Fluid borders - World - Al-Ahram Weekly

Al-Ahram Weekly

4 days ago

When American officials invoke the infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement — whether it is contextually justified or not — they are doing two things. First, they are recalling a traumatic historical episode marked by the arbitrary partitioning of the region's lands and peoples to serve the imperial designs of early 20th-century France and Britain. Secondly, they are issuing a veiled warning, framed as historical reflection.
No state in the region has called for dismantling the Sykes-Picot framework. Yet when US officials speak of the 'injustice' it inflicted, their rhetoric hints at disruption. Then as now, a familiar pattern emerges: a dominant power seeks to reshape the region according to its own strategic and ideological aims. Though increasingly criticised by US diplomats, the Sykes-Picot order shaped the modern Middle East — a region still burdened by structural crises. But undoing this legacy, however flawed, risks exacerbating instability rather than resolving it.
Since May 2025, Tom Barrack, the billionaire real estate developer and longtime ally of Donald Trump, has served concurrently as US ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria and Lebanon. In this dual role, Barrack has repeatedly invoked the legacy of Sykes-Picot as the deepest root of the region's upheavals. He made his first explicit reference to this on May 25, shortly after his appointment, in a post on X: 'A century ago, the West imposed maps, mandates, penciled borders, and foreign rule. Sykes-Picot divided Syria and the broader region for imperial gain—not peace. That mistake cost generations. We will not make it again.' He added: 'The era of Western interference is over. The future belongs to regional solutions.'
In a June 2025 interview with Turkish media outlet NTV, Barrack again referenced the historical roots of regional instability, commenting on the stalled negotiations between Syria's interim government and Kurdish representatives over integration into state institutions: 'I think all these borders go back to Sykes-Picot, to the Sèvres Agreement, to all the failed lines. It's time to redraw and reach a new agreement.'
On July 11, in an interview with The National, the official media outlet of the Abu Dhabi government, Barrack returned to the same theme — this time more implicitly. He invoked the term Bilad Al-Sham, a historical designation for Greater Syria prior to the 20th-century colonial partitions, warning that Lebanon could lose its autonomy if it failed to act decisively regarding Hizbullah's military arsenal: 'If Lebanon doesn't move, it's going to be Bilad Al-Sham again… Syrians say Lebanon is our beach resort,' Barrack said.
He stressed that Lebanon faces an 'existential threat' if it does not disarm Hizbullah and reassert state sovereignty. Bilad Al-Sham historically refers to a vast area in the Arab Levant encompassing modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan — territory that was fractured by the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Barrack's remarks provoked a sharp backlash across Lebanon's political spectrum. Many factions denounced his comments as an unacceptable intrusion into Lebanon's internal affairs and a direct challenge to its sovereignty.
Ibrahim Al-Moussawi, a Hizbullah MP and member of Lebanon's Foreign Affairs Committee, called Barrack's remarks 'deeply troubling,' framing them as evidence of a broader US geopolitical agenda. In response to the growing controversy, Barrack attempted to clarify his comments in a follow-up post on X, claiming his remarks were meant to praise Syrian reforms, not threaten Lebanon. He reiterated Washington's commitment to fostering balanced and respectful ties between Beirut and Damascus.
Notably, Barrack was not alone in challenging the permanence of the Sykes-Picot borders. On 3 July, Israeli outlet i24 News cited a source close to Syrian interim President Ahmed Al-Sharaa, who spoke in a startling manner about security and political arrangements between Israel and Syria that embrace a land swap including even Lebanon, within the framework of a vision that can be summarised as 'fluid borders,' where borders can be modified and lands exchanged in order to achieve 'peace,' 'stability,' and 'cooperation.'
'There is no such thing as peace for free,' the Syrian source told i24, outlining two main scenarios reportedly under discussion. In the first, Israel would retain a third of the Golan Heights, return another third to Syria, and lease the remaining third for 25 years. The second scenario would see Israel keeping two-thirds of the Golan while handing back the final third, potentially under a lease agreement as well. Intriguingly, this plan might also involve transferring the Lebanese city of Tripoli, along with areas in the north and the Beqaa Valley, to Syria.
According to the source, Syria views Tripoli as a lost part of Greater Syria, one of five regions detached during the French Mandate to form modern Lebanon. The ambitions don't stop at redrawn borders. The vision includes a sweeping regional agreement involving Israel, Syria and Turkey, centred on water sharing, possibly even a pipeline connecting the Euphrates to Israel. And, in a similar way to the wave of anger Barrack's statements about Bilad Al-Sham prompted in Lebanon, these statements sparked outrage, but Damascus distanced itself from them. It's difficult to determine the seriousness of these proposals. Many consider them 'trial balloons.'
