le centre de l'une des premières et des plus grandes civilisations de l'histoire, avec des racines remontant à l'ancienne Égypte pharaonique. Au fil du temps, l'Égypte a été sous l'influence de divers empires et puissances. Après l'époque pharaonique, elle a été successivement sous domination perse, grecque (après la conquête d'Alexandre le Grand), et romaine. Chacune de ces périodes a laissé une empreinte durable sur l'histoire et la culture de l'Égypte. La conquête arabe de l'Égypte, qui a débuté en 639, a marqué un tournant dans l'histoire du pays. L'invasion arabe a conduit à l'islamisation et à l'arabisation de l'Égypte, transformant profondément la société et la culture égyptiennes. L'Égypte est devenue une partie intégrante du monde islamique, un statut qu'elle conserve jusqu'à aujourd'hui.  
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.  


En 1517, l'Égypte est tombée sous le contrôle de l'Empire ottoman après la prise du Caire. Sous la domination ottomane, l'Égypte a conservé une certaine autonomie locale, mais elle était également liée aux fortunes politiques et économiques de l'Empire ottoman. Cette période a duré jusqu'au début du 19ème siècle, lorsque l'Égypte a commencé à s'orienter vers une modernisation et une indépendance accrues sous des leaders comme Muhammad Ali Pacha, souvent considéré comme le fondateur de l'Égypte moderne. L'histoire de l'Égypte est donc celle d'un carrefour de civilisations, de cultures et d'influences, ce qui a façonné le pays en une nation unique avec une identité riche et diversifiée. Chaque période de son histoire a contribué à la construction de l'Égypte contemporaine, un État qui joue un rôle clé dans le monde arabe et dans la politique internationale.
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.


Au 18ème siècle, l'Égypte est devenue un territoire d'intérêt stratégique pour les puissances européennes, en particulier la Grande-Bretagne, en raison de son emplacement géographique crucial et de son contrôle sur la route vers l'Inde. L'intérêt britannique pour l'Égypte s'est accru avec l'importance croissante du commerce maritime et la nécessité de routes commerciales sécurisées.   
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 et les Réformes Modernisatrices ===
=== Mehmet Ali and the Modernising Reforms ===
La Nahda, ou la Renaissance arabe, a été un mouvement culturel, intellectuel et politique majeur qui a pris racine en Égypte au 19ème siècle, notamment sous le règne de Mehmet Ali, souvent considéré comme le fondateur de l'Égypte moderne. Mehmet Ali, d'origine albanaise, a été nommé gouverneur de l'Égypte par les Ottomans en 1805 et a rapidement entrepris de moderniser le pays. Ses réformes comprenaient la modernisation de l'armée, l'introduction de nouvelles méthodes agricoles, l'expansion de l'industrie, et l'établissement d'un système éducatif moderne. La Nahda en Égypte a coïncidé avec un mouvement culturel et intellectuel plus large dans le monde arabe, caractérisé par un renouveau littéraire, scientifique et intellectuel. En Égypte, ce mouvement a été stimulé par les réformes de Mehmet Ali et par l'ouverture du pays aux influences européennes.  
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 Pacha, le fils de Mehmet Ali, a également joué un rôle important dans l'histoire égyptienne. Sous son commandement, les forces égyptiennes ont réalisé plusieurs campagnes militaires réussies, étendant l'influence égyptienne bien au-delà de ses frontières traditionnelles. Dans les années 1830, les troupes égyptiennes ont même contesté l'Empire ottoman, ce qui a conduit à une crise internationale impliquant les grandes puissances européennes. L'expansionnisme de Mehmet Ali et d'Ibrahim Pacha a été un défi direct à l'autorité ottomane et a marqué l'Égypte comme un acteur politique et militaire significatif dans la région. Cependant, l'intervention des puissances européennes, en particulier la Grande-Bretagne et la France, a finalement limité les ambitions égyptiennes, préfigurant le rôle accru que ces puissances joueraient dans la région au 19ème et au début du 20ème siècle.
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.


L'ouverture du canal de Suez en 1869 a marqué un moment décisif dans l'histoire de l'Égypte, augmentant de manière significative son importance stratégique sur la scène internationale. Ce canal, reliant la mer Méditerranée à la mer Rouge, a révolutionné le commerce maritime en réduisant considérablement la distance entre l'Europe et l'Asie. L'Égypte s'est ainsi retrouvée au centre des routes commerciales mondiales, attirant l'attention des grandes puissances impérialistes, en particulier la Grande-Bretagne. Cependant, en parallèle à cette avancée, l'Égypte a fait face à des défis économiques considérables. Les coûts de construction du canal de Suez et d'autres projets de modernisation ont conduit le gouvernement égyptien à contracter de lourdes dettes auprès de pays européens, principalement la France et la Grande-Bretagne. L'incapacité de l'Égypte à rembourser ces emprunts a eu des conséquences politiques et économiques majeures.  
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.  


=== Le Protectorat Britannique et les Luttes pour l'Indépendance ===
=== The British Protectorate and the Struggle for Independence ===
Dès 1876, en raison de la crise de la dette, une commission de contrôle franco-britannique a été mise en place pour superviser les finances de l'Égypte. Cette commission a pris une part importante dans l'administration du pays, réduisant de fait l'autonomie et la souveraineté de l'Égypte. Cette ingérence étrangère a provoqué un mécontentement croissant parmi la population égyptienne, en particulier dans les classes populaires, qui souffraient des effets économiques des réformes et du remboursement de la dette. La situation s'est encore aggravée dans les années 1880. En 1882, après plusieurs années de tension croissante et de désordre intérieur, notamment la révolte nationaliste d'Ahmed Urabi, la Grande-Bretagne a effectué une intervention militaire et a établi un protectorat de facto sur l'Égypte. Bien que l'Égypte soit officiellement restée une partie de l'Empire ottoman jusqu'à la fin de la Première Guerre mondiale, elle était en réalité sous contrôle britannique. La présence britannique en Égypte a été justifiée par la nécessité de protéger les intérêts britanniques, notamment le canal de Suez, crucial pour la route maritime vers l'Inde, la "jewel in the crown" de l'Empire britannique. Cette période de domination britannique a eu un impact profond sur l'Égypte, façonnant son développement politique, économique et social, et semant les graines du nationalisme égyptien qui mènerait finalement à la révolution de 1952 et à l'indépendance formelle du pays.
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.


La Première Guerre mondiale a accentué l'importance stratégique du canal de Suez pour les puissances belligérantes, en particulier pour la Grande-Bretagne. Le canal était vital pour les intérêts britanniques, car il constituait la route maritime la plus rapide vers ses colonies en Asie, notamment l'Inde, qui était alors un élément crucial de l'Empire britannique. Avec le déclenchement de la Première Guerre mondiale en 1914, la nécessité de sécuriser le canal de Suez contre d'éventuelles attaques ou interférences de la part des Puissances centrales (notamment l'Empire ottoman, allié à l'Allemagne) est devenue une priorité pour la Grande-Bretagne. En réponse à ces préoccupations stratégiques, les Britanniques ont décidé de renforcer leur emprise sur l'Égypte. En 1914, la Grande-Bretagne a officiellement proclamé un protectorat sur l'Égypte, remplaçant ainsi nominalement la suzeraineté de l'Empire ottoman par un contrôle britannique direct. Cette proclamation a marqué la fin de la domination nominale ottomane sur l'Égypte, qui avait existé depuis 1517, et a établi une administration coloniale britannique dans le pays.
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.


Le protectorat britannique a impliqué une ingérence directe dans les affaires intérieures de l'Égypte et a renforcé le contrôle militaire et politique britannique sur le pays. Bien que les Britanniques aient justifié cette mesure comme nécessaire pour la défense de l'Égypte et du canal de Suez, elle a été largement perçue par les Égyptiens comme une violation de leur souveraineté et a alimenté le sentiment nationaliste en Égypte. La période de la Première Guerre mondiale a été marquée par des difficultés économiques et sociales en Égypte, exacerbées par les exigences de l'effort de guerre britannique et par les restrictions imposées par l'administration coloniale. Ces conditions ont contribué à l'émergence d'un mouvement nationaliste égyptien plus fort, qui a finalement mené à des révoltes et à la lutte pour l'indépendance dans les années suivant la guerre.
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.


=== Le Mouvement Nationaliste et la Quête de l'Indépendance ===
=== The Nationalist Movement and the Quest for Independence ===
L'après-Première Guerre mondiale en Égypte a été une période de tensions croissantes et de revendications nationalistes. Les Égyptiens, qui avaient subi les rigueurs de la guerre, notamment les corvées et les famines dues à la réquisition des ressources par les Britanniques, ont commencé à exiger leur indépendance et une reconnaissance de leurs efforts de guerre.
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.


La fin de la Première Guerre mondiale avait créé un climat mondial où les idées d'autodétermination et de fin des empires coloniaux gagnaient du terrain, en partie grâce aux Quatorze Points du président américain Woodrow Wilson, qui appelaient à de nouveaux principes de gouvernance internationale et au droit des peuples à l'autodétermination. En Égypte, ce climat a conduit à la formation d'un mouvement nationaliste, incarné par le Wafd (qui signifie "délégation" en arabe). Le Wafd était dirigé par Saad Zaghloul, qui est devenu le porte-parole des aspirations nationalistes égyptiennes. En 1919, Zaghloul et d'autres membres du Wafd ont cherché à se rendre à la Conférence de paix de Paris pour présenter le cas de l'indépendance égyptienne. Cependant, la tentative de la délégation égyptienne de se rendre à Paris a été entravée par les autorités britanniques. Zaghloul et ses compagnons ont été arrêtés et exilés à Malte par les Britanniques, ce qui a déclenché des manifestations et des émeutes massives en Égypte, connues sous le nom de Révolution de 1919. Cette révolution a été un soulèvement populaire majeur, avec une participation massive des Égyptiens de tous les milieux, et elle a marqué un tournant décisif dans la lutte pour l'indépendance égyptienne.
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.


L'exil forcé de Zaghloul et la réponse répressive des Britanniques ont galvanisé le mouvement nationaliste en Égypte et ont accru la pression sur la Grande-Bretagne pour qu'elle reconnaisse l'indépendance égyptienne. En fin de compte, la crise a conduit à la reconnaissance partielle de l'indépendance de l'Égypte en 1922 et à la fin formelle du protectorat britannique en 1936, bien que l'influence britannique en Égypte soit restée significative jusqu'à la révolution de 1952. Le Wafd est devenu un acteur politique majeur en Égypte, jouant un rôle crucial dans la vie politique égyptienne dans les décennies suivantes, et Saad Zaghloul est resté une figure emblématique du nationalisme égyptien.
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.


Le mouvement révolutionnaire nationaliste en Égypte, renforcé par la Révolution de 1919 et le leadership du Wafd sous Saad Zaghloul, a exercé une pression croissante sur la Grande-Bretagne pour qu'elle reconsidère sa position en Égypte. En réponse à cette pression et aux réalités politiques changeantes après la Première Guerre mondiale, la Grande-Bretagne a proclamé en 1922 la fin de son protectorat sur l'Égypte. Cependant, cette "indépendance" était fortement conditionnée et limitée. En effet, bien que la déclaration d'indépendance ait marqué un pas vers la souveraineté égyptienne, elle comportait plusieurs réserves importantes qui maintenaient l'influence britannique en Égypte. Parmi ces réserves figuraient le maintien de la présence militaire britannique autour du canal de Suez, crucial pour les intérêts stratégiques et commerciaux britanniques, et le contrôle du Soudan, source vitale du Nil et enjeu géopolitique majeur.  
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.  


Dans ce contexte, le sultan Fouad, qui était sultan d'Égypte depuis 1917, a profité de la fin du protectorat pour se proclamer roi Fouad Ier en 1922, établissant ainsi la monarchie égyptienne indépendante. Cependant, sa règne a été caractérisé par des liens étroits avec la Grande-Bretagne. Fouad Ier, tout en acceptant formellement l'indépendance, a souvent agi en collaboration étroite avec les autorités britanniques, ce qui a suscité des critiques parmi les nationalistes égyptiens qui le percevaient comme un monarque soumis aux intérêts britanniques. La période suivant la déclaration d'indépendance en 1922 a donc été une période de transition et de tension en Égypte, avec des luttes politiques internes sur la direction du pays et le degré réel d'indépendance par rapport à la Grande-Bretagne. Cette situation a posé les bases des conflits politiques futurs en Égypte, y compris la révolution de 1952 qui a renversé la monarchie et a établi la République arabe d'Égypte.  
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.  


La fondation des Frères Musulmans en Égypte en 1928 par Hassan al-Banna est un événement majeur dans l'histoire sociale et politique du pays. Ce mouvement a été créé dans un contexte d'insatisfaction croissante face à la modernisation rapide et à l'influence occidentale en Égypte, ainsi que face à la perception d'une dégradation des valeurs et des traditions islamiques. Les Frères Musulmans se sont positionnés comme un mouvement islamiste cherchant à promouvoir un retour aux principes islamiques dans tous les aspects de la vie. Ils prônaient une société régie par les lois et les principes islamiques, en opposition à ce qu'ils percevaient comme une occidentalisation excessive et une perte d'identité culturelle islamique. Le mouvement a rapidement gagné en popularité, devenant une force sociale et politique influente en Égypte. Parallèlement à l'émergence de mouvements comme les Frères Musulmans, l'Égypte a connu une période d'instabilité politique dans les années 1920 et 1930. Cette instabilité, combinée à la montée des puissances fascistes en Europe, a créé un contexte international préoccupant pour la Grande-Bretagne.  
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.  


