34.1: The Ottoman Empire

34.1.1: Decline of the Ottoman Empire

After a long decline since the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire came to an end in the aftermath of its defeat in World War I when it was dismantled by the Allies after the war ended in 1918.

Learning Objective

Explain why the Ottoman Empire lost power and prestige

Key Points

The Ottoman Empire was founded by Osman I in the 14th century and reached its apex under Suleiman the Magnificent in the 16th century, stretching from the Persian Gulf in the east to Hungary in the northwest and from Egypt in the south to the Caucasus in the north.
In the 19th century, the empire faced challenges in defending itself against foreign invasion and occupation; it ceased to enter conflicts on its own and began to forge alliances with European countries such as France, the Netherlands, Britain, and Russia.
During the Tanzimat period of modernization, the government’s series of constitutional reforms led to a fairly modern conscripted army, banking system reforms, the decriminalization of homosexuality, and the replacement of religious law with secular law and guilds with modern factories.
The Ottoman Empire had long been the “sick man of Europe” and after a series of Balkan wars by 1914 was driven out of nearly all of Europe and North Africa.
The Second Constitutional Era began after the Young Turk Revolution (July 3, 1908) with the sultan’s announcement of the restoration of the 1876 constitution and the reconvening of the Ottoman Parliament. This marked the beginning of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
The empire entered WWI as an ally of Germany, and its defeat and the occupation of part of its territory by the Allied Powers in the aftermath of the war resulted in its partitioning and the loss of its Middle Eastern territories, which were divided between the United Kingdom and France.
The successful Turkish War of Independence against the occupying Allies led to the emergence of the Republic of Turkey in the Anatolian heartland and the abolition of the Ottoman monarchy and caliphate.

Key Terms

Turkish War of Independence: A war fought between the Turkish nationalists and the proxies of the Allies – namely Greece on the Western front, Armenia on the Eastern, France on the Southern and with them, the United Kingdom and Italy in Constantinople (now Istanbul) – after some parts of Turkey were occupied and partitioned following the Ottoman Empire’s defeat in World War I. It resulted in the founding of the Republic of Turkey in the Anatolian heartland and the abolition of the Ottoman monarchy and caliphate.
Tanzimat: Literally meaning “reorganization,” a period of reformation in the Ottoman Empire that began in 1839 and ended with the First Constitutional Era in 1876. This era was characterized by various attempts to modernize the Ottoman Empire and secure its territorial integrity against nationalist movements from within and aggressive powers from outside of the state.
Young Turks: A political reform movement in the early 20th century that consisted of Ottoman exiles, students, civil servants, and army officers. They favored the replacement of the Ottoman Empire’s absolute monarchy with a constitutional government. Later, their leaders led a rebellion against the absolute rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid II in the 1908 Young Turk Revolution. With this revolution, they helped to establish the Second Constitutional Era in 1908, ushering in an era of multi-party democracy for the first time in the country’s history.

Overview: The Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire, also known as the Turkish Empire, was founded at the end of the 13th century in northwestern Anatolia in the vicinity of Bilecik and Söğüt by the Oghuz Turkish tribal leader Osman. After 1354, the Ottomans crossed into Europe, and with the conquest of the Balkans the Ottoman Beylik was transformed into a transcontinental empire. The Ottomans ended the Byzantine Empire with the 1453 conquest of Constantinople by Mehmed the Conqueror.

During the 16th and 17th centuries, at the height of its power under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottoman Empire was a multinational, multilingual empire controlling much of Southeast Europe, Western Asia, the Caucasus, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa. At the beginning of the 17th century, the empire contained 32 provinces and numerous vassal states. Some were later absorbed into the Ottoman Empire, while others were granted various types of autonomy during the course of centuries.

With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the center of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. The Ottomans consequently suffered severe military defeats in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, which prompted them to initiate a comprehensive process of reform and modernization known as the Tanzimat. The empire allied with Germany in the early 20th century and joined World War I with the imperial ambition of recovering its lost territories.

The Empire’s defeat and the occupation of part of its territory by the Allied Powers in the aftermath of World War I resulted in its partitioning and the loss of its Middle Eastern territories, which were divided between the United Kingdom and France. The successful Turkish War of Independence against the occupying Allies led to the emergence of the Republic of Turkey in the Anatolian heartland and the abolition of the Ottoman monarchy and caliphate.

Decline and Modernization

Beginning in the late 18th century, the Ottoman Empire faced challenges defending itself against foreign invasion and occupation. In response to these threats, the empire initiated a period of tremendous internal reform which came to be known as the Tanzimat. This succeeded in significantly strengthening the Ottoman central state, despite the empire’s precarious international position. Over the course of the 19th century, the Ottoman state became increasingly powerful and rationalized, exercising a greater degree of influence over its population than in any previous era. The process of reform and modernization in the empire began with the declaration of the Nizam-ı Cedid (New Order) during the reign of Sultan Selim III (r. 1789-1807) and was punctuated by several reform decrees, such as the Hatt-ı Şerif of Gülhane in 1839 and the Hatt-ı Hümayun in 1856. By the end of this period in 1908, the Ottoman military was somewhat modernized and professionalized according to the model of Western European Armies.

During the Tanzimat period, the government’s series of constitutional reforms led to a fairly modern conscripted army, banking system reforms, the decriminalization of homosexuality, and the replacement of religious law with secular law and guilds with modern factories.

Defeat and Dissolution

The defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1908–1922) began with the Second Constitutional Era, a moment of hope and promise established with the Young Turk Revolution. It restored the Ottoman constitution of 1876 and brought in multi-party politics with a two-stage electoral system (electoral law) under the Ottoman parliament. The constitution offered hope by freeing the empire’s citizens to modernize the state’s institutions, rejuvenate its strength, and enable it to hold its own against outside powers. Its guarantee of liberties promised to dissolve inter-communal tensions and transform the empire into a more harmonious place.

Instead, this period became the story of the twilight struggle of the Empire. The Second Constitutional Era began after the Young Turk Revolution (July 3, 1908) with the sultan’s announcement of the restoration of the 1876 constitution and the reconvening of the Ottoman Parliament. This era is dominated by the politics of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) and the movement that would become known as the Young Turks. Although it began as a uniting progressive party, the CUP splintered in 1911 with the founding of the opposition Freedom and Accord Party (Liberal Union or Entente), which poached many of the more liberal Deputies from the CUP. The remaining CUP members, who now took a more dominantly nationalist tone in the face of the enmity of the Balkan Wars, dueled Freedom and Accord in a series of power reversals that ultimately led to the CUP seizing power from the Freedom and Accord in the 1913 Ottoman coup d’état and establishing total dominance over Ottoman politics until the end of World War I.

The Young Turk government had signed a secret treaty with Germany and established the Ottoman-German Alliance in August 1914, aimed against the common Russian enemy but aligning the Empire with the German side. The Ottoman Empire entered World War I after the Goeben and Breslau incident, in which it gave safe harbor to two German ships that were fleeing British ships. These ships, officially transferred to the Ottoman Navy, but effectively still under German control, attacked the Russian port of Sevastopol, thus dragging the Empire into the war on the side of the Central Powers in the Middle Eastern theater.