An Arab diplomat based in London told Al-Ahram Weekly that Barrack's persistent references to the Sykes-Picot Agreement and Bilad Al-Sham are causing increasing alarm in the region. 'The frequency and consistency of these remarks,' the diplomat noted, 'are far from coincidental; they appear as calculated signals. The US, Israel, several Gulf states, and political factions in Lebanon appear to be exerting intense pressure for the swift disarmament of Hizbullah. They have elevated this objective above all else,' he added, 'even concerns about rekindling internal strife or provoking another civil war in Lebanon.
'Why this urgency? Maybe because negotiations between Israel and Syria's transitional government have reportedly reached advanced stages. Washington seeks to normalise relations with both Syria and Lebanon in tandem. Hizbullah's political and military influence renders that impossible. Hence, the push to neutralise it,' he argues.
The paradox lies in the fact that while the US claims to oppose colonial-style interventions like the Sykes-Picot Agreement, its support for Israeli territorial ambitions in Palestine, Southern Lebanon, and parts of southwestern and southern Syria undermines this stance. Critics argue that the US message — promoting non-interference and respect for self-determination — is contradicted by its actions.
Moreover, many interpret Barrack's criticism of the Sykes-Picot Agreement as part of a broader realignment in US Middle East policy. Rather than rejecting the logic of the 1916 agreement outright, Washington may instead be seeking to replace it with a framework more closely aligned with its contemporary strategic goals—and those of Israel.
In this context, Barrack's remarks on Sykes-Picot, Bilad Al-Sham, and the 'New Syria' as a regional model may point to a deeper ambition: the gradual unravelling of the century-old state system in the Middle East. Undoing Sykes-Picot, when deemed necessary, would involve more than just redrawing borders; it would signify the dismantling of the centralised, nationalist state structures that have shaped the region for generations. It is precisely this state-based order that remains the final obstacle to realising the vision of Greater Israel.
Furthermore, the concept of 'fluid borders' in the Middle East — promoted subtly through US and Israeli strategic thinking — has become an increasingly evident tool for territorial manipulation under the guise of security. Rather than respecting the internationally recognised borders drawn during the Sykes-Picot era, which, though colonial in origin, still serve as a framework for sovereignty, the new strategy exploits Israel's security anxieties to justify de facto annexations and military buffer zones. This shift towards 'security geography' enables Israel, with US backing, to establish temporary or permanent military control beyond its recognised borders, particularly in areas like Gaza, where the ongoing genocidal war on the Palestinians has resulted not just in military incursions but in the destruction of civilian infrastructure and the depopulation of large parts of northern Gaza.
These actions raise credible concerns about long-term demographic engineering and the creation of a strategic 'security belt' similar to the one previously attempted in Southern Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s.
In Syria, Israel has increased its military footprint in the Quneitra Governorate near the Golan Heights — an area long coveted for its strategic depth and water access. Since early 2025, Israeli strikes and covert operations have extended deep into Syrian territory, capturing Mount Hermon and parts of Daraa, reinforcing the notion of a shifting border under military logic.
In doing so, Israel has positioned itself as a permanent security actor in southern Syria, creating facts on the ground that undermine Syrian sovereignty and suggest the transformation of temporary military actions into long-term territorial control — an echo of the occupation of the Golan Heights, which was similarly justified as a security necessity before its de facto annexation.
Meanwhile, the Israeli military's increasing activity along the Lebanese border, especially in Southern Lebanon around Marjayoun and Bint Jbeil, reflects a renewed interest in buffer zones reminiscent of the pre-2000 occupation. Following heightened clashes with Hizbullah since late 2023, Israeli shelling and displacement of border villages have prompted fears that Israel is once again attempting to push the frontier northwards. In this context, the rhetoric of 'defensive measures' cloaks a strategy that erodes state borders to secure territorial depth against asymmetric threats. This undermines Lebanon's sovereignty and supports the broader theory that the principle of 'fluid borders' is being implemented as part of a US-Israeli effort to reorder the region. Thus, by challenging the validity of the Sykes-Picot framework, the United States is not promoting justice or local autonomy, but rather redrawing lines of influence to serve hegemonic and expansionist interests.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 17 July, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Follow us on:
Facebook
Instagram
Whatsapp
Short link: