The Sykes-Picot Agreement: Carving Up the Middle East

Overview

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a secret 1916 treaty between Britain and France (with Russian assent) to divide Ottoman territories in the Middle East after World War I. Within the Pax Judaica framework, Sykes-Picot represents:

• Historically: Colonial partition creating modern Middle East borders
• Conspiratorially: Deliberate fragmentation to prevent Arab unity and enable control
• Geopolitically: Imperial "divide and rule" strategy with lasting consequences
• Eschatologically: Stage-setting for Pax Judaica by weakening Islamic civilization

The Agreement (Primary Source)

Key Provisions

Signed: May 16, 19161

Primary negotiators:

• Sir Mark Sykes (Britain) - Conservative MP, Middle East traveler
• François Georges-Picot (France) - Diplomat, former consul in Beirut
• Sergei Sazonov (Russia) - Foreign Minister (Russian interests)

The Partition Plan

Territorial divisions (documented):2

Map: The famous colored-zone map defined spheres, not final borders.3

The Secret Exposed

How it became public: Bolsheviks published secret treaties after 1917 Revolution to embarrass Allies.4

Published: Izvestia and Pravda, November 23-28, 19174

Global reaction: Outrage, especially among Arabs promised independence by Britain simultaneously.5

The Conspiracy Perspective

Deliberate Fragmentation Thesis

The argument: Sykes-Picot wasn't pragmatic wartime diplomacy but calculated strategy to permanently fragment Arab/Islamic world.11

Strategic objectives cited:

Prevent Arab unity: Divide into weak states unable to resist

Ethnic/sectarian divisions: Draw borders to maximize internal conflict

Resource control: Separate oil fields from population centers

Client states: Create dependencies on European powers

Israel preparation: Weaken surrounding Arab states for future Jewish state

The "Artificial States" Problem

Borders ignored:12

• Tribal affiliations
• Ethnic distributions (Kurds, Armenians)
• Sectarian divides (Sunni, Shia, Christian)
• Geographic logic
• Historical boundaries

States created (1920s):13

Consequence: Century of instability.14

The Oil Dimension

Mesopotamian oil (documented):15

Major fields:

• Mosul (northern Iraq) - Switched to British zone despite French claim
• Kirkuk (Kurdish region) - Became part of Iraq
• Basra (southern Iraq) - British control from start

The Mosul controversy:16

• Originally designated for French zone (A)
• 1918: British occupied Mosul after armistice
• 1920: Mosul reassigned to British Iraq
• France compensated with 25% of oil company shares

Cui bono?: British petroleum interests (later BP).17

The Rothschild-Freemasonry Connection

Documented facts:

• Sykes was documented Freemason18
• Negotiations coincided with Zionist lobbying
• Palestine "internationalization" clause ambiguous1
• 1917 Balfour Declaration superseded Sykes-Picot for Palestine10

Speculative claim: Sykes-Picot designed to fragment Arabs while preserving Palestine for Zionist project; all coordinated by secret societies.

Counter-evidence: French genuinely wanted Syria including Palestine; Britain maneuvered them out via Balfour Declaration; no evidence of Masonic coordination.19

Implementation and Outcomes

The Paris Peace Conference (1919)

The reality: Sykes-Picot served as basis but was modified.20

Key changes:

• Russia excluded (Bolshevik Revolution)
• American influence (Wilson's 14 Points opposed secret treaties)21
• Mandates system instead of direct annexation22
• Arab resistance forced adjustments

The Mandate System

League of Nations mandates (1920):23

Legal fiction: Mandates were supposed to be temporary "tutelage" toward independence, not colonies.24

Reality: Colonial control with League of Nations approval.24

The Arab Revolt's Betrayal

T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia):25

• British officer liaising with Arab Revolt (1916-1918)
• Promised Arabs independence repeatedly
• Discovered Sykes-Picot mid-war
• Felt complicit in betrayal
• Advocated for Arabs at Paris Peace Conference (failed)

Faisal and Hussein:26

• Sharif Hussein of Mecca led revolt
• Son Faisal represented Arabs at Paris
• Rejected mandate system
• Faisal briefly king of Syria (1920) - French expelled him
• British compensated by making Faisal king of Iraq (1921)
• Another son, Abdullah, made king of Transjordan (1921)

Pax Judaica Framework Interpretation

Stage I: Pax Britannica Strategy

The framework:

Objectives attributed to Pax Britannica:

✅ Destroy Ottoman Caliphate (last Islamic political unity)

✅ Fragment Muslim world into weak states

✅ Secure Palestine for Zionist project

✅ Control oil resources

✅ Create dependencies ensuring Western dominance

✅ Prepare transfer to Pax Americana

Sykes-Picot as instrument: Colonial architecture enabling all above goals.

The "Managed Chaos" Thesis

The argument: Century of Middle East instability isn't unintended consequence but designed feature.27

Pattern claimed:

Create artificial states with internal tensions

Support minority rulers over majority populations

Encourage sectarian conflict

Intervene periodically to prevent regional power emergence

Sell weapons to all sides

Profit from chaos while preventing unity

Examples cited:

• Iraq: Sunni minority ruled Shia majority (Saddam Hussein)
• Syria: Alawite minority rules Sunni majority (Assad)
• Lebanon: Delicate sectarian power-sharing (periodic collapse)
• Bahrain: Sunni monarchy rules Shia majority

The Greater Israel Connection

Revisionist Zionist view: Sykes-Picot's Palestine boundaries too small; Greater Israel requires overthrowing Sykes-Picot borders.28

ISIS/Daesh proclamation (2014): Declared goal to erase Sykes-Picot borders; conspiracy theorists claim ISIS is tool to justify redrawing map.29

The question: Will Pax Judaica complete what Sykes-Picot began by redrawing Middle East for Greater Israel?