The Ottoman involvement World War I in the Middle Eastern ended with the the Arab Revolt in 1916. This revolt turned the tide against the Ottomans at the Middle Eastern front, where they initially seemed to have the upper hand during the first two years of the war. When the Armistice of Mudros was signed on October 30, 1918, the only parts of the Arabian peninsula still under Ottoman control were Yemen, Asir, the city of Medina, portions of northern Syria, and portions of northern Iraq. These territories were handed over to the British forces on January 23, 1919. The Ottomans were also forced to evacuate the parts of the former Russian Empire in the Caucasus (in present-day Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan), which they had gained towards the end of World War I after Russia’s retreat from the war with the Russian Revolution in 1917.

Under the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres, the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire was solidified. The new countries created from the former territories of the Ottoman Empire currently number 39.

The occupations of Constantinople and Smyrna mobilized the Turkish national movement, which ultimately won the Turkish War of Independence. The formal abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate was performed by Grand National Assembly of Turkey on November 1, 1922. The Sultan was declared persona non grata and exiled from the lands that the Ottoman Dynasty ruled since 1299.

The Dissolution of the the Ottoman Empire

Mehmed VI, the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, leaving the country after the abolition of the Ottoman sultanate, November 17, 1922

Photo of Mehmed VI, the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, leaving the country after the abolition of the Ottoman sultanate, 17 November 1922. He is walking through an archway surrounded by saluting soldiers.

34.1.2: European Influence on the Ottomans

The “Eastern Question” refers to the strategic competition, often involving armed conflicts, between the European Powers during the slow, steady disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.

Learning Objective

List a few ways in which Europeans pressured the Ottomans for various concessions

Key Points

The “Eastern Question” refers to the strategic competition and political considerations of the European Great Powers (especially Russia, Britain, and France) in light of the political and economic instability in the Ottoman Empire from the late 18th to early 20th centuries.
Characterized as the “sick man of Europe,” the relative weakening of the Ottoman Empire’s military strength in the second half of the eighteenth century threatened to undermine the fragile balance of power in Europe after the Napoleonic Wars.
During the Greek War of Independence, Russia established major influence and power over the Ottoman Empire.
The Crimean War (1853–1856) was part of this long-running contest between the major European powers for influence over territories of the Empire and focused on the rights of Christian minorities in the Holy Land, which was a part of the Ottoman Empire.
The continuing collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to two wars in the Balkans, in 1912 and 1913, which in turn was a prelude to world war.

Key Terms

Greek War of Independence: A successful war of independence waged by the Greek revolutionaries between 1821 and 1832 against the Ottoman Empire. The Greeks were later assisted by the Russian Empire, Great Britain, the Kingdom of France, and several other European powers, while the Ottomans were aided by their vassals, the eyalets of Egypt, Algeria, and Tripolitania, and the Beylik of Tunis.
Concert of Europe: A system of dispute resolution adopted by the major conservative powers of Europe to maintain their power, oppose revolutionary movements, weaken the forces of nationalism, and uphold the balance of power. It operated in Europe from the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1815) to the early 1820s.
Crimean War: A military conflict fought from October 1853 to March 1856 in which the Russian Empire lost to an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia. The immediate cause involved the rights of Christian minorities in the Holy Land, which was a part of the Ottoman Empire.
Eastern Question: In diplomatic history, this refers to the strategic competition and political considerations of the European Great Powers in light of the political and economic instability in the Ottoman Empire from the late 18th to early 20th centuries.

The Eastern Question

The Ottoman Empire was a crucial part of the European states system and actively played a role in their affairs, due in part to their coterminous periods of development. In diplomatic history, the “Eastern Question” refers to the strategic competition and political considerations of the European Great Powers in light of the political and economic instability in the Ottoman Empire from the late 18th to early 20th centuries. Characterized as the “sick man of Europe,” the empire’s weakened military in the second half of the 18th century threatened to undermine the fragile balance of power largely shaped by the Concert of Europe. The Eastern Question encompassed myriad interrelated elements: Ottoman military defeats, Ottoman institutional insolvency, the ongoing Ottoman political and economic modernization program, the rise of ethno-religious nationalism in its provinces, and Great Power rivalries.

The Eastern Question is normally dated to 1774, when the Russo-Turkish War (1768–74) ended in defeat for the Ottomans. As the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was thought to be imminent, the European powers engaged in a power struggle to safeguard their military, strategic, and commercial interests in the Ottoman domains. Imperial Russia stood to benefit from the decline of the Ottoman Empire; on the other hand, Austria-Hungary and Great Britain deemed the preservation of the Empire to be in their best interests. The Eastern Question was put to rest after World War I, one of the outcomes of which was the collapse and division of the Ottoman holdings.

Russian Influence on the Ottomans

The Eastern Question became a major European issue when the Greeks declared independence from the Ottomans in 1821. It was at about this time that the phrase “Eastern Question” was coined. Ever since the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, there were rumors that the Emperor of Russia sought to invade the Ottoman Empire, and the Greek Revolt seemed to make an invasion even more likely. The British foreign minister, Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, as well as the Austrian foreign minister, Metternich, counselled the Emperor of Russia, Alexander I, not to enter the war. Instead, they pleaded that he maintain the Concert of Europe (the spirit of broad collaboration in Europe which had persisted since Napoleon’s defeat).

As the war continued into 1829, Russia gained a firm advantage over the Ottoman Empire. By prolonging hostilities further, however, Russia would have invited Austria to enter the war, causing considerable suspicion in Britain. Therefore, for the Russians to continue with the war in hopes of destroying the Ottoman Empire would have been inexpedient. At this stage, the King of France, Charles X, proposed the partition of the Ottoman Empire among Austria, Russia, and others, but his scheme was presented too late to produce a result.

Thus, Russia was able to secure neither a decisive defeat nor a partition of the Ottoman Empire and chose instead to degrade it to a mere dependency. In 1829, the Emperor of Russia concluded the Treaty of Adrianople with the Sultan; his empire was granted additional territory along the Black Sea, Russian commercial vessels were granted access to the Dardanelles, and the commercial rights of Russians in the Ottoman Empire were enhanced. The Greek War of Independence was terminated shortly thereafter as Greece was granted independence by the Treaty of Constantinople in 1832.

“The Russian Menace”

“The Russian menace: a Serio-Comic War Map for the Year 1877.” An English cartoon from 1877 showing Russia as a monstrous octopus devouring neighbouring lands, especially the Ottoman Empire. During much of the 19th century, Russia had considerable influence over the Ottomans.

“The Russian menace: a Serio-Comic War Map for the Year 1877” an English cartoon from 1877 showing Russia as a monstrous octopus devouring neighbouring lands, especially the Ottoman Empire.

The Crimean War

The Crimean War (1853–1856) was part of this long-running contest between the major European powers for influence over territories of the declining Ottoman Empire. It ended when the Russian Empire lost to an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia. The immediate cause was the rights of Christian minorities in the Holy Land, part of the Ottoman Empire. The French promoted the rights of Roman Catholics while Russia promoted those of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The longer-term causes were the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the unwillingness of Britain and France to allow Russia to gain territory and power at Ottoman expense.

The conflict began during the 1850s with a religious dispute. Under treaties negotiated during the 18th century, France was the guardian of Roman Catholics in the Ottoman Empire while Russia was the protector of Orthodox Christians. For several years, however, Catholic and Orthodox monks had disputed possession of the Church of the Nativity and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Palestine. During the early 1850s, the two sides made demands which the Sultan could not possibly satisfy simultaneously. In 1853, the Sultan adjudicated in favor of the French, despite the vehement protestations of the local Orthodox monks.