Dans ce contexte, la Grande-Bretagne a cherché à consolider son influence en Égypte tout en reconnaissant la nécessité de faire des concessions en matière d'indépendance égyptienne. En 1936, la Grande-Bretagne et l'Égypte ont signé le Traité anglo-égyptien, qui a renforcé formellement l'indépendance de l'Égypte tout en permettant la présence militaire britannique dans le pays, en particulier autour du canal de Suez. Ce traité a également reconnu le rôle de l'Égypte dans la défense du Soudan, alors sous domination anglo-égyptienne. Le Traité de 1936 a été un pas vers une indépendance accrue pour l'Égypte, mais il a également maintenu des aspects clés de l'influence britannique. La signature de ce traité a été une tentative de la part de la Grande-Bretagne de stabiliser la situation en Égypte et de s'assurer que le pays ne tomberait pas sous l'influence des puissances de l'Axe pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Il a également reflété la reconnaissance par la Grande-Bretagne de la nécessité de s'adapter aux réalités politiques changeantes en Égypte et dans la région.
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.


=== L'Ère de Nasser et la Révolution de 1952 ===
=== The Nasser Era and the 1952 Revolution ===
Le 23 juillet 1952, un coup d'État mené par un groupe d'officiers militaires égyptiens, connus sous le nom d'Officiers Libres, a marqué un tournant majeur dans l'histoire de l'Égypte. Cette révolution a renversé la monarchie du roi Farouk et a conduit à l'établissement d'une république. Parmi les leaders des Officiers Libres, Gamal Abdel Nasser est rapidement devenu la figure dominante et le visage du nouveau régime. Nasser, devenu président en 1954, a adopté une politique fortement nationaliste et tiers-mondiste, influencée par des idées de panarabisme et de socialisme. Son panarabisme visait à unir les pays arabes autour de valeurs communes et d'intérêts politiques, économiques et culturels. Cette idéologie était en partie une réponse aux influences et interventions occidentales dans la région. La nationalisation du canal de Suez en 1956 a été l'une des décisions les plus audacieuses et emblématiques de Nasser. Cette action a été motivée par le désir de contrôler une ressource vitale pour l'économie égyptienne et de s'affranchir de l'influence occidentale, mais elle a également déclenché la crise du canal de Suez, une confrontation militaire majeure avec la France, le Royaume-Uni et Israël.
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.


Le socialisme de Nasser était développementaliste, visant à moderniser et à industrialiser l'économie égyptienne tout en promouvant la justice sociale. Sous sa direction, l'Égypte a lancé d'importants projets d'infrastructure, dont le plus notable est le barrage d'Assouan. Pour réaliser ce projet d'envergure, Nasser s'est tourné vers l'Union soviétique pour obtenir un soutien financier et technique, marquant ainsi un rapprochement entre l'Égypte et les Soviétiques durant la Guerre froide. Nasser a également cherché à développer une bourgeoisie égyptienne tout en mettant en œuvre des politiques socialistes, telles que la réforme agraire et la nationalisation de certaines industries. Ces politiques visaient à réduire les inégalités et à établir une économie plus équitable et indépendante. Le leadership de Nasser a eu un impact significatif non seulement sur l'Égypte mais aussi sur l'ensemble du monde arabe et du tiers-monde. Il est devenu une figure emblématique du nationalisme arabe et du mouvement des non-alignés, cherchant à établir une voie indépendante pour l'Égypte en dehors des blocs de puissance de la Guerre froide.
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.


=== De Sadate à l'Égypte Contemporaine ===
=== From Sadat to Contemporary Egypt ===
La guerre des Six Jours en 1967, perdue par l'Égypte ainsi que par la Jordanie et la Syrie contre Israël, a été un moment dévastateur pour le panarabisme de Nasser. Cette défaite a non seulement entraîné une perte territoriale significative pour ces pays arabes, mais a également marqué un coup dur pour l'idée d'unité et de puissance arabe. Nasser, profondément affecté par cet échec, est resté au pouvoir jusqu'à sa mort en 1970. Anwar Sadate, succédant à Nasser, a pris une direction différente. Il a lancé des réformes économiques, connues sous le nom d'Infitah, visant à ouvrir l'économie égyptienne à l'investissement étranger et à stimuler la croissance économique. Sadate a également remis en question l'engagement de l'Égypte envers le panarabisme et a cherché à établir des relations avec Israël. Les accords de Camp David de 1978, négociés avec l'aide des États-Unis, ont abouti à un traité de paix entre l'Égypte et Israël, un tournant majeur dans l'histoire du Moyen-Orient.
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.


Cependant, le rapprochement de Sadate avec Israël a été extrêmement controversé dans le monde arabe et a conduit à l'exclusion de l'Égypte de la Ligue arabe. Cette décision a été perçue par beaucoup comme une trahison des principes panarabes et a contribué à une réévaluation de l'idéologie panarabe dans la région. Sadate a été assassiné en 1981 par des membres des Frères Musulmans, un groupe islamiste qui s'était opposé à ses politiques, en particulier à sa politique étrangère. Son vice-président, Hosni Moubarak, lui a succédé, instaurant un régime qui allait durer près de trois décennies.
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.


Sous Moubarak, l'Égypte a connu une stabilité relative, mais aussi une répression politique croissante, notamment à l'encontre des Frères Musulmans et d'autres groupes d'opposition. Cependant, en 2011, lors du Printemps arabe, Moubarak a été renversé par un soulèvement populaire, illustrant le mécontentement généralisé face à la corruption, au chômage et à la répression politique. Mohamed Morsi, issu des Frères Musulmans, a été élu président en 2012, mais son mandat a été de courte durée. En 2013, il a été renversé par un coup d'État militaire mené par le général Abdel Fattah al-Sissi, qui a ensuite été élu président en 2014. Le régime de Sissi a été marqué par une répression accrue des dissidents politiques, y compris des membres des Frères Musulmans, et par des efforts pour stabiliser l'économie et renforcer la sécurité du pays. La période récente de l'histoire égyptienne est donc caractérisée par des changements politiques majeurs, reflétant la dynamique complexe et souvent turbulente de la politique égyptienne et arabe.
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.


=L'Arabie Saoudite=
=Saudi Arabia=


=== L'Alliance Fondatrice : Ibn Saud et Ibn Abd al-Wahhab ===
=== The Founding Alliance: Ibn Saud and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab ===
L'Arabie Saoudite se distingue par sa relative jeunesse en tant qu'État-nation moderne et par les fondements idéologiques uniques qui ont façonné sa formation et son évolution. Un élément clé pour comprendre l'histoire et la société saoudienne est l'idéologie du wahhabisme.  
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.  


Le wahhabisme est une forme de l'islam sunnite, caractérisée par une interprétation stricte et puritaine de l'islam. Il tire son nom de Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, un théologien et réformateur religieux du 18ème siècle de la région de Najd, dans ce qui est aujourd'hui l'Arabie Saoudite. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab a prôné un retour à ce qu'il considérait comme les principes originaux de l'islam, en rejetant de nombreuses pratiques qu'il jugeait être des innovations (bid'ah) ou des idolâtries. L'influence du wahhabisme sur la formation de l'Arabie Saoudite est inextricablement liée à l'alliance entre Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab et Muhammad ibn Saud, le fondateur de la première dynastie saoudienne, au 18ème siècle. Cette alliance a uni les objectifs religieux d'Ibn Abd al-Wahhab avec les ambitions politiques et territoriales d'Ibn Saud, créant une fondation idéologique et politique pour le premier État saoudien.
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.


=== L'Établissement de l'État Saoudien Moderne ===
=== Establishment of the Modern Saudi State ===
Au cours du 20ème siècle, sous le règne d'Abdelaziz ibn Saoud, le fondateur du royaume d'Arabie Saoudite moderne, cette alliance s'est renforcée. L'Arabie Saoudite a été officiellement fondée en 1932, unifiant diverses tribus et régions sous une seule autorité nationale. Le wahhabisme est devenu la doctrine religieuse officielle de l'État, imprégnant la gouvernance, l'éducation, la législation et la vie sociale en Arabie Saoudite. Le wahhabisme a influencé non seulement la structure sociale et politique interne de l'Arabie Saoudite, mais a également eu un impact sur ses relations extérieures, notamment en matière de politique étrangère et de soutien à divers mouvements islamiques à travers le monde. La richesse pétrolière de l'Arabie Saoudite a permis au royaume de promouvoir sa version de l'islam à l'échelle internationale, contribuant à la propagation du wahhabisme au-delà de ses frontières.
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.


Le pacte de 1744 entre Muhammad ibn Saud, le chef de la tribu Al Saud, et Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, un réformateur religieux, est un événement fondateur dans l'histoire de l'Arabie Saoudite. Ce pacte a uni les objectifs politiques d'Ibn Saud avec les idéaux religieux d'Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, jetant les bases de ce qui deviendra l'État saoudien. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab prônait une interprétation puritaine de l'islam, cherchant à purger la pratique religieuse de ce qu'il considérait comme des innovations, des superstitions et des déviations par rapport aux enseignements du prophète Mahomet et du Coran. Son mouvement, qui allait devenir connu sous le nom de wahhabisme, appelait à un retour à une forme plus "pure" de l'islam. D'un autre côté, Ibn Saud voyait dans le mouvement d'Ibn Abd al-Wahhab une opportunité de légitimer et d'étendre son pouvoir politique. Le pacte entre eux était donc à la fois une alliance religieuse et politique, avec Ibn Saud s'engageant à défendre et à promouvoir les enseignements d'Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, tandis qu'Ibn Abd al-Wahhab soutenait l'autorité politique d'Ibn Saud. Dans les années qui ont suivi, les Al Saud, avec le soutien des adeptes wahhabites, ont entrepris des campagnes militaires pour étendre leur influence et imposer leur interprétation de l'islam. Ces campagnes ont conduit à la création du premier État saoudien au 18ème siècle, couvrant une grande partie de la péninsule arabique.  
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.  


Cependant, la formation de l'État saoudien n'a pas été un processus linéaire. Au cours du 19ème siècle et au début du 20ème siècle, l'entité politique des Al Saud a connu plusieurs revers, y compris la destruction du premier État saoudien par les Ottomans et leurs alliés égyptiens. Ce n'est qu'avec Abdelaziz ibn Saoud, au début du 20ème siècle, que les Al Saud ont finalement réussi à établir un royaume stable et durable, l'Arabie Saoudite moderne, proclamée en 1932. L'histoire de l'Arabie Saoudite est donc intimement liée à l'alliance entre les Al Saud et le mouvement wahhabite, une alliance qui a façonné non seulement la structure politique et sociale du royaume, mais aussi son identité religieuse et culturelle.
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.


=== La Reconquête d'Ibn Saoud et la Fondation du Royaume ===
=== Ibn Saud's Reconquest and the founding of the Kingdom ===
L'attaque de La Mecque par les forces saoudiennes en 1803 est un événement significatif dans l'histoire de la péninsule arabique et reflète les tensions religieuses et politiques de l'époque. Le wahhabisme, l'interprétation stricte de l'islam sunnite promue par Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab et adoptée par la maison des Saoud, considérait certaines pratiques, notamment celles du chiisme, comme étant étrangères, voire hérétiques par rapport à l'islam. En 1803, les forces saoudiennes wahhabites ont pris le contrôle de La Mecque, un des lieux les plus sacrés de l'islam, ce qui a été perçu comme un acte provocateur par d'autres musulmans, en particulier par les Ottomans qui étaient les gardiens traditionnels des lieux saints islamiques. Cette prise de contrôle a été vue non seulement comme une expansion territoriale des Saoud, mais aussi comme une tentative d'imposer leur interprétation particulière de l'islam.  
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.  


En réponse à cette avancée saoudienne, l'Empire ottoman, qui cherchait à maintenir son influence sur la région, a envoyé des forces sous le commandement de Mehmet Ali Pacha, le gouverneur ottoman de l'Égypte. Mehmet Ali Pacha, reconnu pour ses talents militaires et ses efforts de modernisation en Égypte, a mené une campagne efficace contre les forces saoudiennes. En 1818, après une série de confrontations militaires, les troupes de Mehmet Ali Pacha ont réussi à vaincre les forces saoudiennes et à capturer leur chef, Abdullah bin Saud, qui a été envoyé à Constantinople (aujourd'hui Istanbul) où il a été exécuté. Cette défaite a marqué la fin du premier État saoudien. Cet épisode illustre la complexité des dynamiques politiques et religieuses dans la région à cette époque. Il met en évidence non seulement les conflits entre différentes interprétations de l'islam, mais aussi la lutte pour le pouvoir et l'influence parmi les puissances régionales de l'époque, notamment l'Empire ottoman et les émergents Saoud.
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.


