Sykes-Picot and the new Middle East

Arab News

a day ago

https://arab.news/pev8f
Amid all the geopolitical upheavals witnessed by the region since Oct. 7, 2023, US President Donald Trump's ambassador to Turkiye and special envoy to Syria and Lebanon, Tom Barrack, has triggered a political storm by dismissing the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, saying it divided Syria and the broader Middle East region for imperial gain rather than peace — a mistake that cost generations and will not be repeated.
He went further by warning Lebanon that, unless it gets its act together and disarms Hezbollah, Syria might consider annexing Lebanon, noting that Syrians view their smaller neighbor as a 'summer resort' and part of the broader Bilad Al-Sham, or Levant. However, he later sought to clarify his remarks, insisting that they 'praised Syria's impressive strides' and were 'not a threat to Lebanon.'
No Western diplomat had ever echoed such sentiments about Sykes-Picot, and for good reason. It was the reigning colonial powers of the day, namely France and Britain, that decided to carve up Bilad Al-Sham into the political states that exist today following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. The denunciation of that colonial conspiracy has traditionally come from die-hard Arab nationalists, pan-Arabists, Nasserites, Baathists and Syrian nationalists — all of whom have disappeared from the Arab political stage today.
To open that can of worms is dangerous. Israel was not happy with Barrack's statements, with an op-ed in The Times of Israel advising him to 'stick to the script.' Why? Because such talk will eventually bring us to the roots of the Zionist project in Palestine, the Balfour Declaration, the British mandate over Palestine, the Partition Plan and the Nakba. It will eventually bring us to the ongoing war in Gaza and the active annexation of the West Bank. This is, after all, what the Sykes-Picot 'mistake' delivered: the longest colonial occupation in modern times.
But surely Barrack had no intention of drawing attention to the calamity that befell the Palestinians as a result of Sykes-Picot. He must have had something else in mind.
The US State Department was quick to distance itself from Barrack's remarks. After all, Oct. 7 led to the defeat of Hezbollah and to the fall of Bashar Assad in Syria — and that in turn led to last month's 12-day war between Israel and Iran. The series of events that began on Oct. 7 now has a name, an Israeli one. It is called the 'new Middle East.' Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees himself as the anointed — albeit in the blood of tens of thousands of Palestinians — sheriff of the region. His new Middle East is one that the US and Israel are drawing up, with little daylight between them.
Ironically, Netanyahu's new Middle East looks as evil, if not more so, than the old Sykes-Picot plot. Trump, who has found a new love for Netanyahu, also has his eyes on the new regime in Syria. Trump is pushing for an end to the hostilities between Damascus and Tel Aviv, which would culminate in adding a new Arab member to the Abraham Accords.
For Israel to play the sectarian card in Syria, as it did in Lebanon in the 1970s and 1980s, is testimony to a well-studied and well-planned scheme to divide and rule the region.
Osama Al-Sharif
He last month signed an executive order ending US economic sanctions on Syria and last week he removed Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham, formerly Al-Nusra Front, from the list of foreign terrorist organizations. He previously met with President Ahmad Al-Sharaa and praised him as the new leader of the Syrian people.
Bringing Syria into the fold is key to both US and Israeli interests. But while Barrack is focused on both Lebanon and Syria, the common denominator is Israel and what Netanyahu wants to achieve.
For Lebanon, the challenges include ending the Israeli occupation of the south, securing much-needed aid and disarming Hezbollah. The US wants President Joseph Aoun to deliver on the last issue first — a thorny and divisive problem. For war-torn Syria, the priority is to end Israeli aggression so that the rebuilding of the country can begin. Both Syria and Lebanon have clashed with Israel since last December and they have one common challenge: minorities.
Israel has stepped in to play the minority card, declaring itself as guardian and protector of Syria's minorities, including the Druze. Its intervention has deepened sectarian frictions, especially after the collapse of the Assad regime and the bloody incidents in Jaramana.
Israeli political strategists, especially on the right, have repeatedly talked about Israel being a lonely minority state, based on its ethnoreligious identity, surrounded by hostile nonhomogeneous central states that were the creation of Sykes-Picot. The only way for Israel to become normal in such an environment is to help create peers — a Levant that is divided along sectarian and ethnic lines. That started in the 1970s with the backing of the Kurds, who were left out of the redrawing of the colonial maps back in the early 1900s, leaving them scattered across Turkiye, Iran, Iraq and Syria.
One can assume that Netanyahu's vision for the Levant is based on such a paradigm; small nation states not so different from Israel. Thus, the redrawing would extend from Iraq to the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean. It is a diabolical scheme in which the means, the motive and the opportunity have all come together.
Perhaps Barrack, a real-estate mogul, may have learned about this by chance. What does the US, now moving closer to Damascus for the first time in more than half a century, want from the new government?
Just as Israeli and Syrian officials were meeting in Baku — with another meeting planned for later this week in Brussels — violent clashes erupted between Druze and Bedouin tribes in Sweida in southern Syria. When Damascus sent troops and tanks to contain the violence, Israeli jets bombed the Syrian army, ostensibly to protect the Druze.
For Israel to play the sectarian card in Syria, as it did in Lebanon in the 1970s and 1980s, is testimony to a well-studied and well-planned scheme to divide and rule the region. This is the new Middle East that Netanyahu espouses: a coalition of minority states. Such a coalition will ensure Israel's security and regional hegemony for generations.
The new government in Syria must be wary of being pushed into becoming a tool or a spearhead in such a scheme. Yes, it has the right to negotiate with Israel in good faith to end the latter's assaults, occupation and interference. It has said it is committed to the 1974 disengagement agreement. But Israel is in no mood to give up the Golan Heights or Mount Hermon — not now, not ever.
It is worth noting that, under such a scheme, the Palestinians get nothing: no state, no Jerusalem and no right of return. They will be pushed around and made to suffer until they leave or die where they stand. The new Middle East is an integral plan, just as the Sykes-Picot agreement was, and we may now have a hint as to the contents of its first chapter.
• Osama Al-Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman. X: @plato010