Germany and the Ottoman Empire

Germany drew away from Russia and became closer to Austria-Hungary, with whom she concluded the Dual Alliance in 1879. Germany also closely allied with the Ottoman Empire and reorganized the Ottoman military and financial system; in return, it received several commercial concessions, including permission to build the Baghdad Railway, which secured them access to several important economic markets and had the potential for German entry into the Persian Gulf area controlled by Britain. Germany was driven not only by commercial interests, but also by an imperialistic and militaristic rivalry with Britain. Meanwhile, Britain agreed to the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904, thereby resolving differences between the two countries over international affairs. Britain also reconciled with Russia in 1907 with the Anglo-Russian Entente.

Balkan Wars

The continuing collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to two wars in the Balkans, in 1912 and 1913, which were a prelude to world war. By 1900 nation states had formed in Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, and Serbia, but many of their ethnic compatriots lived under the control of the Ottoman Empire. In 1912, these countries formed the Balkan League. There were three main causes of the First Balkan War. The Ottoman Empire was unable to reform itself, govern satisfactorily, or deal with the rising ethnic nationalism of its diverse peoples. Second, the Great Powers quarreled among themselves and failed to ensure that the Ottomans would carry out the needed reforms. This led the Balkan states to impose their own solution. Most important, the members of the Balkan League were confident that it could defeat the Turks. Their prediction was accurate, as Constantinople called for terms after six weeks of fighting.

The First Balkan War broke out when the League attacked the Ottoman Empire on October 8, 1912 and was ended seven months later by the Treaty of London. After five centuries, the Ottoman Empire lost virtually all of its possessions in the Balkans.

34.1.3: Ataturk and Turkish Independence

The occupation of the Ottoman Empire by the Allies in the aftermath of World War I prompted the establishment of the Turkish national movement under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal. This led to the Turkish War of Independence, which resulted in the establishment of the Republic of Turkey.

Learning Objective

Outline the path taken to a Turkish state and the role played by Ataturk

Key Points

After the Armistice of Mudros ended the Middle Eastern theater of World War I, the Allied forces began a process of occupying the defeated Ottoman Empire.
The occupation of Istanbul and Izmir by the Allies in the aftermath of WWI prompted the establishment of the Turkish National Movement under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Pasha, a military commander who had distinguished himself during the Battle of Gallipoli.
The Turkish revolutionaries in the National Movement rebelled against the occupation and partitioning established by the Treaty of Sèvres, a conflict which became the Turkish War of Independence (May 19, 1919 – July 24, 1923).
After the end of the Turkish-Armenian, Franco-Turkish, and Greco-Turkish fronts of the War of Independence, the Treaty of Sèvres was abandoned and the Treaties of Kars (October 1921) and Lausanne (July 1923) were signed.
The Allies left Anatolia and Eastern Thrace, and the Grand National Assembly of Turkey decided on the establishment of a Republic in Turkey, which was declared on October 29, 1923.
Mustafa Kemal (later given the honorific Atatürk meaning “Father of the Turks”) became the first President of Turkey and embarked upon a program of political, economic, and cultural reforms, seeking to transform the former Ottoman Empire into a modern and secular nation-state.

Key Terms

Atatürk’s Reforms: A series of political, legal, religious, cultural, social, and economic policy changes that were designed to convert the new Republic of Turkey into a secular, modern nation-state and implemented under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in accordance with Kemalist ideology. Central to these reforms were the belief that Turkish society would have to Westernize itself both politically and culturally in order to modernize.
The Turkish War of Independence: A war fought between the Turkish nationalists and the proxies of the Allies – namely Greece on the Western front, Armenia on the Eastern, France on the Southern and with them, the United Kingdom and Italy in Constantinople (now Istanbul) – after some parts of Turkey were occupied and partitioned following the Ottoman Empire’s defeat in World War I. It led to the founding of the Republic of Turkey.
Turkish National Movement: Encompasses the political and military activities of the Turkish revolutionaries that resulted in the creation and shaping of the modern Republic of Turkey, as a consequence of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and the subsequent occupation of Constantinople and partitioning of the Ottoman Empire by the Allies under the terms of the Armistice of Mudros.
Mustafa Kemal: A Turkish army officer, revolutionary, and founder of the Republic of Turkey, serving as its first President from 1923 until his death in 1938. His surname, Atatürk (meaning “Father of the Turks”), was granted to him in 1934 and forbidden to any other person by the Turkish parliament.

Overview

The occupation of some parts of the country by the Allies in the aftermath of World War I prompted the establishment of the Turkish National Movement. Under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal, a military commander who distinguished himself during the Battle of Gallipoli, the Turkish War of Independence was waged with the aim of revoking the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres. By September 18, 1922, the occupying armies were expelled. On November 1, the newly founded parliament formally abolished the Sultanate, thus ending 623 years of Ottoman rule. The Treaty of Lausanne of July 24, 1923, led to the international recognition of the sovereignty of the newly formed “Republic of Turkey” as the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, and the republic was officially proclaimed on October 29, 1923, in the new capital of Ankara. Mustafa Kemal became the republic’s first President of Turkey.

Background: Allied Occupation of Ottoman Empire

On October 30, 1918, the Armistice of Mudros was signed between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies of World War I, bringing hostilities in the Middle Eastern theater of World War I to a close. The treaty granted the Allies the right to occupy forts controlling the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus and the right to occupy “in case of disorder” any territory in case of a threat to security. Somerset Arthur Gough-Calthorpe—the British signatory of the Mudros Armistice—stated the Triple Entente′s public position that they had no intention to dismantle the government of the Ottoman Empire or place it under military occupation by “occupying Constantinople.” However, dismantling the Ottoman government and partitioning the Ottoman Empire among the Allied nations was an objective of the Entente since the start of the war.

On November 13, 1918, a French brigade entered the city to begin the Occupation of Constantinople and its immediate dependencies, followed by a fleet consisting of British, French, Italian, and Greek ships deploying soldiers on the ground the next day. A wave of seizures by the Allies took place in the following months.

Turkish National Movement

The Turkish National Movement encompasses the political and military activities of the Turkish revolutionaries that resulted in the creation and shaping of the modern Republic of Turkey as a consequence of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and the subsequent occupation of Constantinople and partitioning of the Ottoman Empire by the Allies under the terms of the Armistice of Mudros.

The national forces were united around the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the authority of the Grand National Assembly set up in Ankara, which pursued the Turkish War of Independence. The movement gathered around a progressively defined political ideology generally termed “Kemalism.” Its basic principles stress the Republic, a form of government representing the power of the electorate, secular administration (laïcité), nationalism, a mixed economy with state participation in many sectors (as opposed to state socialism), and national modernization.

Turkish War of Independence

The Turkish War of Independence (May 19, 1919 – July 24, 1923) was fought between the Turkish nationalists and the proxies of the Allies – namely Greece on the Western front, Armenia on the Eastern, France on the Southern and with them, the United Kingdom and Italy in Constantinople (now Istanbul) – after some parts of Turkey were occupied and partitioned following the Ottoman Empire’s defeat in World War I. Few of the present British, French, and Italian troops were deployed or engaged in combat.