La deuxième tentative de création d'un État saoudien, qui a eu lieu entre 1820 et 1840, a également rencontré des difficultés et a finalement échoué. Cette période a été marquée par une série de conflits et de confrontations entre les Saoud et divers adversaires, y compris l'Empire ottoman et ses alliés locaux. Ces luttes ont entraîné la perte de territoires et d'influence pour la maison des Saoud. Cependant, l'aspiration à établir un État saoudien n'a pas disparu. Au tournant du 20ème siècle, particulièrement autour de 1900-1901, une nouvelle phase de l'histoire saoudienne a commencé avec le retour de membres de la famille Al Saud de leur exil. Parmi eux, Abdelaziz ibn Saoud, souvent appelé Ibn Saoud, a joué un rôle crucial dans la renaissance et l'expansion de l'influence saoudienne. Ibn Saoud, un leader charismatique et stratégique, a entrepris de reconquérir et d'unifier les territoires de la péninsule arabique sous la bannière de la maison des Saoud. Sa campagne a débuté par la capture de Riyad en 1902, qui est devenue un point de départ pour d'autres conquêtes et l'expansion de son royaume.  
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.  


Au cours des décennies suivantes, Ibn Saoud a mené une série de campagnes militaires et de manœuvres politiques, étendant progressivement son contrôle sur une grande partie de la péninsule arabique. Ces efforts ont été facilités par son habileté à négocier des alliances, à gérer les rivalités tribales et à intégrer les enseignements wahhabites comme base idéologique de son État. Le succès d'Ibn Saoud a culminé avec la fondation du Royaume d'Arabie Saoudite en 1932, unifiant les différentes régions et tribus sous une seule autorité nationale. Le nouveau royaume a consolidé les divers territoires conquis par Ibn Saoud, établissant ainsi un État saoudien durable, avec le wahhabisme comme fondement religieux et idéologique. La création de l'Arabie Saoudite a marqué une étape significative dans l'histoire moderne du Moyen-Orient, avec des implications profondes tant pour la région que pour la politique internationale, en particulier après la découverte et l'exploitation du pétrole dans le royaume.
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.


=== Les Relations avec l'Empire Britannique et la Révolte Arabe ===
=== Relations with the British Empire and the Arab Revolt ===
En 1915, durant la Première Guerre mondiale, les Britanniques, cherchant à affaiblir l'Empire ottoman, ont noué des contacts avec divers leaders arabes, y compris le Chérif Hussein de La Mecque, qui était un membre éminent de la famille hachémite. Parallèlement, les Britanniques entretenaient des relations avec les Saoudiens, menés par Abdelaziz ibn Saoud, bien que ces relations aient été moins directes et impliquées que celles avec les Hachémites. Le Chérif Hussein, encouragé par les promesses britanniques d'appui pour l'indépendance arabe, a lancé la Révolte arabe en 1916 contre l'Empire ottoman. Cette révolte était motivée par le désir d'indépendance arabe et par l'opposition à la domination ottomane. Cependant, les Saoudiens, sous la direction d'Ibn Saoud, n'ont pas participé activement à cette révolte. Ils étaient engagés dans leur propre campagne pour consolider et étendre leur contrôle sur la péninsule arabique. Bien que les Saoudiens et les Hachémites aient eu des intérêts communs contre les Ottomans, ils étaient également rivaux pour le contrôle de la région.
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.


Après la guerre, avec l'échec des promesses britanniques et françaises de créer un royaume arabe indépendant (comme le prévoyaient les accords secrets Sykes-Picot), le Chérif Hussein s'est retrouvé isolé. En 1924, il s'est proclamé Calife, un acte qui a été perçu comme provocateur par de nombreux musulmans, y compris les Saoudiens. La proclamation de Hussein en tant que Calife a fourni un prétexte aux Saoudiens pour l'attaquer, car ils cherchaient à étendre leur influence. Les forces saoudiennes ont finalement pris le contrôle de La Mecque en 1924, mettant fin à la domination hachémite dans la région et consolidant le pouvoir d'Ibn Saoud. Cette conquête a été une étape clé dans la formation du royaume d'Arabie Saoudite et a marqué la fin des ambitions du Chérif Hussein de créer un royaume arabe unifié sous la dynastie hachémite.
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.


=== L'Ascension de l'Arabie Saoudite et la Découverte du Pétrole ===
=== The Rise of Saudi Arabia and the Discovery of Oil ===
En 1926, Abdelaziz ibn Saoud, ayant consolidé son contrôle sur une grande partie de la péninsule arabique, s'est proclamé roi du Hedjaz. Le Hedjaz, une région d'une importance religieuse considérable en raison de la présence des villes saintes de La Mecque et Médine, était auparavant sous le contrôle de la dynastie hachémite. La prise du Hedjaz par Ibn Saoud a marqué une étape significative dans l'établissement de l'Arabie Saoudite comme une entité politique puissante dans la région. La reconnaissance d'Ibn Saoud en tant que roi du Hedjaz par des puissances telles que la Russie, la France et la Grande-Bretagne a été un moment clé dans la légitimation internationale de son règne. Ces reconnaissances ont indiqué un changement significatif dans les relations internationales et une acceptation du nouvel équilibre des pouvoirs dans la région. La prise de contrôle du Hedjaz par Ibn Saoud a non seulement renforcé sa position en tant que leader politique dans la péninsule arabique, mais a également accru son prestige dans le monde musulman, en le plaçant en tant que gardien des lieux saints de l'islam. Cela a également signifié la fin de la présence hachémite dans le Hedjaz, avec les membres restants de la dynastie hachémite fuyant vers d'autres parties du Moyen-Orient, où ils établiraient de nouveaux royaumes, en particulier en Jordanie et en Irak. La proclamation d'Ibn Saoud en tant que roi du Hedjaz a donc été un jalon important dans la formation de l'Arabie Saoudite moderne et a contribué à façonner l'architecture politique du Moyen-Orient dans la période suivant la Première Guerre mondiale.
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.
   
   
En 1932, Abdelaziz ibn Saoud a achevé un processus de consolidation territorial et politique qui a mené à la création du Royaume d'Arabie Saoudite. Le royaume a uni les régions du Nedj (ou Nejd) et du Hedjaz sous une seule autorité nationale, marquant la naissance de l'État saoudien moderne. Cette unification a représenté l'aboutissement des efforts d'Ibn Saoud pour établir un royaume stable et unifié dans la péninsule arabique, consolidant les différentes conquêtes et alliances qu'il avait réalisées au fil des années. La découverte du pétrole en 1938 en Arabie Saoudite a été un tournant majeur non seulement pour le royaume, mais aussi pour l'économie mondiale. La Compagnie pétrolière américaine California Arabian Standard Oil Company (plus tard ARAMCO) a été la première à découvrir du pétrole en quantité commerciale. Cette découverte a transformé l'Arabie Saoudite d'un État principalement désertique et agraire en l'un des plus grands producteurs de pétrole au monde.
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.


La Seconde Guerre mondiale a accentué l'importance stratégique du pétrole saoudien. Bien que l'Arabie Saoudite soit restée officiellement neutre pendant la guerre, la demande croissante de pétrole pour alimenter les efforts de guerre a fait du royaume un partenaire économique important pour les Alliés, notamment la Grande-Bretagne et les États-Unis. La relation entre l'Arabie Saoudite et les États-Unis, en particulier, s'est renforcée pendant et après la guerre, établissant les bases d'une alliance durable centrée sur la sécurité et le pétrole. Cette période a également vu le début de l'influence significative de l'Arabie Saoudite dans les affaires mondiales, en grande partie grâce à ses vastes réserves de pétrole. Le royaume est devenu un acteur clé dans l'économie mondiale et la politique du Moyen-Orient, une position qu'il continue d'occuper aujourd'hui. La richesse pétrolière a permis à l'Arabie Saoudite d'investir massivement dans le développement national et de jouer un rôle influent dans la politique régionale et internationale.
=== 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.


=== Défis Modernes : Islamisme, Pétrole, et Politique Internationale ===
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.
La révolution islamique en Iran en 1979 a eu un impact profond sur l'équilibre géopolitique dans le Moyen-Orient, y compris en Arabie Saoudite. La montée au pouvoir de l'Ayatollah Khomeini et l'établissement d'une République islamique en Iran ont soulevé des inquiétudes dans de nombreux pays de la région, notamment en Arabie Saoudite, où l'on craignait que l'idéologie révolutionnaire chiite ne s'exporte et ne déstabilise les monarchies du Golfe, majoritairement sunnites. En Arabie Saoudite, ces craintes ont renforcé la position du royaume en tant qu'allié des États-Unis et d'autres puissances occidentales. Dans le contexte de la Guerre froide et de l'hostilité croissante entre les États-Unis et l'Iran après la révolution, l'Arabie Saoudite a été perçue comme un contrepoids vital à l'influence iranienne dans la région. Le wahhabisme, l'interprétation stricte et conservatrice de l'islam sunnite pratiquée en Arabie Saoudite, est devenu un élément central de l'identité du royaume et a été utilisé pour contrer l'influence chiite iranienne.


L'Arabie Saoudite a également joué un rôle clé dans les efforts anti-soviétiques, en particulier pendant la guerre d'Afghanistan (1979-1989). Le royaume a soutenu les moudjahidines afghans luttant contre l'invasion soviétique, à la fois financièrement et idéologiquement, en promouvant le wahhabisme comme un élément de la résistance islamique contre l'athéisme soviétique. En 1981, dans le cadre de sa stratégie pour renforcer la coopération régionale et contrer l'influence iranienne, l'Arabie Saoudite a été un acteur clé dans la création du Conseil de Coopération du Golfe (CCG). Le CCG, une alliance politique et économique, comprend l'Arabie Saoudite, le Koweït, les Émirats Arabes Unis, le Qatar, le Bahreïn et Oman. L'organisation a été conçue pour favoriser la collaboration entre les monarchies du Golfe dans divers domaines, notamment la défense, l'économie et la politique étrangère. La position de l'Arabie Saoudite au sein du CCG a reflété et renforcé son rôle de leader régional. Le royaume a utilisé le CCG comme plateforme pour promouvoir ses intérêts stratégiques et pour stabiliser la région face aux défis sécuritaires et politiques, notamment les tensions avec l'Iran et les turbulences liées aux mouvements islamistes et aux conflits régionaux.
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.


L'invasion du Koweït par l'Irak sous Saddam Hussein en août 1990 a déclenché une série d'événements cruciaux dans la région du Golfe, ayant des répercussions majeures sur l'Arabie Saoudite et la politique mondiale. Cette invasion a mené à la Guerre du Golfe de 1991, lors de laquelle une coalition internationale dirigée par les États-Unis a été formée pour libérer le Koweït. Face à la menace irakienne, l'Arabie Saoudite, craignant une possible invasion de son propre territoire, a accepté la présence de forces militaires américaines et d'autres troupes de la coalition sur son sol. Des bases militaires temporaires ont été établies en Arabie Saoudite pour lancer des opérations contre l'Irak. Cette décision a été historique et controversée, car elle impliquait la station de troupes non musulmanes dans le pays qui abrite les deux villes les plus saintes de l'islam, La Mecque et Médine.
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.


La présence militaire américaine en Arabie Saoudite a été fortement critiquée par divers groupes islamistes, dont Al-Qaïda, dirigée par Oussama ben Laden. Ben Laden, lui-même d'origine saoudienne, a interprété la présence militaire américaine en Arabie Saoudite comme une profanation des terres saintes de l'islam. Cela a constitué l'un des principaux griefs d'Al-Qaïda contre les États-Unis et a été utilisé comme une justification pour ses attaques terroristes, y compris les attentats du 11 septembre 2001. La réaction d'Al-Qaïda à la Guerre du Golfe et à la présence militaire américaine en Arabie Saoudite a mis en lumière les tensions croissantes entre les valeurs occidentales et certains groupes islamistes radicaux. Cela a également souligné les défis auxquels l'Arabie Saoudite était confrontée en équilibrant ses relations stratégiques avec les États-Unis et en gérant les sentiments islamiques conservateurs au sein de sa propre population. La période post-Guerre du Golfe a été une époque de changement et d'instabilité dans la région, marquée par des conflits politiques et idéologiques, qui continuent d'influencer la dynamique régionale et internationale.
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.


L'incident de la Grande Mosquée de La Mecque en 1979 est un événement marquant dans l'histoire contemporaine de l'Arabie Saoudite et illustre les tensions internes liées aux questions d'identité religieuse et politique. Le 20 novembre 1979, un groupe de fondamentalistes islamistes dirigé par Juhayman al-Otaybi a pris d'assaut la Grande Mosquée de La Mecque, l'un des lieux les plus sacrés de l'islam. Juhayman al-Otaybi et ses partisans, issus principalement de milieux conservateurs et religieux, ont critiqué la famille royale saoudienne pour sa corruption, son luxe et son ouverture à l'influence occidentale. Ils considéraient que ces facteurs étaient en contradiction avec les principes wahhabites sur lesquels le royaume avait été fondé. Al-Otaybi a proclamé son beau-frère, Mohammed Abdullah al-Qahtani, comme le Mahdi, une figure messianique dans l'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.


Le siège de la Grande Mosquée a duré deux semaines, durant lesquelles les insurgés ont retenu des milliers de pèlerins en otage. La situation a posé un défi considérable pour le gouvernement saoudien, non seulement en termes de sécurité, mais aussi en termes de légitimité religieuse et politique. L'Arabie Saoudite a dû demander une fatwa (décret religieux) pour permettre l'intervention militaire dans la mosquée, normalement un sanctuaire de paix où la violence est interdite. L'assaut final pour reprendre la mosquée a commencé le 4 décembre 1979 et a été mené par les forces de sécurité saoudiennes avec l'aide de conseillers français. La bataille a été intense et meurtrière, faisant des centaines de morts parmi les insurgés, les forces de sécurité et les otages.
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.


L'incident a eu des répercussions profondes en Arabie Saoudite et dans le monde musulman. Il a révélé des fissures dans la société saoudienne et a mis en évidence les défis auxquels le royaume était confronté en termes de gestion de l'extrémisme religieux. En réponse à cette crise, le gouvernement saoudien a renforcé ses politiques conservatrices en matière religieuse et a augmenté son contrôle sur les institutions religieuses, tout en continuant à réprimer l'opposition islamiste. L'incident a également souligné la complexité de la relation entre religion, politique et pouvoir en Arabie Saoudite.
=Countries created by decree=


=Les pays créés par décrets=
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.


À la fin de la Première Guerre mondiale, les États-Unis, sous la présidence de Woodrow Wilson, avaient une vision différente de celle des puissances européennes concernant l'avenir des territoires conquis pendant la guerre. Wilson, avec ses Quatorze Points, prônait le droit des peuples à l'autodétermination et s'opposait à l'acquisition de territoires par conquête, une position qui contrastait avec les objectifs coloniaux traditionnels des puissances européennes, notamment la Grande-Bretagne et la France. Les États-Unis étaient également favorables à un système de commerce ouvert et équitable, ce qui signifiait que les territoires ne devaient pas être exclusivement sous le contrôle d'une seule puissance, afin de permettre un accès commercial plus large, bénéficiant ainsi aux intérêts américains. Cependant, dans la pratique, les intérêts britanniques et français ont prévalu, ces derniers ayant obtenu des gains territoriaux significatifs à la suite de l'effondrement de l'Empire ottoman et de la défaite de l'Allemagne.  
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.


Pour concilier ces différentes perspectives, un compromis a été trouvé à travers le système de mandats de la Société des Nations. Ce système était censé être une forme de gouvernance internationale pour les territoires conquis, en préparation de leur éventuelle indépendance. La mise en place de ce système a nécessité un processus complexe de négociations et de traités. La Conférence de San Remo en 1920 a été un moment clé dans ce processus, au cours duquel les mandats pour les territoires de l'ancien Empire ottoman ont été attribués, principalement à la Grande-Bretagne et à la France. Par la suite, la Conférence du Caire en 1921 a davantage défini les termes et les limites de ces mandats. Les Traités de Sèvres en 1920 et de Lausanne en 1923 ont redessiné la carte du Moyen-Orient et ont formalisé la fin de l'Empire ottoman. Le Traité de Sèvres, en particulier, a démantelé l'Empire ottoman et a prévu la création d'un certain nombre d'États-nations indépendants. Cependant, en raison de l'opposition turque et de changements ultérieurs dans la situation géopolitique, le Traité de Sèvres a été remplacé par le Traité de Lausanne, qui a redéfini les frontières de la Turquie moderne et a annulé certaines des dispositions du Traité de Sèvres. Ce long processus de négociation a reflété les complexités et les tensions de l'ordre mondial d'après-guerre, avec des puissances établies cherchant à maintenir leur influence tout en faisant face à de nouveaux idéaux internationaux et à l'émergence des États-Unis en tant que puissance mondiale.
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.  


Après la Première Guerre mondiale, le démantèlement des empires ottoman et allemand a conduit à la création du système de mandats de la Société des Nations, une tentative de gérer les territoires de ces anciens empires dans un contexte postcolonial. Ce système, établi par les traités de paix de l'après-guerre, notamment le Traité de Versailles en 1919, était divisé en trois catégories - A, B et C - reflétant le degré perçu de développement et de préparation à l'autonomie des territoires concernés.  
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.


Les mandats de type A, attribués aux territoires de l'ancien Empire ottoman dans le Moyen-Orient, étaient considérés comme les plus avancés vers l'autodétermination. Ces territoires, jugés relativement « civilisés » par les normes de l'époque, comprenaient la Syrie et le Liban, placés sous mandat français, ainsi que la Palestine (incluant la Jordanie actuelle) et l'Irak, sous mandat britannique. La notion de "civilisation" employée à cette époque reflétait les préjugés et les attitudes paternalistes des puissances coloniales, supposant que ces régions étaient plus proches de la gouvernance autonome que d'autres. Le traitement des mandats de type A reflétait les intérêts géopolitiques des puissances mandataires, notamment la Grande-Bretagne et la France, qui cherchaient à étendre leur influence dans la région. Leurs actions ont souvent été motivées par des considérations stratégiques et économiques, telles que le contrôle des routes commerciales et l'accès aux ressources pétrolières, plutôt que par un engagement envers l'autonomie des populations locales. Cela a été illustré par la déclaration Balfour de 1917, dans laquelle la Grande-Bretagne a exprimé son soutien à la création d'un "foyer national juif" en Palestine, une décision qui a eu des conséquences durables et conflictuelles pour la région. Les mandats de type B et C, concernant principalement l'Afrique et certaines îles du Pacifique, étaient considérés comme nécessitant un niveau de supervision plus élevé. Ces territoires, souvent sous-développés et avec peu d'infrastructures, étaient gérés de manière plus directe par les puissances mandataires. Le système de mandats, bien que présenté comme une forme de tutelle bienveillante, était en réalité très proche du colonialisme et a été largement perçu comme tel par les populations autochtones.
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.


En résumé, le système de mandats de la Société des Nations, malgré son intention déclarée de préparer les territoires à l'indépendance, a souvent servi à perpétuer l'influence et le contrôle des puissances européennes dans les régions concernées. Il a également jeté les bases de nombreux conflits politiques et territoriaux futurs, en particulier au Moyen-Orient, où les frontières et les politiques établies pendant cette période continuent d'avoir un impact significatif sur les dynamiques régionales et internationales.[[Fichier:MOMCENC - Territories lost by the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East.png|centré|]]
[[Fichier:MOMCENC - Territories lost by the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East.png|centré|]]
   
   
Cette carte présente la répartition des territoires autrefois sous contrôle de l'Empire ottoman dans le Moyen-Orient et l'Afrique du Nord après leur perte par l'Empire, principalement à la suite de la Première Guerre mondiale. On y distingue les différentes zones d'influence et les territoires contrôlés par les puissances européennes grâce à un code couleur. Les territoires sont divisés selon la puissance qui les contrôlait ou exerçait une influence sur eux. Les territoires contrôlés par les Britanniques sont en mauve, les Français en jaune, les Italiens en rose et les Espagnols en bleu. Les territoires indépendants sont marqués en jaune pale, l'Empire ottoman est en verre avec ses frontières à leur apogée en surbrillance, et les zones d'influence russe et britannique sont également indiquées.  
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.  


La carte montre également les dates de l'occupation initiale ou du contrôle de certains territoires par les puissances coloniales, indiquant ainsi la période de l'expansion impérialiste en Afrique du Nord et au Moyen-Orient. Par exemple, l'Algérie est marquée comme territoire français depuis 1830, la Tunisie depuis 1881 et le Maroc est divisé entre le contrôle français (depuis 1912) et espagnol (depuis 1912). La Libye, quant à elle, était sous contrôle italien de 1911 à 1932. L'Égypte est marquée comme sous contrôle britannique depuis 1882, bien qu'elle ait été techniquement un protectorat britannique. Le Soudan anglo-égyptien est également indiqué, reflétant le contrôle conjoint de l'Égypte et de la Grande-Bretagne depuis 1899. En ce qui concerne le Moyen-Orient, la carte montre clairement les mandats de la Société des Nations, avec la Syrie et le Liban sous mandat français et l'Irak et la Palestine (y compris la Transjordanie actuelle) sous mandat britannique. Le Hedjaz, la région autour de La Mecque et Médine, est également indiqué, reflétant le contrôle de la famille Saoud, tandis que le Yémen et Oman sont marqués comme des protectorats britanniques. Cette carte est un outil utile pour comprendre les changements géopolitiques qui ont eu lieu après le déclin de l'Empire ottoman et comment le Moyen-Orient et l'Afrique du Nord ont été remodelés par les intérêts coloniaux européens. Elle montre également la complexité des relations de pouvoir dans la région, qui continuent d'affecter la politique régionale et internationale aujourd'hui.
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.


En 1919, à la suite de la Première Guerre mondiale, le partage des territoires de l'ancien Empire ottoman entre les puissances européennes a été un processus controversé et conflictuel. Les populations locales de ces régions, ayant nourri des aspirations à l'autodétermination et à l'indépendance, ont souvent accueilli avec hostilité l'établissement de mandats sous contrôle européen. Cette hostilité s'inscrivait dans un contexte plus large de mécontentement face à l'influence et à l'intervention occidentales dans la région. Le mouvement nationaliste arabe, qui avait pris de l'ampleur pendant la guerre, aspirait à la création d'un État arabe unifié ou de plusieurs États arabes indépendants. Ces aspirations avaient été encouragées par les promesses britanniques de soutien à l'indépendance arabe en échange du soutien contre les Ottomans, notamment à travers la correspondance Hussein-McMahon et la Révolte arabe dirigée par le Chérif Hussein de La Mecque. Cependant, les accords Sykes-Picot de 1916, un arrangement secret entre la Grande-Bretagne et la France, prévoyaient le partage de la région en zones d'influence, trahissant ainsi les promesses faites aux Arabes.
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.


Les sentiments anti-occidentaux étaient particulièrement forts en raison de la perception que les puissances européennes ne respectaient pas leurs engagements envers les populations arabes et manipulaient la région pour leurs propres intérêts impérialistes. En revanche, les États-Unis étaient souvent vus d'un œil moins critique par les populations locales. La politique américaine, sous la présidence de Woodrow Wilson, était perçue comme plus favorable à l'autodétermination et moins encline à l'impérialisme traditionnel. De plus, les États-Unis n'avaient pas le même historique colonial que les puissances européennes dans la région, ce qui les rendait moins susceptibles de susciter l'hostilité des populations locales. L'immédiat après-guerre a donc été une période de profonde incertitude et de tension dans le Moyen-Orient, les populations locales luttant pour leur indépendance et leur autonomie face à des puissances étrangères cherchant à façonner la région selon leurs propres intérêts stratégiques et économiques. Les répercussions de ces événements ont façonné l'histoire politique et sociale du Moyen-Orient tout au long du 20e siècle et continuent d'influencer les relations internationales dans la région.
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.


=La Syrie=
=Syria=


=== L'Aube du Nationalisme Arabe: Le Rôle de Fayçal ===
=== The Dawn of Arab Nationalism: The Role of Faisal ===
Fayçal, fils du Chérif Hussein ben Ali de La Mecque, a joué un rôle de premier plan dans la Révolte arabe contre l'Empire ottoman pendant la Première Guerre mondiale et dans les tentatives ultérieures de former un royaume arabe indépendant. Après la guerre, il s'est rendu à la Conférence de paix de Paris en 1919, armé des promesses britanniques d'indépendance pour les Arabes en échange de leur soutien durant le conflit. Cependant, une fois à Paris, Fayçal a rapidement constaté les réalités politiques complexes et les intrigues de la diplomatie post-guerre. Les intérêts français au Moyen-Orient, en particulier en Syrie et au Liban, étaient en contradiction directe avec les aspirations à l'indépendance arabe. Les Français étaient résolument opposés à la création d'un royaume arabe unifié sous la direction de Fayçal, envisageant plutôt de placer ces territoires sous leur contrôle dans le cadre du système de mandats de la Société des Nations. Face à cette opposition, et conscient de la nécessité de renforcer sa position politique, Fayçal a négocié un accord avec le Premier ministre français Georges Clemenceau. Cet accord visait à établir un protectorat français sur la Syrie, ce qui était en désaccord avec les aspirations des nationalistes arabes. Fayçal a gardé cet accord secret de ses partisans, qui continuaient à lutter pour l'indépendance complète.
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.


Entre-temps, un État syrien était en cours de formation. Sous la direction de Fayçal, des efforts ont été entrepris pour établir les fondations d'un État moderne, avec des réformes dans l'éducation, la création d'une administration publique, la mise en place d'une armée et l'élaboration de politiques visant à renforcer l'identité et la souveraineté nationales. Malgré ces développements, la situation en Syrie restait précaire. L'accord secret avec Clemenceau et le manque de soutien britannique ont placé Fayçal dans une position difficile. Finalement, la France a pris le contrôle direct de la Syrie en 1920 après la bataille de Maysaloun, mettant fin aux espoirs de Fayçal d'établir un royaume arabe indépendant. Fayçal a été expulsé de Syrie par les Français, mais il deviendra plus tard le roi de l'Irak, un autre État nouvellement formé sous mandat britannique.
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.