Long-Term Consequences

States Created or Shaped by Sykes-Picot

Modern nations (borders frozen despite artificiality):30

The Hundred-Year War

Conflicts rooted in Sykes-Picot (partial list):31

• Arab-Israeli Wars (1948, 1967, 1973, ongoing)
• Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990)
• Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)
• Gulf War (1990-1991)
• Iraq War (2003-2011)
• Syrian Civil War (2011-present)
• ISIS/Daesh (2014-2017)
• Yemen Civil War (2014-present)

Death toll (estimated cumulative): 5-10 million+32

Kurdish Statelessness

The largest nation without a state (30-45 million Kurds):33

Why? Sykes-Picot divided Kurdistan among:

• Turkey (15-20M Kurds)
• Iran (8-10M Kurds)
• Iraq (5-6M Kurds)
• Syria (2-3M Kurds)

Consequence: Century of repression, revolts, and statelessness.33

Academic Debates

Was Sykes-Picot the Primary Cause?

Position 1: Yes, colonial borders caused instability34

• Artificial states inevitably unstable
• External powers drew borders serving their interests
• Ethnic/sectarian divisions weaponized
• Alternative: Self-determined borders would have been more natural

Position 2: No, other factors more important35

• Ottoman Empire already declining with internal divisions
• Nationalism and sectarianism predated Sykes-Picot
• Post-colonial governments failed to build inclusive systems
• Alternative: Even "natural" borders wouldn't have prevented conflict

Position 3: Overdetermined - multiple causes36

• Colonial legacy significant but not sole cause
• Domestic failures compounded colonial structures
• Global Cold War interventions destabilized region
• Oil politics created additional tensions

Mainstream Historian Consensus

General agreement:37

Sykes-Picot created problematic borders

Colonial powers prioritized their interests over Arab self-determination

Promises to Arabs were cynically broken

Century of instability has roots in 1916-1920 decisions

But postcolonial agency and choices also shaped outcomes

Debate continues on proportionality of blame and viability of alternatives.

Modern Reactions and Legacy

Arab Perspectives

Common narrative:38

• Symbol of Western betrayal and duplicity
• Root cause of regional problems
• Justification for anti-Western sentiment
• Called for "erasing Sykes-Picot" (various movements)

ISIS and Sykes-Picot

ISIS propaganda (2014):39

• Released video titled "The End of Sykes-Picot"
• Bulldozed Iraq-Syria border posts
• Declared Caliphate ignoring colonial borders
• Claimed to restore Islamic unity

Conspiracy interpretation: ISIS created by West/Israel to justify intervention and redraw map for Greater Israel.40

Counter-evidence: ISIS genuinely jihadist; no proof of Western/Israeli control; motivated by ideology, not conspiracy.41

The Centenary (2016)

Reflections:42

• Conferences and scholarship examining legacy
• Arab intellectuals debated whether to move beyond or continue blaming Sykes-Picot
• Some argued: 100 years is enough, need to take responsibility
• Others argued: Colonial structures still enforced by West

Counterfactuals

What If Sykes-Picot Never Happened?

Scenario A: Arab Unity

• Large Arab state or confederation emerges
• Democratic or autocratic? (debated)
• Oil revenues benefit all Arabs
• Could challenge Israel or prevent its creation
• Could be powerful actor in 20th century

Scenario B: Multiple Arab States, But Natural Borders

• States based on ethnic/sectarian/geographic logic
• Kurdistan created
• Levantine confederation
• Iraq doesn't exist (artificial merger)
• Less internal conflict, still regional rivalry

Scenario C: Different Colonial Partition

• America or Germany dominant instead
• Different borders but still colonial
• Problems persist with different specifics

Scenario D: Continued Ottoman Rule

• Empire modernizes, joins Allies instead of Central Powers
• Gradual reform and devolution
• Federalized Ottoman commonwealth
• No Israel

Historical consensus: Impossible to know; all scenarios speculative.43

Lessons and Contemporary Relevance

The Danger of Secret Treaties

Lesson: Secret agreements during wartime create distrust and instability.44

Modern parallel: Various secret clauses in contemporary agreements suspected but unproven.

The Persistence of Colonial Borders

Despite problems, borders mostly frozen:45

• International system resists border changes (stability preference)
• Except: Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Soviet Union, South Sudan (rare exceptions)
• Middle East borders survived despite artificiality

Why?: Changing one border risks cascade; everyone fears losing territory.45

Ethnic Self-Determination vs. State Sovereignty

The dilemma:46

• Self-determination principle (Wilsonian idealism)
• Versus territorial integrity principle (Westphalian system)
• Both enshrined in international law
• Often contradictory

Kurds as example: Invoke self-determination; Turkey/Iraq/Iran invoke sovereignty.

Discussion Questions

Was Sykes-Picot necessary wartime diplomacy or calculated betrayal?

Could the Middle East have unified into stable state(s) without colonial intervention?

How much responsibility do European powers bear for modern Middle East conflicts?

Should borders be redrawn based on ethnicity/sect, or would that cause more bloodshed?

Is the Sykes-Picot framework still structurally enforced by great powers today?

Further Reading

• Balfour Declaration
• British Mandate Palestine
• ISIS and Controlled Opposition
• Greater Israel Project
• Pax Britannica

This article examines the Sykes-Picot Agreement within the Pax Judaica framework. While the agreement's existence and consequences are historical fact, interpretations of deliberate fragmentation strategy and conspiracy coordination remain contested.