After a series of battles during the Greco-Turkish war, the Greek army advanced as far as the Sakarya River, just eighty kilometers west of the GNA. On August 5, 1921, Mustafa Kemal was promoted to commander in chief of the forces by the GNA. The ensuing Battle of Sakarya was fought from August 23 to September 13, 1921 and ended with the defeat of the Greeks. After this victory, on September 19, 1921, Mustafa Kemal Pasha was given the rank of Mareşal and the title of Gazi by the Grand National Assembly. The Allies, ignoring the extent of Kemal’s successes, hoped to impose a modified version of the Treaty of Sèvres as a peace settlement on Ankara, but the proposal was rejected. In August 1922, Kemal launched an all-out attack on the Greek lines at Afyonkarahisar in the Battle of Dumlupınar and Turkish forces regained control of Smyrna on September 9, 1922. The next day, Mustafa Kemal sent a telegram to the League of Nations saying that the Turkish population was so worked up that the Ankara Government would not be responsible for massacres.

By September 18, 1922, the occupying armies were expelled, and the Ankara-based Turkish regime, which had declared itself the legitimate government of the country on April 23, 1920, started to formalize the legal transition from the old Ottoman into the new Republican political system. On November 1, 1922, the Turkish Parliament in Ankara formally abolished the Sultanate, ending 623 years of monarchical Ottoman rule. The Treaty of Lausanne of July 24, 1923, led to international recognition of the sovereignty of the newly formed “Republic of Turkey” as the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, and the republic was officially proclaimed on October 29, 1923, in Ankara, the country’s new capital. The Lausanne treaty stipulated a population exchange between Greece and Turkey in which 1.1 million Greeks left Turkey for Greece in exchange for 380,000 Muslims transferred from Greece to Turkey. On March 3, 1924, the Ottoman Caliphate was officially abolished and the last Caliph was exiled.

Turkish War of Independence

Clockwise from top left: Delegation gathered in Sivas Congress to determine the objectives of the National Struggle; Turkish people carrying ammunition to the front; Kuva-yi Milliye infantry; Turkish horse cavalry in chase; the Turkish army entering Izmir; last troops gathered in Ankara Ulus Square leaving for the front.

Clockwise from top left: Delegation gathered in Sivas Congress to determine the objectives of the National Struggle; Turkish people carrying ammunition to the front; Kuva-yi Milliye infantry; Turkish horse cavalry in chase; The Turkish army entering Izmir; last troops gathered in Ankara Ulus Square leaving for the front.

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s Presidency

Mustafa Kemal became the republic’s first President of Turkey and subsequently introduced many radical reforms with the aim of founding a new secular republic from the remnants of its Ottoman past. The Turkish parliament presented Mustafa Kemal with the honorific surname “Atatürk” (Father of the Turks) in 1934. For the first 10 years of the new regime, the country saw a steady process of secular Westernization through Atatürk’s Reforms, which included the unification of education; the discontinuation of religious and other titles; the closure of Islamic courts and the replacement of Islamic canon law with a secular civil code modeled after Switzerland’s and a penal code modeled after Italy’s; recognition of the equality between the sexes and the granting of full political rights to women on December 5, 1934; the language reform initiated by the newly founded Turkish Language Association; replacement of the Ottoman Turkish alphabet with the new Turkish alphabet derived from the Latin alphabet; the dress law outlawing the fez); the law on family names; and many others.

34.1.4: The Armenian Genocide

In 1915, the Ottoman government decided to issue the Tehcir Law, which started the mass deportation of ethnic Armenians, particularly from the provinces close to the Ottoman-Russian front. This resulted in what became known as the Armenian Genocide.

Learning Objective

Deconstruct the arguments for and against referring to these events as a genocide

Key Points

The ethnic cleansing of Armenians during the final years of the Ottoman Empire is widely considered a genocide, with an estimated 1.5 million victims. A wave of persecution in the years 1894 to 1896 eventually culminated in the events of the Armenian Genocide in 1915 and 1916.
With World War I in progress, the Ottoman Empire accused the (Christian) Armenians as liable to ally with Imperial Russia, and used this as a pretext to deal with the entire Armenian population as an enemy within their empire.
In 1915, as the Russian Caucasus Army continued to advance in eastern Anatolia, the Ottoman government decided to issue the Tehcir Law, which started the deportation of the ethnic Armenians, particularly from the provinces close to the Ottoman-Russian front. This resulted in what became known as the Armenian Genocide.
Widespread rape, mass burnings, drownings, and other atrocities were an integral part of the genocide.
Governments of Republic of Turkey have since consistently rejected charges of genocide, typically arguing either that those Armenians who died were simply in the way of a war or that killing Armenians was justified by their individual or collective support for the enemies of the Ottoman Empire.
There have been several movements, largely led by the Armenian Diaspora, to official recognize the events of 1915-1916 as a genocide (a termed coined in 1943 in response to these same events). Though this has received widespread academic and political support, it remains controversial.

Key Terms

Red Sunday: An event during the Armenian Genocide in which leaders of the Armenian community in the Ottoman capital of Constantinople, and later other locations, were arrested and moved to two holding centers near Ankara. The order to do so was given by Minister of the Interior Talaat Pasha on April 24, 1915. On that night, the first wave of 235 to 270 Armenian intellectuals of Constantinople were arrested. Eventually, arrests and deportations totaled 2,345.
genocide: The United Nations Genocide Convention defines this as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.” The term was coined in response to the mass deportation and killing of Armenians by the Ottomans.
Tehcir Law: A law passed by the Ottoman Parliament on May 27, 1915, authorizing the deportation of the Ottoman Empire’s Armenian population. The resettlement campaign resulted in the deaths of anywhere between 800,000 and more than 1.8 million civilians in what is commonly referred to as the Armenian Genocide.

Overview

The Armenian Genocide was the Ottoman government’s systematic extermination of 1.5 million Armenians, mostly Ottoman citizens within the Ottoman Empire and its successor state, the Republic of Turkey. The starting date is conventionally considered April 24, 1915, the day that Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested, and deported 235 to 270 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders from Constantinople to Ankara, the majority of whom were eventually murdered. The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases: the wholesale killing of the able-bodied male population through massacre and subjection of army conscripts to forced labor, followed by the deportation of women, children, the elderly, and the infirm on death marches to the Syrian desert. Driven forward by military escorts, the deportees were deprived of food and water and subjected to periodic robbery, rape, and massacre. Other indigenous and Christian ethnic groups such as the Assyrians and the Ottoman Greeks were similarly targeted for extermination by the Ottoman government in the Assyrian genocide and the Greek genocide, and their treatment is considered by some historians to be part of the same genocidal policy. Most Armenian diaspora communities around the world came into being as a direct result of the genocide.

Raphael Lemkin was explicitly moved by the Armenian annihilation to define systematic and premeditated exterminations within legal parameters and coin the word genocide in 1943. The Armenian Genocide is acknowledged as one of the first modern genocides, with scholars noting the organized manner in which the Armenians were eliminated. This is the second most-studied case of genocide after the Holocaust.

Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, denies the word genocide as an accurate term for the mass killings of Armenians that began under Ottoman rule in 1915. Recently, it has been faced with repeated calls to join the 29 countries that have officially recognized the mass killings as genocide, along with most genocide scholars and historians.

Deportations, Death Marches, Rape, and Mass Burnings

By 1914, Ottoman authorities had already begun a propaganda drive to present Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire as a threat to security. An Ottoman naval officer in the War Office described the planning:

In order to justify this enormous crime the requisite propaganda material was thoroughly prepared in Istanbul. [It included such statements as] ‘the Armenians are in league with the enemy. They will launch an uprising in Istanbul, kill off the Ittihadist leaders and will succeed in opening up the straits [of the Dardanelles].’

On the night of April 23-24, 1915, known as Red Sunday, the Ottoman government rounded up and imprisoned an estimated 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders of the Ottoman capital, Constantinople, and later those in other centers, who were moved to two holding centers near Ankara. This date coincided with Allied troop landings at Gallipoli after unsuccessful Allied naval attempts to break through the Dardanelles to Constantinople in February and March 1915.

On May 29, 1915, the CUP Central Committee passed the Temporary Law of Deportation (“Tehcir Law”), giving the Ottoman government and military authorization to deport anyone it “sensed” as a threat to national security.

With the implementation of Tehcir Law, the confiscation of Armenian property and the slaughter of Armenians that ensued upon its enactment outraged much of the western world. While the Ottoman Empire’s wartime allies offered little protest, a wealth of German and Austrian historical documents has since come to attest to the witnesses’ horror at the killings and mass starvation of Armenians. In the United States, The New York Times reported almost daily on the mass murder of the Armenian people, describing the process as “systematic”, “authorized” and “organized by the government.” Theodore Roosevelt would later characterize this as “the greatest crime of the war.”

The Armenians were marched out to the Syrian town of Deir ez-Zor and the surrounding desert. There is no evidence that the Ottoman government provided the extensive facilities and supplies that would have been necessary to sustain the life of hundreds of thousands of Armenian deportees during their forced march to the Syrian desert or after. By August 1915, The New York Times repeated an unattributed report that “the roads and the Euphrates are strewn with corpses of exiles, and those who survive are doomed to certain death. It is a plan to exterminate the whole Armenian people.” Authorities were completely aware that by abandoning the Armenian deportees in the desert they were condemning them to certain death.

Rape was an integral part of the genocide; military commanders told their men to “do to [the women] whatever you wish,” resulting in widespread sexual abuse. Deportees were displayed naked in Damascus and sold as sex slaves in some areas, including Mosul according to the report of the German consul there. This constituted an important source of income for accompanying soldiers and resulted in the deaths of girls and women left behind.

Eitan Belkind was a Nili member who infiltrated the Ottoman army as an official, assigned to the headquarters of Kemal Pasha. He claims to have witnessed the burning of 5,000 Armenians.

Lt. Hasan Maruf of the Ottoman army describes how a village’s population was taken together and burned. The Commander of the Third Army Vehib’s 12-page affidavit, dated December 5, 1918, was presented in the Trabzon trial series (March 29, 1919) included in the Key Indictment. It reported a mass burning of the population of an entire village near Muş: “The shortest method for disposing of the women and children concentrated in the various camps was to burn them.” Vahakn Dadrian wrote that 80,000 Armenians in 90 villages across the Muş plain were burned in “stables and haylofts.”

While there is no consensus as to how many Armenians lost their lives during the Armenian Genocide, there is general agreement among western historians that more than 500,000 Armenians died between 1914 and 1918. Other estimates vary between 800,000 and 1,500,000.

Armenian Genocide

“Those who fell by the wayside. Scenes like this were common all over the Armenian provinces in the spring and summer months of 1915. Death in its several forms—massacre, starvation, exhaustion—destroyed the larger part of the refugees. The Turkish policy was that of extermination under the guise of deportation.”

Photo of dead Armenians lying in a field in 1915 during mass deportations.

Controversy and Terminology

According to Kemal Çiçek, the head of the Armenian Research Group at the Turkish Historical Society, in Turkey there is no official thesis on the Armenian issue. The Republic of Turkey’s formal stance is that the deaths of Armenians during the “relocation” or “deportation” cannot aptly be deemed “genocide,” a position with a plethora of diverging justifications: that the killings were not deliberate or systematically orchestrated; that the killings were justified because Armenians posed a Russian-sympathizing threat as a cultural group; that the Armenians merely starved to death; or various characterizations of marauding “Armenian gangs.”

As a response to continued denial by the Turkish state, many activists from Armenian Diaspora communities have pushed for formal recognition of the Armenian genocide from various governments around the world. Twenty-nine countries and forty-three U.S. states have adopted resolutions acknowledging the Armenian Genocide as a bona fide historical event. On March 4, 2010, a U.S. congressional panel narrowly voted that the incident was indeed genocide; within minutes the Turkish government issued a statement critical of “this resolution which accuses the Turkish nation of a crime it has not committed.”

The Armenian Genocide is widely corroborated by international genocide scholars. The International Association of Genocide Scholars, consisting of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the factuality of the Armenian Genocide.

The Armenian Genocide happened before the term “genocide” was coined. English-language words and phrases used by contemporary accounts to characterize the event include “massacres,” “atrocities,” “annihilation,” “holocaust,” “the murder of a nation,” “race extermination,” and “a crime against humanity.”

Armenians After the Genocide: Diaspora

Following the breakup of the Russian Empire in the aftermath of World War I, Armenia was briefly an independent republic from 1918 to 1920. In late 1920, the communists came to power following an invasion of Armenia by the Red Army, and in 1922, Armenia became part of the Transcaucasian SFSR of the Soviet Union, later forming the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (1936 to September 21, 1991). In 1991, Armenia declared independence from the USSR and established the second Republic of Armenia.

The modern Armenian diaspora was formed largely after World War I as a result of the Armenian Genocide. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Turkish nationalists led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk took the region of Western Armenia. As a result of the Armenian Genocide, approximately half a million Armenians were forced to flee to different parts of the world and created new Armenian communities far from their native land. Through marriage and procreation, the number of Armenians in the diaspora who trace their lineage to those Armenians who survived and fled Western Armenia is now several million. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, approximately one million Armenians have joined the diaspora largely as a result of difficult economic conditions in Armenia.

34.2: Partition of the Ottoman Empire

34.2.1: The Sykes-Picot Agreement

The partitioning of the Ottoman Empire was planned in several secret agreements made by the Allies early in the course of World War I, notably the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916.

Learning Objective

Describe the Sykes-Picot Agreement

Key Points

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a secret 1916 agreement between Great Britain and France, with Russia assenting, that defined their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in Southwestern Asia, under control of the declining Ottoman Empire.
The agreement allocated to Britain control of areas between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan, Jordan, and southern Iraq; France got control of southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon; and Russia received Istanbul, the Turkish Straits, and Armenia.
The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western and Arab relations, still mentioned when considering the region and its present-day conflicts.
Many historians consider the borders created by the Sykes-Picot Agreement “artificial” and argue they have given rise to many conflicts in the region.

Key Terms

T. E. Lawrence: A British author, archaeologist, military officer, and diplomat. He was renowned for his liaison role during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign and the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. The breadth and variety of his activities and associations, and his ability to describe them vividly in writing, earned him international fame as Lawrence of Arabia—a title used for the 1962 film based on his wartime activities.
Triple Entente: The understanding linking the Russian Empire, the French Third Republic, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland after the signing of the Anglo-Russian Entente on August 31, 1907. The understanding between the three powers, supplemented by agreements with Japan and Portugal, constituted a powerful counterweight to the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Kingdom of Italy, though Italy did not side with Germany and Austria during World War I.
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: A jihadist unrecognised state and militant group that follows a fundamentalist doctrine of Sunni Islam. This group has been designated a terrorist organization by the United Nations and many individual countries. It is widely known for its videoed beheadings of both soldiers and civilians, including journalists and aid workers, and destruction of cultural heritage sites. The United Nations holds them responsible for human rights abuses and war crimes, and Amnesty International charged the group with ethnic cleansing on a “historic scale” in northern Iraq.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret 1916 agreement between Great Britain and France, to which the Russian Empire assented. The agreement defined their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in Southwestern Asia. The agreement was based on the premise that the Triple Entente would succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiations leading to the agreement occurred between November 1915 and March 1916, and it was signed May 16, 1916. The deal was exposed to the public in 1917. The agreement is still mentioned when considering the region and its present-day conflicts.