=== La Syrie Sous le Mandat Français: Les Accords Sykes-Picot ===
=== Syria under the French Mandate: The Sykes-Picot Agreements ===
Les accords Sykes-Picot, conclus en 1916 entre la Grande-Bretagne et la France, avaient établi un partage d'influence et de contrôle sur les territoires de l'ancien Empire ottoman après la Première Guerre mondiale. Selon ces accords, la France devait obtenir le contrôle de ce qui est aujourd'hui la Syrie et le Liban, tandis que la Grande-Bretagne devait contrôler l'Irak et la Palestine. En juillet 1920, la France a cherché à consolider son contrôle sur les territoires qui lui avaient été promis par les accords Sykes-Picot. La bataille de Maysaloun s'est déroulée entre les forces françaises et les troupes de l'éphémère royaume arabe syrien sous le commandement du roi Fayçal. Les forces de Fayçal, mal équipées et mal préparées, ont été largement dépassées par l'armée française mieux équipée et entraînée. La défaite à la bataille de Maysaloun a été un coup dévastateur pour les aspirations arabes à l'indépendance et a mis fin au règne de Fayçal en Syrie. Suite à cette défaite, il a été forcé à l'exil. Cet événement a marqué l'établissement du mandat français sur la Syrie, qui a été officiellement reconnu par la Société des Nations malgré les aspirations à l'autodétermination des peuples syriens. La mise en place des mandats était censée préparer les territoires à l'autonomie et à l'indépendance éventuelles, mais dans la pratique, elle a souvent fonctionné comme une conquête et une administration coloniale. Les populations locales ont largement considéré les mandats comme une continuation du colonialisme européen, et la période du mandat français en Syrie a été marquée par des rébellions et une résistance significatives. Cette période a façonné de nombreuses dynamiques politiques, sociales et nationales en Syrie, influençant l'histoire et l'identité du pays jusqu'à ce jour.
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.


=== La Fragmentation et l'Administration Française en Syrie ===
=== Fragmentation and the French Administration in Syria ===
Après avoir établi le contrôle sur les territoires syriens suite à la bataille de Maysaloun, la France, sous l'autorité du mandat conféré par la Société des Nations, a entrepris de restructurer la région selon ses propres conceptions administratives et politiques. Cette restructuration impliquait souvent la division des territoires en fonction de critères confessionnels ou ethniques, une pratique courante de la politique coloniale qui visait à fragmenter et à affaiblir les mouvements nationalistes locaux.
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.


En Syrie, les autorités mandataires françaises ont divisé le territoire en plusieurs entités, y compris l'État des Alépins, l'État des Damascènes, l'État alaouite et le Grand Liban, ce dernier devenant la République libanaise moderne. Ces divisions reflétaient en partie les réalités socioculturelles complexes de la région, mais elles ont également été conçues pour empêcher l'émergence d'une unité arabe qui pourrait contester la domination française, incarnant la stratégie de "diviser pour mieux régner". Le Liban, en particulier, a été créé avec une identité distincte, en grande partie pour servir les intérêts des communautés chrétiennes maronites, qui entretenaient des liens historiques avec la France. La création de ces différents États au sein de la Syrie mandataire a provoqué une fragmentation politique qui a compliqué les efforts pour un mouvement national unifié.
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.


La France a administré ces territoires d'une manière similaire à ses départements métropolitains, en imposant une structure centralisée et en plaçant des hauts-commissaires pour gouverner les territoires au nom du gouvernement français. Cette administration directe s'est accompagnée de la mise en place rapide d'institutions administratives et éducatives dans le but d'assimiler les populations locales à la culture française et de renforcer la présence française dans la région. Cependant, cette politique a exacerbé les frustrations arabes, car de nombreux Syriens et Libanais aspiraient à l'indépendance et au droit de déterminer leur propre avenir politique. Les politiques de la France ont souvent été perçues comme une continuation de l'ingérence occidentale et ont alimenté le sentiment nationaliste et anti-colonialiste. Des soulèvements et des révoltes ont éclaté en réponse à ces mesures, notamment la Grande Révolte syrienne de 1925-1927, qui a été violemment réprimée par les Français. L'héritage de cette période a laissé des marques durables sur la Syrie et le Liban, façonnant leurs frontières, leurs structures politiques et leurs identités nationales. Les tensions et les divisions établies sous le mandat français ont continué à influencer les dynamiques politiques et communautaires de ces pays bien après leur indépendance.
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.


=== La Révolte de 1925-1927 et la Répression Française ===
=== The 1925-1927 Revolt and the French Repression ===
La Grande Révolte syrienne, qui a éclaté en 1925, est un épisode marquant de la résistance contre le mandat français en Syrie. Elle a commencé parmi la population druze du Jabal al-Druze (Montagne des Druzes) dans le sud de la Syrie et s'est rapidement étendue à d'autres régions, y compris à la capitale, Damas. Les Druzes, qui avaient joui d'une certaine autonomie et de privilèges sous l'administration ottomane, se sont retrouvés marginalisés et leurs pouvoirs réduits sous le mandat français. Leur mécontentement face à la perte d'autonomie et aux politiques imposées par les Français, qui cherchaient à centraliser l'administration et à affaiblir les pouvoirs locaux traditionnels, a été l'étincelle qui a déclenché la révolte. La révolte s'est étendue et a pris de l'ampleur, gagnant le soutien de divers segments de la société syrienne, y compris des nationalistes arabes qui s'opposaient à la domination étrangère et aux divisions administratives imposées par la France. La réaction des autorités mandataires françaises a été extrêmement sévère. Elles ont eu recours à des bombardements aériens, des exécutions de masse et des expositions publiques des corps des insurgés pour dissuader d'autres résistances.
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.


Les actions répressives des Français, qui comprenaient la destruction de villages et la brutalité à l'égard des civils, ont été largement condamnées et ont terni la réputation de la France tant au niveau international que parmi les populations locales. Bien que la révolte ait été éventuellement écrasée, elle est restée gravée dans la mémoire collective syrienne comme un symbole de la lutte pour l'indépendance et la dignité nationale. La Grande Révolte syrienne a aussi eu des implications à long terme pour la politique syrienne, renforçant le sentiment anti-colonial et contribuant à forger une identité nationale syrienne. Elle a également contribué à des changements dans la politique française, qui a dû ajuster son approche du mandat en Syrie, conduisant finalement à l'accroissement de l'autonomie syrienne dans les années qui ont suivi.
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.


=== Le Chemin Vers l'Indépendance de la Syrie ===
=== The Road to Syrian Independence ===
La gestion du mandat français en Syrie a été marquée par des politiques qui s'apparentaient davantage à une administration coloniale qu'à une tutelle bienveillante menant à l'autodépendance, contrairement à ce que prévoyait théoriquement le système de mandats de la Société des Nations. La répression de la Grande Révolte syrienne et la centralisation administrative ont renforcé les sentiments nationalistes et anticolonialistes en Syrie, qui ont continué à croître malgré l'oppression.
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.


La montée du nationalisme syrien, ainsi que les changements géopolitiques mondiaux, ont finalement conduit à l'indépendance du pays. Après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, dans un monde qui s'orientait de plus en plus contre le colonialisme, la France a été forcée de reconnaître l'indépendance de la Syrie en 1946. Cependant, cette transition vers l'indépendance a été compliquée par les manœuvres politiques régionales et les alliances internationales, notamment concernant la Turquie. Durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, la Turquie a maintenu une position neutre pendant la majeure partie du conflit, mais ses relations avec l'Allemagne nazie ont suscité des inquiétudes chez les Alliés. Dans un effort pour sécuriser la neutralité turque ou pour éviter que la Turquie ne s'allie avec les puissances de l'Axe, la France a effectué un geste diplomatique en cédant la région de Hatay (historiquement connue sous le nom d'Antioche et Alexandrette) à la Turquie.
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.


La région de Hatay avait une importance stratégique et une population mixte, avec des communautés turques, arabes et arméniennes. La question de son appartenance a été un sujet de tension entre la Syrie et la Turquie depuis le démembrement de l'Empire ottoman. En 1939, un plébiscite, dont la légitimité a été contestée par les Syriens, a eu lieu et a conduit à l'annexion formelle de la région à la Turquie. La cession de Hatay a été un coup dur pour le sentiment national syrien et a laissé une cicatrice dans les relations turco-syriennes qui perdure. Pour la Syrie, la perte de Hatay est souvent perçue comme un acte de trahison de la part de la France et un exemple douloureux des manipulations territoriales des puissances coloniales. Pour la Turquie, l'annexion de Hatay a été vue comme la rectification d'une division injuste du peuple turc et la récupération d'un territoire historiquement lié à l'Empire ottoman..
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.


Au cours de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, lorsque la France a été vaincue et occupée par l'Allemagne nazie en 1940, le gouvernement de Vichy, un régime collaborationniste dirigé par le maréchal Philippe Pétain, a été établi. Ce régime a également pris le contrôle des territoires français outre-mer, y compris le mandat français au Liban. Le gouvernement de Vichy, aligné sur les puissances de l'Axe, a permis aux forces allemandes d'utiliser les infrastructures militaires au Liban, ce qui posait un risque sécuritaire pour les Alliés, notamment les Britanniques, qui étaient engagés dans une campagne militaire au Moyen-Orient. La présence de l'Axe au Liban était perçue comme une menace directe aux intérêts britanniques, particulièrement avec la proximité des champs pétrolifères et des routes de transport stratégiques. Les Britanniques et les Forces françaises libres, dirigées par le général Charles de Gaulle et opposées au régime de Vichy, ont lancé l'Opération Exporter en 1941. Cette campagne militaire avait pour objectif de prendre le contrôle du Liban et de la Syrie et d'éliminer la présence des forces de l'Axe dans la région. Après de durs combats, les troupes britanniques et les Forces françaises libres ont réussi à prendre le contrôle du Liban et de la Syrie, et le régime de Vichy a été expulsé.
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.


À la fin de la guerre, la pression britannique et l'évolution des attitudes internationales envers le colonialisme ont contraint la France à reconsidérer sa position au Liban. En 1943, les leaders libanais ont négocié avec les autorités françaises pour obtenir l'indépendance du pays. Bien que la France ait initialement tenté de maintenir son influence et a même brièvement arrêté le nouveau gouvernement libanais, des pressions internationales et des soulèvements populaires ont finalement conduit la France à reconnaître l'indépendance du Liban. Le 22 novembre 1943 est célébré comme le jour de l'indépendance du Liban, marquant la fin officielle du mandat français et la naissance du Liban en tant qu'État souverain. Cette transition vers l'indépendance a été un moment clé pour le Liban et a posé les fondations pour l'avenir du pays en tant que nation indépendante.
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.


Après avoir acquis son indépendance, la Syrie s'est orientée vers une politique panarabe et nationaliste, en partie en réaction à l'ère du mandat et aux défis posés par la formation de l'État d'Israël et le conflit israélo-arabe. Le sentiment nationaliste était exacerbé par la frustration face aux divisions internes, à l'ingérence étrangère et au sentiment d'humiliation suite aux expériences coloniales.  
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.  


La participation de la Syrie à la guerre arabo-israélienne de 1948 contre l'État nouvellement formé d'Israël a été motivée par ces sentiments nationalistes et panarabes, ainsi que par la pression de la solidarité arabe. Cependant, la défaite des armées arabes dans cette guerre a eu des conséquences profondes pour la région, y compris pour la Syrie. Elle a engendré une période d'instabilité politique interne, marquée par une série de coups d'État militaires qui ont caractérisé la politique syrienne dans les années suivantes. La défaite en 1948 et les problèmes internes qui ont suivi ont exacerbé la méfiance du public syrien envers les dirigeants civils et les politiciens, qui étaient souvent perçus comme corrompus ou inefficaces. L'armée est devenue l'institution la plus stable et la plus puissante de l'État, et a été le principal acteur dans les fréquents changements de gouvernance. Les coups d'État militaires sont devenus une méthode courante pour changer de gouvernement, reflétant les profondes divisions politiques, idéologiques et sociales du pays.
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.


Ce cycle d'instabilité a préparé le terrain pour l'ascension du parti Baas, qui a finalement pris le pouvoir en 1963. Le parti Baas, avec son idéologie panarabe socialiste, a cherché à réformer la société syrienne et à renforcer l'État, mais a également conduit à un gouvernement plus autoritaire et centralisé, dominé par l'appareil militaire et sécuritaire. Les tensions internes de la Syrie, combinées à ses relations complexes avec ses voisins et aux dynamiques régionales, ont fait de l'histoire contemporaine du pays une période de turbulences politiques, qui ont finalement culminé avec la guerre civile syrienne débutée en 2011.
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.


=== L'Instabilité Politique et la Montée du Parti Baas ===
=== Political instability and the rise of the Baath Party ===
Le Baasisme, une idéologie politique arabe qui prône le socialisme, le panarabisme et le laïcisme, a commencé à gagner du terrain dans le monde arabe au cours des années 1950. En Syrie, où les sentiments panarabes étaient particulièrement forts après l'indépendance, l'idée de l'unité arabe a trouvé un écho favorable, particulièrement à la suite des instabilités politiques internes. Les aspirations panarabes de la Syrie l'ont amenée à chercher une union plus étroite avec l'Égypte, alors dirigée par Gamal Abdel Nasser, un leader charismatique dont la popularité s'étendait bien au-delà des frontières égyptiennes, notamment grâce à sa nationalisation du canal de Suez et à son opposition à l'impérialisme. Nasser était considéré comme le champion du panarabisme et avait réussi à promouvoir une vision d'unité et de coopération entre les États arabes. En 1958, cette aspiration à l'unité a abouti à la formation de la République arabe unie (RAU), une union politique entre l'Égypte et la Syrie. Ce développement a été salué comme une étape majeure vers l'unité arabe et a suscité de grands espoirs pour l'avenir politique du monde arabe.  
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.  