The agreement allocated to Britain control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and an additional small area that included the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean. France got control of southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Russia received Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and Armenia. The controlling powers were left free to determine state boundaries within their areas. Further negotiation was expected to determine international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers, including Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca.

Given Ottoman defeat in 1918 and the subsequent partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, the agreement effectively divided the Ottoman Arab provinces outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of British and French control and influence. An international administration was proposed for Palestine as part of the Acre-Haifa zone, intended to be an British enclave in northern Palestine to enable access to the Mediterranean. The British gained control of the territory in 1920 and ruled it as Mandatory Palestine from 1923 until 1948. They also ruled Mandatory Iraq from 1920 until 1932, while the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon lasted from 1923 to 1946.

The terms were negotiated by British diplomat Mark Sykes and a French counterpart, François Georges-Picot. The Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes-Picot agreement; when the Bolsheviks published the agreement on November 23, 1917, after the Russian Revolution, “the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted.”

The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western and Arab relations. It negated the UK’s promises to Arabs made through Colonel T. E. Lawrence for a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria in exchange for supporting the British against the Ottoman Empire.

Sykes-Picot Agreement

Map of Sykes-Picot Agreement showing Eastern Turkey in Asia, Syria, and Western Persia, and areas of control and influence agreed between the British and the French. It was an enclosure in Paul Cambon’s letter to Sir Edward Grey, May 9, 1916.

Map of Sykes–Picot Agreement showing Eastern Turkey in Asia, Syria and Western Persia, and areas of control and influence agreed between the British and the French.

Consequences

Leading up to the centenary of Sykes-Picot in 2016, great interest was generated among the media and academia in the long-term effects of the agreement. It is frequently cited as having created “artificial” borders in the Middle East, “without any regard to ethnic or sectarian characteristics, [which] has resulted in endless conflict.” The extent to which Sykes-Picot actually shaped the borders of the modern Middle East is disputed, and scholars often attribute instability in the region to other factors.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) claims one of the goals of its insurgency is to reverse the effects of the Sykes–Picot Agreement. “This is not the first border we will break, we will break other borders,” a jihadist from the ISIL warned in a 2014 video titled End of Sykes-Picot. ISIL’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in a July 2014 speech at the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, vowed that “this blessed advance will not stop until we hit the last nail in the coffin of the Sykes-Picot conspiracy.”

Franco-German geographer Christophe Neff wrote that the geopolitical architecture founded by the Sykes–Picot Agreement disappeared in July 2014 and with it the relative protection of religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East. He claimed further that ISIL affected the geopolitical structure of the Middle East in summer 2014, particularly in Syria and Iraq. Former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin presented a similar geopolitical analysis in an editorial contribution for the French newspaper Le Monde.

34.2.2: The United Kingdom in the Middle East

During the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, the British promised the international Zionist movement their support in recreating the historic Jewish homeland in Palestine via the Balfour declaration, a move that created much political conflict, still present today.

Learning Objective

Demonstrate how British interests in the Middle East affected the development of the region

Key Points

After secret talks and agreements leading up to and during World War I, at the end of the war the Allies founded the League of Nations, which divided the Ottoman Empire into spheres of influence and legal mandates.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement, one of the major secret agreements during the war, allocated to Britain control of the coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and an additional small area that included the ports of Haifa and Acre to allow access to the Mediterranean.
The explicit aims of the British and the other allies, was “the complete and final liberation of the peopls who have for so long been oppressed by the Turks.”
Key to these discussions, especially for the British, was the fate of Palestine and the Jewish people.
During World War I, Britain produced three contrasting statements regarding its ambitions for Palestine, which created conflict at the time and ever since.
Mandatory Palestine became the resulting political entity, under the rule of Britain until 1948.

Key Terms

Balfour Declaration: A letter dated November 1917 from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. It stated British support for “a national home for the Jewish people…”
League of Nations: An intergovernmental organization founded on January 10, 1920 as a result of the Paris Peace Conference that ended the First World War. It was the first international organization whose principal mission was to maintain world peace. Its primary goals, as stated in its Covenant, included preventing wars through collective security and disarmament and settling international disputes through negotiation and arbitration. Other issues in this and related treaties included labor conditions, just treatment of native inhabitants, human and drug trafficking, the arms trade, global health, prisoners of war, and protection of minorities in Europe.
Zionism: The national movement of the Jewish people that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan, or the Holy Land). It emerged in the late 19th century in Central and Eastern Europe as a national revival movement in reaction to anti-Semitic and exclusionary nationalist movements in Europe. Soon after this, most leaders of the movement associated the main goal with creating the desired state in Palestine, then controlled by the Ottoman Empire.
Mandatory Palestine: A geopolitical entity under British administration, carved out of Ottoman Southern Syria after World War I. British civil administration in Palestine operated from 1920 until 1948.

During World War I, continued Arab disquiet over Allied intentions led in 1918 to the British “Declaration to the Seven” and the “Anglo-French Declaration,” the latter promising “the complete and final liberation of the peoples who have for so long been oppressed by the Turks, and the setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations.”

The British were awarded three mandated territories by the League of Nations after WWI: Palestine, Mesopotamia (later Iraq), and control of the coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan. A son of Sharif Hussein (who helped lead the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire), Faisal, was installed as King of Iraq, with Transjordan providing a throne for another of Hussein’s sons, Abdullah. Mandatory Palestine was placed under direct British administration, and the Jewish population was allowed to increase, initially under British protection. Most of the Arabian peninsula fell to another British ally, Ibn Saud, who created the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932.

United Kingdom and Palestine

British support for an increased Jewish presence in Palestine, though idealistically embedded in 19th-century evangelical Christian feelings that the country should play a role in Christ’s Second Coming, was primarily geopolitical. Early British political support was precipitated in the 1830s and 1840s as a result of the Eastern Crisis after Muhammad Ali occupied Syria and Palestine. Though these calculations had lapsed as Theodor Herzl’s attempts to obtain international support for his project failed, WWI led to renewed strategic assessments and political bargaining regarding the Middle and Far East.

Zionism was first discussed at the British Cabinet level on November 9, 1914, four days after Britain’s declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire. David Lloyd George, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, “referred to the ultimate destiny of Palestine.” In a discussion after the meeting with fellow Zionist and President of the Local Government Board Herbert Samuel, Lloyd George assured him that “he was very keen to see a Jewish state established in Palestine.” He spoke of Zionist aspirations for a Jewish state in Palestine and of Palestine’s geographical importance to the British Empire. Samuel wrote in his memoirs: “I mentioned that two things would be essential—that the state should be neutralized, since it could not be large enough to defend itself, and that the free access of Christian pilgrims should be guaranteed. … I also said it would be a great advantage if the remainder of Syria were annexed by France, as it would be far better for the state to have a European power as neighbour than the Turk.”

James Balfour of the Balfour Declaration declared that: “The four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”

During WWI, Britain produced three contrasting but feasibly compatible statements about their ambitions for Palestine.
Through British intelligence officer T. E. Lawrence (aka: Lawrence of Arabia), Britain supported the establishment of a united Arab state covering a large area of the Arab Middle East in exchange for Arab support of the British during the war. Thus, the United Kingdom agreed in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence that it would honor Arab independence if they revolted against the Ottomans, but the two sides had different interpretations of this agreement. In the end the UK and France divided up the area under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, an act of betrayal in the eyes of the Arabs. Further confusing the issue was the Balfour Declaration of 1917, promising British support for a Jewish “national home” in Palestine.

At the war’s end the British and French set up a joint “Occupied Enemy Territory Administration” in what had been Ottoman Syria. The British achieved legitimacy for their continued control by obtaining a mandate from the League of Nations in June 1922. The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, “until such time as they are able to stand alone.” The civil Mandate administration was formalized with the League of Nations’ consent in 1923 under the British Mandate for Palestine, which covered two administrative areas. The land west of the Jordan River, known as Mandatory Palestine, was under direct British administration until 1948. The land east of the Jordan, a semi-autonomous region known as Transjordan under the rule of the Hashemite family from the Hijaz, gained independence in 1946.

In a 2002 interview with New Statesman, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw observed “A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now, I have to deal with now, are a consequence of our colonial past… The Balfour Declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis—again, an interesting history for us but not an entirely honourable one.”

Mandatory Palestine

The formal transfer of Jerusalem to British rule. A native priest reads the proclamation from the steps of the Tower of David.

34.2.3: France in the Middle East

After World War I, Syria and Lebanon became a French protectorate under the League of Nations Mandate System, a move that was met immediately with armed resistance from Arab nationalists.

Learning Objective

Connect French politics in the Middle East to the present day

Key Points

After WWI, Syria and Lebanon became a French protectorate (thinly disguised as a League of Nations Mandate).
French control was met immediately with armed resistance, so to combat Arab nationalism France divided the Mandate area into Lebanon and four sub-states.
Although there were uprisings in the respective states, the French purposefully gave different ethnic and religious groups in the Levant their own lands in the hopes of prolonging their rule, keeping the resistance to French rule divided and fragmented.
With the fall of France in 1940 during World War II, Syria came under the control of the Vichy Government until the British and Free French invaded and occupied the country in July 1941.
Syria proclaimed its independence again in 1941 but was not recognized as an independent republic until January 1, 1944 .
France bombed Damascus and tried to arrest its democratically elected leaders, but continuing pressure from Syrian nationalist groups and the British forced the French to evacuate their last troops on April 17, 1946.

Key Terms

League of Nations mandate: The legal status for certain territories transferred from the control of one country to another following World War I, or the legal instruments that contained the internationally agreed-upon terms for administering the territory on behalf of the League of Nations. Two governing principles formed the core of this system: non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.
Franco-Syrian War: A war that took place during 1920 between the Hashemite rulers of the newly established Arab Kingdom of Syria and France. During a series of engagements that climaxed in the Battle of Maysalun, French forces defeated the forces of the Hashemite monarch King Faisal and his supporters, entering Damascus on July 24, 1920. A new pro-French government was declared in Syria on July 25.

French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon

Officially, the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon (1923−1946), was a League of Nations mandate founded after the First World War for partitioning of the Ottoman Empire concerning Syria and the Lebanon. The Mandate system was considered the antithesis to colonialism, with the governing country acting as a trustee until the inhabitants were able to stand on their own. At that point, the Mandate would terminate and an independent state would be born.

When first arriving in Lebanon, the French were received as liberators by the Christian community, but as they entered Syria, they were faced with a strong resistance, and thus the mandate region was subdivided into six states: Damascus (1920), Aleppo (1920), Alawites (1920), Jabal Druze (1921), the autonomous Sanjak of Alexandretta (1921, modern-day Hatay), and the State of Greater Lebanon (1920), which became later the modern country of Lebanon.

The drawing of those states was based in part on the sectarian makeup of Syria. However, nearly all the Syrian sects were hostile to the French mandate and the division it created, and there were numerous revolts in all of the Syrian states. Maronite Christians of Mount Lebanon, on the other hand, were a community with a dream of independence that was realized under the French; therefore, Greater Lebanon was the exception to the newly formed states.

Although there were uprisings in the respective states, the French purposefully gave different ethnic and religious groups in the Levant their own lands in the hopes of prolonging their rule. During this time of world decolonization, the French hoped to focus on fragmenting the various groups in the region, so the local population would not focus on a larger nationalist movement to dispose of colonial rule. In addition, administration of colonial governments was heavily dominated by the French. Local authorities were given very little power and did not have the authority to independently decide policy. The small amount of power that local leaders had could easily be overruled by French officials. The French did everything possible to prevent people in the Levant from developing self-sufficient governing bodies. In 1930, France extended its constitution on to Syria.

French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon

Map showing the states of the French Mandate from 1921–22.

Rise in Conflict

With the defeat of Ottomans in Syria, British troops under General Sir Edmund Allenby entered Damascus in 1918 accompanied by troops of the Arab Revolt led by Faisal, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca.

The new Arab administration formed local governments in the major Syrian cities, and the pan-Arab flag was raised all over Syria. The Arabs hoped, with faith in earlier British promises, that the new state would include all the Arab lands stretching from Aleppo in northern Syria to Aden in southern Yemen.

However, in accordance with the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France, General Allenby assigned the Arab administration only the interior regions of Syria (the eastern zone). On October 8, French troops disembarked in Beirut and occupied the Lebanese coastal region south to Naqoura (the western zone), replacing British troops there. The French immediately dissolved the local Arab governments in the region.

France demanded full implementation of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, with Syria under its control. On November 26, 1919, British forces withdrew from Damascus to avoid confrontation, leaving the Arab government to face France.

Unrest erupted in Syria when Faisal accepted a compromise with French Prime Minister Clemenceau and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann over Jewish immigration to Palestine. Anti-Hashemite manifestations broke out and Muslim inhabitants in and around Mount Lebanon revolted with fear of being incorporated into a new, mainly Christian state of Greater Lebanon. Part of France’s claim to these territories in the Levant was that France was a protector of the minority Christian communities.

On April 25, 1920, the supreme inter-Allied council that was formulating the Treaty of Sèvres granted France the mandate of Syria (including Lebanon), and granted Britain the Mandate of Palestine (including Jordan) and Iraq. Syrians reacted with violent demonstrations, and a new government headed by Ali Rida al-Rikabi was formed on May 9, 1920. The new government decided to organize general conscription and began forming an army.

On July 14, 1920, General Gouraud issued an ultimatum to Faisal, giving him the choice between submission or abdication. Realizing that the power balance was not in his favor, Faisal chose to cooperate. However, the young minister of war, Youssef al-Azmeh, refused to comply. In the resulting Franco-Syrian War, Syrian troops under al-Azmeh met French forces under General Mariano Goybet at the Battle of Maysaloun. The French won the battle in less than a day. Azmeh died on the battlefield along with many of the Syrian troops. Goybet entered Damascus on July 24, 1920. The Mandate was written in London on July 24, 1922.

End of the Mandate

With the fall of France in 1940 during World War II, Syria came under the control of the Vichy Government until the British and Free French invaded and occupied the country in July 1941. Syria proclaimed its independence again in 1941 but it wasn’t until January 1, 1944, that it was recognized as an independent republic.

On September 27, 1941, France proclaimed, by virtue of and within the framework of the Mandate, the independence and sovereignty of the Syrian State. The proclamation said “the independence and sovereignty of Syria and Lebanon will not affect the juridical situation as it results from the Mandate Act.”