Cependant, l'union a rapidement montré des signes de tension. Bien que la RAU ait été présentée comme une union d'égaux, dans la pratique, le leadership politique de l'Égypte et de Nasser est devenu prédominant. Les institutions politiques et économiques de la RAU étaient largement centralisées au Caire, et la Syrie a commencé à ressentir qu'elle était réduite au statut de province égyptienne plutôt que de partenaire égal dans l'union. Ces tensions ont été exacerbées par les différences dans les structures politiques, économiques et sociales des deux pays. La domination égyptienne et les frustrations croissantes en Syrie ont finalement conduit à la dissolution de la RAU en 1961, lorsque des officiers militaires syriens ont mené un coup d'État qui a séparé la Syrie de l'union. L'expérience de la RAU a laissé un héritage ambivalent : d'un côté, elle a montré le potentiel de l'unité arabe, mais de l'autre, elle a révélé les défis pratiques et idéologiques à surmonter pour réaliser une véritable intégration politique entre les États arabes.
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.


Le 28 septembre 1961, un groupe d'officiers militaires syriens, mécontents de la centralisation excessive du pouvoir au Caire et de la domination égyptienne au sein de la République arabe unie (RAU), a mené un coup d'État qui a marqué la fin de l'union entre la Syrie et l'Égypte. Ce soulèvement était principalement motivé par des sentiments nationalistes et régionalistes en Syrie, où de nombreux citoyens et politiciens se sentaient marginalisés et négligés par le gouvernement de la RAU dirigé par Nasser. La dissolution de la RAU a exacerbé l'instabilité politique déjà présente en Syrie, qui avait connu une série de coups d'État depuis son indépendance en 1946. La séparation de l'Égypte a été accueillie avec soulagement par de nombreux Syriens qui s'inquiétaient de la perte de souveraineté et d'autonomie de leur pays. Cependant, elle a également créé un vide politique que divers groupes et factions, y compris le parti Baas, chercheraient à exploiter. Le coup d'État de 1961 a donc préparé le terrain pour une période de conflit politique intense en Syrie, qui verrait le parti Baas se frayer un chemin vers le pouvoir en 1963. Sous la direction du Baas, la Syrie adopterait une série de réformes socialistes et panarabes, tout en établissant un régime autoritaire qui allait dominer la vie politique syrienne pendant plusieurs décennies. La période qui a suivi le coup d'État de 1961 a été marquée par des tensions entre les factions baasistes et autres groupes politiques, chacun cherchant à imposer sa vision pour l'avenir de la Syrie.  
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.  
   
   
La Syrie, après une période d'instabilité politique et de coups d'État successifs, a connu un tournant décisif en 1963 avec l'arrivée au pouvoir du parti Baas. Ce mouvement, fondé sur les principes du panarabisme et du socialisme, visait à transformer la société syrienne en promouvant une identité arabe unifiée et en mettant en œuvre des réformes sociales et économiques profondes. Le parti Baas, sous la direction de Michel Aflaq et Salah al-Din al-Bitar, avait émergé comme une force politique majeure, prônant une vision du socialisme adaptée aux spécificités du monde arabe. Leur idéologie combinait la promotion d'un État laïc avec des politiques socialistes, telles que la nationalisation des industries clés et la réforme agraire, visant à redistribuer les terres aux paysans et à moderniser l'agriculture.  
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.  


Dans le domaine de l'éducation, le gouvernement baasiste a initié des réformes visant à augmenter l'alphabétisation et à inculquer des valeurs socialistes et panarabes. Ces réformes visaient à forger une nouvelle identité nationale, en se concentrant sur l'histoire et la culture arabes, tout en promouvant la science et la technologie comme moyens de modernisation. En parallèle, la Syrie a connu une période de sécularisation accélérée. Le parti Baas a œuvré pour réduire le rôle de la religion dans les affaires de l'État, s'efforçant de créer une société plus homogène sur le plan idéologique, tout en gérant la diversité religieuse et ethnique du pays.
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.


Cependant, ces réformes ont également été accompagnées d'une augmentation de l'autoritarisme. Le parti Baas a consolidé son emprise sur le pouvoir, limitant les libertés politiques et réprimant toute forme d'opposition. Les tensions internes au sein du parti et au sein de la société syrienne ont continué à se manifester, culminant avec l'ascension de Hafez al-Assad au pouvoir en 1970. Sous Assad, la Syrie a poursuivi sa trajectoire de socialisme arabe, mais avec une emprise encore plus forte du régime sur la société et la politique. La période baasiste en Syrie a ainsi été caractérisée par un mélange de modernisation et d'autoritarisme, reflétant les complexités de la mise en œuvre d'une idéologie socialiste et panarabe dans un contexte de diversité culturelle et de défis politiques internes et externes. Cette époque a posé les bases du développement politique et social syrien pour les décennies suivantes, influençant profondément l'histoire contemporaine du pays.
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.


=== L'Ère d'Hafez al-Assad: Consolidation du Pouvoir ===
=== The era of Hafez al-Assad: Consolidation of power ===
L'évolution du parti Baas en Syrie a été marquée par des luttes de pouvoir internes et des divisions idéologiques, culminant dans un coup d'État en 1966. Ce coup d'État a été orchestré par une faction plus radicalement socialiste au sein du parti, qui cherchait à imposer une ligne politique plus stricte et plus alignée sur les principes socialistes et panarabes. Ce changement a conduit à une période de gouvernance plus dogmatique et idéologiquement rigide. Les nouveaux dirigeants du parti Baas ont poursuivi la mise en œuvre de réformes socialistes, tout en renforçant le contrôle étatique sur l'économie et en accentuant la rhétorique panarabe. Cependant, la défaite de la Syrie et d'autres pays arabes face à Israël lors de la guerre des Six Jours en 1967 a porté un coup sévère à la légitimité du parti Baas et à la vision panarabe en général. La perte du plateau du Golan au profit d'Israël et l'échec à atteindre les objectifs de la guerre ont entraîné une désillusion et un questionnement sur la direction politique du pays. Cette période a été marquée par le chaos et une instabilité accrue, exacerbant les tensions internes en Syrie.  
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.  


Dans ce contexte, Hafez al-Assad, alors ministre de la Défense, a saisi l'opportunité pour consolider son pouvoir. En 1970, il a mené un coup d'État militaire réussi, écartant les dirigeants baasistes radicaux et prenant le contrôle du gouvernement. Assad a modifié la direction du parti Baas et de l'État syrien, en se concentrant davantage sur la stabilisation du pays et sur le nationalisme syrien plutôt que sur le panarabisme. Sous la direction d'Assad, la Syrie a connu une période de stabilisation relative et de consolidation du pouvoir. Assad a mis en place un régime autoritaire, contrôlant étroitement tous les aspects de la vie politique et sociale. Il a également cherché à renforcer l'armée et les services de sécurité, établissant un régime centré sur la sécurité et la survie du pouvoir. La prise de pouvoir par Hafez al-Assad en 1970 a donc marqué un tournant dans l'histoire moderne de la Syrie, inaugurant une ère de gouvernance plus centralisée et autoritaire, qui allait façonner l'avenir du pays pour les décennies à venir.
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.


Hafez al-Assad, après avoir pris le pouvoir en Syrie en 1970, a rapidement compris la nécessité d'une base sociale solide et d'une certaine légitimité pour maintenir son régime. Pour consolider son pouvoir, il s'est appuyé sur sa communauté d'origine, les Alawites, une secte minoritaire du chiisme. Assad a stratégiquement placé des membres de la communauté alawite dans des postes clés au sein de l'armée, des services de sécurité et de l'administration gouvernementale. Cette approche a permis d'assurer la loyauté des institutions les plus importantes à son régime. Tout en conservant une rhétorique panarabe dans le discours officiel, Assad a centré le pouvoir autour de la nation syrienne, éloignant ainsi la politique syrienne de l'ambition plus large du panarabisme. Il a adopté une approche pragmatique en matière de politique intérieure et extérieure, cherchant à stabiliser le pays et à renforcer son pouvoir.
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.


Le régime d'Assad a utilisé des tactiques de division et de cooptation, similaires à celles employées par les Français pendant le mandat, pour gérer la diversité ethnique et religieuse de la Syrie. En fragmentant et en manipulant les différentes communautés, le régime a cherché à empêcher l'émergence d'une opposition unifiée. La répression politique est devenue une caractéristique du régime, avec la mise en place d'un appareil sécuritaire étendu et efficace pour surveiller et contrôler la société. Malgré la purge de nombreuses factions de l'opposition, le régime d'Assad a dû faire face à un défi significatif de la part des groupes islamistes. Ces groupes, bénéficiant d'une base sociale solide, en particulier parmi les populations sunnites plus conservatrices, ont représenté une opposition persistante au régime laïc et alawite d'Assad. La tension entre le gouvernement et les groupes islamistes a culminé dans le soulèvement de la ville de Hama en 1982, qui a été brutalement réprimé par le régime. Ainsi, le règne d'Hafez al-Assad en Syrie a été caractérisé par une centralisation du pouvoir, une politique de répression et une certaine stabilisation du pays, mais aussi par une gestion complexe et souvent conflictuelle de la diversité sociopolitique du pays.
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.


Le massacre de Hama en 1982 est l'un des épisodes les plus sombres et les plus sanglants de l'histoire moderne de la Syrie. Cette répression brutale a été ordonnée par Hafez al-Assad en réponse à une insurrection menée par les Frères musulmans dans la ville de Hama. Hama, une ville avec une forte présence islamiste et un bastion de l'opposition aux politiques laïques et alaouites du régime d'Assad, est devenue le centre d'une révolte armée contre le gouvernement. En février 1982, les forces de sécurité syriennes, dirigées par le frère d'Assad, Rifaat al-Assad, ont encerclé la ville et lancé une offensive militaire massive pour écraser la rébellion. La répression a été impitoyable et disproportionnée. Les forces gouvernementales ont utilisé des bombardements aériens, de l'artillerie lourde, et des troupes au sol pour détruire de larges parties de la ville et éliminer les insurgés. Le nombre exact de victimes reste incertain, mais les estimations suggèrent que des milliers de personnes, peut-être jusqu'à 20 000 ou plus, ont été tuées. De nombreux civils ont perdu la vie dans ce qui a été décrit comme un acte de punition collective. Le massacre de Hama n'était pas seulement une opération militaire ; il avait également une forte dimension symbolique. Il visait à envoyer un message clair à toute opposition potentielle au régime d'Assad : la rébellion serait rencontrée avec une force écrasante et impitoyable. La destruction de Hama a servi d'avertissement brutal et a réprimé la dissidence en Syrie pendant des années. Cette répression a également laissé des cicatrices profondes dans la société syrienne et a été un tournant dans la manière dont le régime d'Assad était perçu, tant au niveau national qu'international. Le massacre de Hama est devenu un symbole de l'oppression brutale en Syrie et a contribué à l'image du régime d'Assad comme étant l'un des plus répressifs du Moyen-Orient.
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.
   
   
La gouvernance d'Hafez al-Assad en Syrie a dû naviguer dans les eaux complexes de la légitimité religieuse, en particulier en raison de sa propre appartenance à la communauté alaouite, une branche du chiisme souvent perçue avec suspicion par la majorité sunnite en Syrie. Pour asseoir sa légitimité et celle de son régime aux yeux de la majorité sunnite, Assad a dû s'appuyer sur des personnalités religieuses sunnites pour des rôles de fatwa et d'autres positions clés dans le domaine religieux. Ces personnalités étaient chargées d'interpréter la loi islamique et de fournir des justifications religieuses pour les actions du régime. La position des Alawites en tant que minorité religieuse dans un pays majoritairement sunnite a toujours été un défi pour Assad, qui a dû équilibrer les intérêts et les perceptions des différentes communautés pour maintenir son pouvoir. Bien que les Alawites aient été placés dans des postes clés du gouvernement et de l'armée, Assad a également cherché à se présenter comme un leader de tous les Syriens, indépendamment de leur affiliation religieuse.  
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.  


=== La Syrie Contemporaine: De Hafez à Bachar al-Assad ===
=== Contemporary Syria: From Hafez to Bashar al-Assad ===
À la mort de Hafez al-Assad en 2000, son fils, Bachar al-Assad, lui a succédé. Bachar, initialement perçu comme un réformateur potentiel et un agent possible de changement, a hérité d'un système de gouvernance complexe et autoritaire. Sous sa direction, la Syrie a continué de naviguer dans les défis posés par sa diversité religieuse et ethnique, ainsi que dans les pressions internes et externes. Le règne de Bachar al-Assad a été marqué par des tentatives de réforme et de modernisation, mais également par une continuité dans la consolidation du pouvoir et le maintien de la structure autoritaire héritée de son père. La situation en Syrie s'est radicalement transformée avec le début du soulèvement populaire en 2011, qui a évolué en une guerre civile complexe et dévastatrice, impliquant de multiples acteurs internes et externes et ayant des répercussions profondes sur la région et au-delà.
When Hafez al-Assad died in 2000, he was succeeded by his son, Bashar al-Assad. Bashar, initially seen as a potential reformer and agent of change, inherited a complex and authoritarian system of governance. Under his leadership, Syria has continued to navigate the challenges posed by its religious and ethnic diversity, as well as internal and external pressures. Bashar al-Assad's reign has been marked by attempts at reform and modernisation, but also by continuity in the consolidation of power and the maintenance of the authoritarian structure inherited from his father. The situation in Syria changed radically with the start of the popular uprising in 2011, which evolved into a complex and devastating civil war involving multiple internal and external actors and having profound repercussions on the region and beyond.


=Le Liban=
=Lebanon=


=== Domination Ottomane et Mosaïque Culturelle (16ème Siècle - Première Guerre Mondiale) ===
=== Ottoman Domination and Cultural Mosaic (16th Century - First World War) ===
Le Liban, avec son histoire riche et complexe, a été influencé par diverses puissances et cultures au fil des siècles. Depuis le 16ème siècle jusqu'à la fin de la Première Guerre mondiale, le territoire qui est aujourd'hui le Liban était sous le contrôle de l'Empire ottoman. Cette période a vu le développement d'une mosaïque culturelle et religieuse distincte, caractérisée par une diversité ethnique et confessionnelle.  
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.  


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


=== Mandat Français et Restructuration Administrative (Après la Première Guerre Mondiale - 1943) ===
=== French Mandate and Administrative Restructuring (After the First World War - 1943) ===
Durant le mandat français au Liban, la France a tenté de jouer un rôle de médiateur entre les différentes communautés religieuses et ethniques du pays, tout en mettant en place une structure administrative qui reflétait et renforçait la diversité du Liban. Avant l'établissement du mandat français, le Mont Liban avait déjà une certaine autonomie sous l'Empire ottoman, particulièrement après l'instauration de la Mutasarrifiyyah en 1861. La Mutasarrifiyyah du Mont Liban était une région autonome avec son propre gouverneur chrétien, créée en réponse aux conflits entre les Maronites chrétiens et les Druzes musulmans qui avaient éclaté dans les années 1840 et 1860. Cette structure visait à apaiser les tensions en assurant une gouvernance plus équilibrée et en offrant une certaine autonomie à la région.  
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.  


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


Durant la Conférence de paix de Paris en 1919, qui a suivi la fin de la Première Guerre mondiale, la France a joué un rôle stratégique en influençant le processus de décision concernant l'avenir des territoires du Moyen-Orient, notamment le Liban. La présence de deux délégations libanaises à cette conférence était une manœuvre de la France pour contrer les revendications de Fayçal, le leader du Royaume arabe de Syrie, qui cherchait à établir un État arabe indépendant incluant le Liban.
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, soutenu par les nationalistes arabes, revendiquait un grand État arabe indépendant qui s'étendrait sur une grande partie du Levant, y compris le Liban. Ces revendications étaient en contradiction directe avec les intérêts français dans la région, qui incluaient l'établissement d'un mandat sur le Liban et la Syrie. Pour contrer l'influence de Fayçal et justifier leur propre mandat sur la région, les Français ont encouragé la formation de délégations libanaises composées de représentants chrétiens maronites et d'autres groupes qui étaient favorables à l'idée d'un Liban sous mandat français. Ces délégations ont été envoyées à Paris pour plaider en faveur de la protection française et pour souligner l'identité distincte du Liban par rapport à la Syrie et aux aspirations panarabes de Fayçal. En présentant ces délégations comme représentatives des aspirations du peuple libanais, la France a cherché à légitimer ses revendications de mandat sur le Liban et à démontrer qu'une partie significative de la population libanaise préférait la protection française à l'intégration dans un État arabe unifié sous la direction de Fayçal. Cette manœuvre a contribué à façonner l'issue de la conférence et a joué un rôle important dans l'établissement des mandats français et britannique au Moyen-Orient, conformément aux accords Sykes-Picot.
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.


=== Lutte pour l'Indépendance et le Confessionnalisme (1919 - 1943) ===
=== The Struggle for Independence and Confessionalism (1919 - 1943) ===
La création de l'État libanais moderne en 1921, sous le mandat français, a été marquée par l'adoption d'un système politique communautaire unique, connu sous le nom de "confessionnalisme politique". Ce système visait à gérer la diversité religieuse et ethnique du Liban en allouant le pouvoir politique et les postes gouvernementaux en fonction de la répartition démographique des différentes communautés confessionnelles. Le confessionnalisme libanais a été conçu pour assurer une représentation équitable de toutes les principales communautés religieuses du pays. Selon ce système, les principaux postes de l'État, y compris le Président, le Premier ministre et le Président de l'Assemblée nationale, étaient réservés à des membres de communautés spécifiques : le Président devait être un Maronite chrétien, le Premier ministre un musulman sunnite, et le Président de l'Assemblée un musulman chiite. Cette répartition des postes était basée sur un recensement de la population effectué en 1932.  
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.  


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


=== Guerre Civile Libanaise : Causes et Impact International (1975 - 1990) ===
=== Lebanese Civil War: Causes and International Impact (1975 - 1990) ===
La guerre civile libanaise, qui a débuté en 1975, a été influencée par de nombreux facteurs internes et externes, notamment les tensions croissantes liées à la présence palestinienne au Liban. L'arrivée massive de réfugiés et de combattants palestiniens au Liban, particulièrement après les événements de "Septembre Noir" en 1970 en Jordanie, a été un élément déclencheur majeur de la guerre civile. En septembre 1970, le roi Hussein de Jordanie a lancé une campagne militaire pour expulser l'Organisation de libération de la Palestine (OLP) et d'autres groupes armés palestiniens de Jordanie, à la suite de tentatives croissantes de ces groupes de s'immiscer dans les affaires intérieures jordaniennes. Cette campagne, connue sous le nom de "Septembre Noir", a conduit à un afflux important de Palestiniens au Liban, exacerbant les tensions existantes dans le pays. La présence croissante de Palestiniens armés et l'activisme de l'OLP contre Israël à partir du sol libanais ont ajouté une nouvelle dimension au conflit libanais, compliquant davantage la situation politique déjà fragile. Les groupes palestiniens, en particulier dans le sud du Liban, ont souvent été en conflit avec les communautés libanaises locales et ont été impliqués dans des attaques transfrontalières contre Israël.  
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.  


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


=== Influence Syrienne et Accords de Taëf (1976 - 2005) ===
=== Syrian influence and the Taif Agreement (1976 - 2005) ===
La guerre civile libanaise et l'intervention syrienne dans le conflit sont des éléments clés pour comprendre l'histoire récente du Liban. La Syrie, sous la direction de Hafez al-Assad, a joué un rôle complexe et parfois contradictoire dans la guerre civile libanaise. La Syrie, ayant ses propres intérêts géopolitiques au Liban, est intervenue dans le conflit dès 1976. Officiellement, cette intervention était justifiée comme un effort pour stabiliser le Liban et prévenir une escalade du conflit. Cependant, de nombreux observateurs ont noté que la Syrie avait également des ambitions d'expansion et de contrôle sur le Liban, qui était historiquement et culturellement lié à la Syrie. Durant la guerre, la Syrie a soutenu diverses factions et communautés libanaises, souvent en fonction de ses intérêts stratégiques du moment. Cette implication a parfois été perçue comme une tentative de la part de la Syrie d'exercer son influence et de renforcer sa position au Liban. La guerre civile a finalement pris fin avec les Accords de Taëf en 1989, un accord de paix négocié avec le soutien de la Ligue arabe et sous la supervision de la Syrie. Les Accords de Taëf ont redéfini l'équilibre politique confessionnel au Liban, en modifiant le système de partage du pouvoir pour mieux refléter la démographie actuelle du pays. Ils ont également prévu la fin de la guerre civile et l'établissement d'un gouvernement de réconciliation nationale.
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.


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


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


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


=Jordanie=
=Jordan=


=== Mandat Britannique et Division Territoriale (Début 20ème siècle - 1922) ===
=== British Mandate and Territorial Division (Early 20th century - 1922) ===
Pour comprendre la formation de la Jordanie, il est essentiel de remonter à la période du mandat britannique sur la Palestine après la Première Guerre mondiale. La Grande-Bretagne, en obtenant le mandat sur la Palestine à la suite de la Conférence de San Remo en 1920, s'est retrouvée à la tête d'un territoire complexe et conflictuel. Une des premières actions des Britanniques fut de diviser ce mandat en deux zones distinctes lors de la conférence du Caire en 1922 : d'une part, la Palestine, et d'autre part, les émirats de Transjordanie. Cette division reflétait à la fois des considérations géopolitiques et le désir de répondre aux aspirations des populations locales. Abdallah, l'un des fils du Chérif Hussein de La Mecque, jouait un rôle important dans la région, notamment en menant des révoltes contre les Ottomans. Pour apaiser et contenir son influence, les Britanniques ont décidé de le nommer émir de Transjordanie. Cette décision a été en partie motivée par le désir de stabiliser la région et de créer un allié fiable pour les Britanniques.
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.


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


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


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


=== Conflits Israélo-Arabes et Impact sur la Jordanie (1948 - 1950) ===
=== Israeli-Arab conflicts and their impact on Jordan (1948 - 1950) ===
En 1948, la déclaration d'indépendance d'Israël a déclenché la première guerre israélo-arabe. Les États arabes voisins, dont la Jordanie, ont refusé de reconnaître la légitimité d'Israël et ont engagé des forces militaires pour s'opposer à l'État nouvellement formé. La Légion arabe jordanienne, considérée comme l'une des forces armées les plus efficaces parmi les pays arabes à cette époque, a joué un rôle majeur dans ce conflit. Durant la guerre de 1948, la Jordanie, sous le commandement du roi Abdallah, a occupé la Cisjordanie, une région à l'ouest du Jourdain qui faisait partie du mandat britannique sur la Palestine. À la fin de la guerre, la Jordanie a annexé officiellement la Cisjordanie, une décision qui a été largement reconnue dans le monde arabe mais pas par la communauté internationale. Cette annexion a inclus Jérusalem-Est, qui a été proclamée capitale de la Jordanie aux côtés d'Amman. L'annexion de la Cisjordanie par la Jordanie a eu d'importantes implications pour les relations israélo-arabes et le conflit palestinien. Elle a également façonné la politique intérieure jordanienne, car la population palestinienne de la Cisjordanie est devenue une partie importante de la société jordanienne. Cette période de l'histoire jordanienne a continué à influencer la politique et les relations internationales du pays dans les décennies suivantes.
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.


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


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


=== Règne du Roi Hussein et Défis Internes (1952 - 1999) ===
=== Reign of King Hussein and Internal Challenges (1952 - 1999) ===
Le roi Hussein de Jordanie, petit-fils du roi Abdallah, a régné sur le pays de 1952 jusqu'à sa mort en 1999. Son règne a été marqué par des défis majeurs, dont la question de la population palestinienne en Jordanie et les ambitions panarabes du roi.
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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


=Irak=
=Iraq=


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


=== Irak pendant la Guerre Froide et Pacte de Bagdad (1955) ===
=== Iraq during the Cold War and the Baghdad Pact (1955) ===
L'histoire de l'Irak pendant la Guerre froide est un exemple de la manière dont les intérêts géopolitiques des superpuissances ont continué à influencer et façonner la politique interne et externe des pays de la région. Durant cette période, l'Irak est devenu un acteur clé dans le cadre des stratégies de "containment" menées par les États-Unis contre l'Union Soviétique.
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.


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


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


=== Révolution de 1958 et Montée du Baasisme (1958) ===
=== 1958 Revolution and Rise of Baathism (1958) ===
La révolution de 1958 en Irak a été un tournant décisif dans l'histoire moderne du pays, marquant la fin de la monarchie et l'établissement de la République. Cette période de changement politique et social profond en Irak coïncidait avec des développements politiques majeurs dans d'autres parties du monde arabe, en particulier la formation de la République arabe unie (RAU) par l'Égypte et la Syrie. Abdel Karim Kassem, un officier de l'armée irakienne, a joué un rôle clé dans le coup d'État de 1958 qui a renversé la monarchie hachémite en Irak. Après la révolution, Kassem est devenu le premier Premier ministre de la République d'Irak. Sa prise de pouvoir a été accueillie par un large soutien populaire, car beaucoup voyaient en lui un leader capable de mener l'Irak vers une ère de réformes et d'indépendance accrue vis-à-vis des influences étrangères. En parallèle, en 1958, l'Égypte et la Syrie ont fusionné pour former la République arabe unie, un effort d'unification panarabe sous la direction du président égyptien Gamal Abdel Nasser. La RAU représentait une tentative d'unité politique entre les nations arabes, fondée sur le nationalisme arabe et l'anti-impérialisme. Cependant, Abdel Karim Kassem a choisi de ne pas rejoindre la RAU. Il avait ses propres visions pour l'Irak, qui différaient du modèle de Nasser.
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 s'est concentré sur la consolidation du pouvoir en Irak et a cherché à renforcer son soutien interne en se rapprochant de groupes souvent marginalisés dans la société irakienne, notamment les Kurdes et les chiites. Sous son régime, l'Irak a connu une période de réformes sociales et économiques. Kassem a notamment promulgué des réformes agraires et a travaillé à la modernisation de l'économie irakienne. Cependant, son gouvernement a également été marqué par des tensions politiques et des conflits. La politique de Kassem envers les Kurdes et les chiites, bien que visant à l'inclusion, a également suscité des tensions avec d'autres groupes et puissances régionales. De plus, son régime a été confronté à des défis de stabilité et à des oppositions internes, y compris des tentatives de coup d'État et des conflits avec des factions politiques rivales.
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.


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


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


=== Règne de Saddam Hussein et Guerre Iran-Irak (1979 - 1988) ===
=== Saddam Hussein's reign and the Iran-Iraq War (1979 - 1988) ===
L'ascension de Saddam Hussein au pouvoir en 1979 a marqué une nouvelle ère dans l'histoire politique et sociale de l'Irak. En tant que figure dominante du parti Baas, Saddam Hussein a entrepris une série de réformes et de politiques visant à renforcer le contrôle de l'État et à moderniser la société irakienne, tout en consolidant son propre pouvoir. L'un des aspects clés de la gouvernance de Saddam Hussein a été le processus d'étatisation de la tribu, une stratégie qui visait à intégrer les structures tribales traditionnelles dans l'appareil étatique. Cette approche avait pour objectif de gagner le soutien des tribus, notamment des Tiplit, en les impliquant dans les structures gouvernementales et en leur accordant certains privilèges. En échange, ces tribus fournissaient un soutien crucial à Saddam Hussein, renforçant ainsi son régime.  
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.  


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


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


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


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


Un élément particulièrement troublant de la guerre a été l'utilisation par l'Irak d'armes chimiques, une tactique qui a marqué une escalade dramatique dans la violence du conflit. Les forces irakiennes ont utilisé des armes chimiques à plusieurs reprises contre les forces iraniennes et même contre leur propre population kurde, comme lors du tristement célèbre massacre d'Halabja en 1988, où des milliers de civils kurdes ont été tués par des gaz toxiques. L'utilisation d'armes chimiques par l'Irak a été largement condamnée sur la scène internationale et a contribué à l'isolement diplomatique du régime de Saddam Hussein. Le cessez-le-feu de 1988 a mis fin à l'un des conflits les plus sanglants de la seconde moitié du 20ème siècle, mais il a laissé derrière lui des pays dévastés et une région profondément marquée par les séquelles de la guerre. Ni l'Iran ni l'Irak n'ont réussi à atteindre les objectifs ambitieux qu'ils s'étaient fixés au début du conflit, et la guerre a finalement été caractérisée par son inutilité tragique et ses coûts humains énormes.
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 du Koweït et Guerre du Golfe (1990 - 1991) ===
=== Invasion of Kuwait and Gulf War (1990 - 1991) ===
L'invasion du Koweït par l'Irak en 1990, sous le commandement de Saddam Hussein, a déclenché une série d'événements majeurs sur la scène internationale, conduisant à la Guerre du Golfe de 1991. Cette invasion a été motivée par plusieurs facteurs, dont des revendications territoriales, des disputes sur la production de pétrole et des tensions économiques. Saddam Hussein a justifié l'invasion en revendiquant le Koweït comme faisant historiquement partie de l'Irak. Il a également exprimé des griefs concernant la production de pétrole du Koweït, qu'il accusait de dépasser les quotas de l'OPEP, contribuant ainsi à la baisse des prix du pétrole et affectant l'économie irakienne, déjà affaiblie par la longue guerre avec l'Iran. La réponse internationale à l'invasion a été rapide et ferme. Le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies a condamné l'invasion et a imposé un embargo économique strict contre l'Irak. Par la suite, une coalition de forces internationales, dirigée par les États-Unis, s'est formée pour libérer le Koweït. Bien que l'opération ait été sanctionnée par l'ONU, elle a été largement perçue comme étant dominée par les États-Unis, en raison de leur rôle de leader et de leur contribution militaire significative.
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.


La Guerre du Golfe, qui a débuté en janvier 1991, a été brève mais intense. La campagne aérienne massive et l'opération terrestre subséquente ont rapidement expulsé les forces irakiennes du Koweït. Cependant, l'embargo imposé à l'Irak a eu des conséquences dévastatrices pour la population civile irakienne. Les sanctions économiques, combinées à la destruction des infrastructures lors de la guerre, ont entraîné une grave crise humanitaire en Irak, avec des pénuries de nourriture, de médicaments et d'autres fournitures essentielles. L'invasion du Koweït par l'Irak et la Guerre du Golfe qui a suivi ont eu des répercussions importantes sur la région et sur les relations internationales. L'Irak s'est retrouvé isolé sur la scène internationale, et Saddam Hussein a été confronté à des défis internes et externes accrus. Cette période a également marqué un tournant dans la politique des États-Unis au Moyen-Orient, renforçant leur présence militaire et politique dans la région.
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 de l'Attaque du 11 Septembre et Invasion Américaine (2003) ===
=== Impact of the September 11th Attack and the American Invasion (2003) ===
La période post-11 septembre 2001 a marqué un tournant significatif dans la politique étrangère des États-Unis, en particulier en ce qui concerne l'Irak. Sous la présidence de George W. Bush, l'Irak a été de plus en plus perçu comme faisant partie de ce que Bush a décrit comme "l'axe du Mal", une expression qui a alimenté l'imaginaire public et politique américain dans le contexte de la lutte contre le terrorisme international. Bien que l'Irak n'ait pas été directement impliqué dans les attentats du 11 septembre, l'administration Bush a mis en avant la théorie selon laquelle l'Irak de Saddam Hussein possédait des armes de destruction massive (ADM) et représentait une menace pour la sécurité mondiale. Cette perception a été utilisée pour justifier l'invasion de l'Irak en 2003, une décision qui a été largement controversée, en particulier après qu'il a été révélé que l'Irak ne possédait pas d'armes de destruction massive.  
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.  


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


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


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


=Israël=
=Israel=


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


== Le Mouvement Sioniste et l'Établissement en Palestine ==
== The Zionist Movement and Settlement in Palestine ==
La fin du 19ème siècle a été une période cruciale pour le peuple juif et a marqué un tournant décisif dans l'histoire du sionisme, un mouvement qui allait finalement conduire à la création de l'État d'Israël. Cette époque a été caractérisée par une combinaison de réponse aux persécutions antisémites en Europe et d'un désir croissant d'autodétermination et de retour à la terre ancestrale. Le mouvement Hovevei Zion (Les Amants de Sion) a joué un rôle fondamental dans les premières étapes du sionisme. Formé par des Juifs principalement d'Europe de l'Est, ce mouvement visait à encourager l'immigration juive en Palestine et à établir une base pour la communauté juive dans la région. Inspirés par les pogroms et les discriminations en Russie et ailleurs, les membres de Hovevei Zion ont mis en œuvre des projets d'agriculture et d'établissement, jetant ainsi les bases d'un renouveau juif en Palestine. Cependant, c'est le premier Congrès sioniste, organisé par Theodor Herzl en 1897 à Bâle, en Suisse, qui a marqué un jalon historique. Herzl, un journaliste austro-hongrois profondément affecté par l'antisémitisme qu'il avait observé, notamment lors de l'affaire Dreyfus en France, a compris la nécessité d'un foyer national juif. Le Congrès de Bâle a rassemblé des délégués juifs de divers pays et a servi de plateforme pour articuler et propager l'idée sioniste. Le résultat le plus notable de ce congrès a été la formulation du Programme de Bâle, qui appelait à l'établissement d'un foyer national pour le peuple juif en Palestine. Ce congrès a également abouti à la création de l'Organisation sioniste mondiale, chargée de promouvoir l'objectif sioniste. Sous la direction de Herzl, le mouvement sioniste a gagné en légitimité et en soutien international, malgré les défis et les controverses. La vision de Herzl, bien que largement symbolique à l'époque, a fourni un cadre et une direction pour les aspirations juives, transformant une idée en un mouvement politique tangible. La période de la fin du 19ème siècle a été essentielle dans la formation du mouvement sioniste et a posé les jalons pour les événements futurs qui mèneraient à la création de l'État d'Israël. Elle reflète une période où les défis historiques rencontrés par les Juifs en Europe ont convergé avec un désir renouvelé d'autodétermination, façonnant ainsi le cours de l'histoire juive et du Moyen-Orient.  
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.  
   
   
Le début du 20ème siècle a été une période significative de développement et de transformation pour la communauté juive en Palestine, marquée par une augmentation de l'immigration juive et la création de nouvelles structures sociales et urbaines. Entre 1903 et 1914, une période connue sous le nom de "Seconde Aliyah", environ 30 000 Juifs, principalement originaires de l'Empire russe, ont immigré en Palestine. Cette vague d'immigration a été motivée par une combinaison de facteurs, notamment les persécutions antisémites dans l'Empire russe et l'aspiration sioniste à établir un foyer national juif. Cette période a vu la création de la ville de Tel-Aviv en 1909, qui est devenue un symbole du renouveau juif et du sionisme. Tel-Aviv a été conçue comme une ville moderne, planifiée dès le départ pour être un centre urbain pour la communauté juive en croissance. L'un des développements les plus innovants de cette période a été la création des Kibboutzim. Les Kibboutzim étaient des collectivités agricoles basées sur des principes de propriété collective et de travail communautaire. Ils ont joué un rôle crucial dans l'établissement des Juifs en Palestine, en fournissant non seulement des moyens de subsistance, mais aussi en contribuant à la défense et à la sécurité des communautés juives. Leur importance allait au-delà de l'agriculture, car ils ont servi de centres pour la culture, l'éducation et le sionisme social.
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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


= Annexes =
= Annexes =

Version actuelle datée du 21 décembre 2023 à 17:09

Based on a course by Yilmaz Özcan.[1][2]

Languages

Deutsch

Español Français Italiano 日本語

Português 中文（简体)

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

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


The Ottoman Empire[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Foundation and expansion of the Ottoman Empire[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

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

Conflicts and Military Challenges of the Ottoman Empire[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

Reforms and Internal Transformations of the Ottoman Empire[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

Foreign Influences and International Relations[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

Modernisation and reform movements[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Persian Empire[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The Origins and Completion of the Persian Empire[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

Iran under Islam: Conquests and Transformations[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

Emergence and influence of the Sefevids[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

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

The Qajar Dynasty and the Modernisation of Iran[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

Iran in the 20th Century: Towards a Constitutional Monarchy[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

The Ottoman Empire in the First World War[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

atlas-historique.net

Diplomatic manoeuvres and the formation of alliances[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

The Arab Revolt and Changing Dynamics in the Middle East[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

Internal challenges and the Armenian Genocide[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

Post-war settlement and redefinition of the Middle East[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

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

The Transition to the Republic and the Rise of Atatürk[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

Abolition of the Caliphate and its repercussions[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

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

The repercussions of the San Remo Conference[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

Allied promises and Arab demands[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

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

MOMCENC - promesses des Alliés et revendications arabes.png

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

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

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

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

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

The Armenian Genocide[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Historical Background and the Beginning of the Genocide (1915-1917)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

Armenia's historical roots[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

Armenia, the first Christian state[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

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

The Treaty of San Stefano and the Congress of Berlin[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

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

Towards the Republic of Turkey and the Denial of Genocide[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

The founding of Turkey[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The Treaty of Lausanne and the New Political Reality (1923)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

The Arrival of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the Turkish National Resistance (1919)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

Border formation and the Mosul and Antioch issues[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

The Radical Reforms of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multipartyism and the Tensions between Modernisation and Tradition (Post-1950)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

Turkey and its Internal Challenges: Managing Ethnic and Religious Diversity[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

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

Separation between Secularism and Secularism: The Legacy of the Kemalist Period[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

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

The Alevis[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The Impact of the Foundation of the Republic of Turkey on the Alevis (1923)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

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

Alevi Political Engagement in the 1960s[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

Alevis Facing Extremism and Violence in the 1970s and 1980s[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

The Tragedies of Sivas and Gazi in the 1990s[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

Alevis under the AKP: Identity Challenges and Conflicts[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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

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

Iran[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Challenges and External Influences at the Beginning of the 20th Century[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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.

MOMCENC - iran après accord anglo russe de 1907.png

The coup of 1921 and the rise of Reza Khan[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Ancient Egypt and its Successions[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The Founding Alliance: Ibn Saud and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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.

MOMCENC - Territories lost by the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East.png

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The Dawn of Arab Nationalism: The Role of Faisal[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Ottoman Domination and Cultural Mosaic (16th Century - First World War)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

British Mandate and Territorial Division (Early 20th century - 1922)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Formation of the Iraqi state (Post-First World War)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The beginnings of Zionism and the Balfour Declaration[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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.

Annexes[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

References[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

  1. ↑ Yilmaz Özcan - UNIGE
  2. ↑ Yilmaz Özcan - Cairn.info
Récupérée de « https://baripedia.org/index.php?title=Empires_and_States_in_the_Middle_East&oldid=64329 »