There were protests in 1945 over the slow French withdrawal; the French responded to these protests with artillery. In an effort to stop the movement toward independence, French troops occupied the Syrian parliament in May 1945 and cut off Damascus’s electricity. Training their guns on Damascus’s old city, the French killed 400 Syrians and destroyed hundreds of homes. Continuing pressure from Syrian nationalist groups and the British forced the French to evacuate the last of its troops in April 1946, leaving the country in the hands of a republican government that was formed during the mandate.

Although rapid economic development followed the declaration of independence, Syrian politics from independence through the late 1960s were marked by upheaval. The early years of independence were marked by political instability.

34.2.4: The Discovery of Oil in the Middle East

The history of the discovery and production of oil in the Middle East exemplifies the “resource curse”: countries with an abundance of natural resources, specifically non-renewable resources like oil, tend to have less economic growth, less democracy, and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources.

Learning Objective

Analyze the consequences of the discovery of oil in the Middle East

Key Points

In March of 1908, after years of difficult conditions and failure, geologist George Bernard Reynolds discovered oil in Persia (modern-day Iran).
A year later, an oil company in the UK, Burmah Oil, created a subsidiary company to develop oil production in Persia, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), which started volume production of oil by 1913.
Britain’s Royal Navy was under the leadership of Winston Churchill, who wanted to shift its fuel source from coal to oil. The Navy thus became the company’s major customer and a de facto hidden power behind its success.
Iranian popular opposition to the APOC’s royalty terms whereby Iran only received 16% of net profits was widespread and created political discontent throughout the country.
In 1941, during World War II, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran, exiled Reza Shah, and put his son, Reza Pahlavi, who was friendlier to their interests, onto the throne.
Following WWII, nationalistic sentiments were on the rise in the Middle East, most notably in Iran, and the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry; at the same time, the public elected Mohammed Mossadegh as Prime Minister, causing the Abadan Crisis.
Britain was unable to subvert Mossadegh, so British and American intelligence agencies orchestrated a coup d’état to overthrow him and bring Reza Pahlavi back onto the throne.
By 1954, now with a pro-Western leader in place, oil production started again under the control of a new cartel named the “Seven Sisters,” completely based outside the Middle East.

Key Terms

“resource curse”: Also known as the paradox of plenty, refers to the fact that countries with an abundance of natural resources, specifically non-renewable resources like minerals and fuels, tend to have less economic growth, less democracy, and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources.
953 Iranian Coup: The overthrow of the Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favor of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on August 19, 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name “Operation Boot”) and the United States (under the name “Operation Ajax”).
Red Line Agreement: The name given to an agreement signed by partners in the Turkish Petroleum Company (TPC) on July 31, 1928. The aim of the agreement was to formalize the corporate structure of TPC and bind all partners to a “self-denial clause” that prohibited any of its shareholders from independently seeking oil interests in the ex-Ottoman territory. It marked the creation of an oil monopoly, or cartel, of immense influence, spanning a vast territory.
Abadan Crisis: Occurred from 1951 to 1954 after Iran nationalized the Iranian assets of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and expelled Western companies from oil refineries in the city of Abadan.

The Anglo-Persian Oil Company

The history of the oil industry in Iran is representative of the effects of the discovery of oil in the Middle East, and a prime example of the “resource curse”: the paradox that countries with an abundance of natural resources, specifically non-renewable resources like minerals and fuels, tend to have less economic growth, less democracy, and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources. It is characterized by political and military conflict, in this case caused by British and American interests in the oil industry.

On April 14, 1909, one year after geologist George Bernard Reynolds discovered oil in Persia (modern-day Iran), Burmah Oil created the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) as a subsidiary and sold shares to the public.

Volume production of Persian oil products eventually started in 1913 from a refinery built at Abadan, for its first 50 years the largest oil refinery in the world. In 1913, shortly before World War I, APOC managers negotiated with a new customer, Winston Churchill, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty of Britain. Churchill, as a part of a three-year expansion program, sought to modernize Britain’s Royal Navy by abandoning the use of coal-fired steamships and adopting oil as fuel for its ships instead. Although Britain had large reserves of coal, oil had advantages in better energy density, allowing a longer steaming range for a ship of the same bunker capacity. Further, Churchill wanted to free Britain from its reliance on the Standard Oil and Royal Dutch-Shell oil companies. In exchange for secure oil supplies for its ships, the British government injected new capital into the company and in doing so, acquired a controlling interest in APOC. The contract that was set up between the British Government and APOC was to hold for 20 years. The British government also became a de facto hidden power behind the oil company.

During this period, Iranian popular opposition to the D’Arcy oil concession and royalty terms whereby Iran only received 16% of net profits was widespread. Since industrial development and planning and other fundamental reforms were predicated on oil revenues, the government’s lack of control over the oil industry served to accentuate the Iranian Government’s misgivings regarding the manner in which APOC conducted its affairs in Iran.

In 1923, Burmah employed Winston Churchill as a paid consultant to lobby the British government to allow APOC to have exclusive rights to Persian oil resources, which were subsequently granted. In 1933, APOC made an agreement with Iran’s Reza Shah, which promised to give laborers better pay and more chance for advancement and build schools, hospitals, roads, and a telephone system. These promises were not kept. In 1935 APOC changed its name to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).

Political Instability and Military Intervention

Following Germany’s invasion of the USSR in June 1941, Britain and the Soviet Union became allies. Britain and the USSR saw the newly opened Trans-Iranian Railway as an attractive route to transport supplies, including oil, from the Persian Gulf to the Soviet Union. Britain and the USSR used concessions extracted in previous interventions to pressure Iran (and, in Britain’s case, Iraq) into allowing the use of their territory for military and logistical purposes. Increased tensions with Britain led to pro-German rallies in Tehran. In August 1941, because Reza Shah refused to expel all German nationals and come down clearly on the Allied side, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran, arrested the monarch, and sent him into exile to South Africa, taking control of Iran’s communications and the coveted railway. They put Reza Shah’s son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi onto the Iranian/Persian throne. The new Shah soon signed an agreement pledging full non-military logistical cooperation with the British and Soviets in exchange for full recognition of his country’s independence and a promise to withdraw from Iran within six months of the war’s conclusion.

Following World War II, nationalistic sentiments were on the rise in the Middle East, especially Iranian nationalism. AIOC and the pro-western Iranian government led by Prime Minister Ali Razmara initially resisted nationalist pressure to revise AIOC’s concession terms further in Iran’s favor. In May 1949, Britain offered a “supplemental oil agreement” to appease unrest in the country, but it did not satisfy Iranian nationalists since it did not give them the right to audit the AIOC’s books. On March 7, 1951, Prime Minister Haj Haj Ali Razmara was assassinated by the Fadayan-e Islam. Fadayan-e Islam supported the demands of the National Front, which held a minority of seats in Parliament, to nationalize the assets of the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

Later in March 1951, the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the AIOC and its holdings, and shortly thereafter the Iranian public elected a champion of nationalization, Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister. This led to the Abadan Crisis in which foreign countries agreed not to purchase Iranian oil under British pressure and the Abadan refinery was closed. AIOC withdrew from Iran and increased output of its other reserves in the Persian Gulf.

As the months went on, the crisis became acute. By mid-1952, an attempt by the Shah to replace Mossadegh backfired and led to riots against the Shah and perceived foreign intervention; Mossadegh returned with even greater power. At the same time, however, his coalition was weakening as Britain’s boycott of Iranian oil eliminated a major source of government revenue and strategically made Iranians poorer and thus unhappier by the day.

1953 Iranian Coup

Britain was unable to subvert Mossadegh as its embassy and officials had been evicted from Iran in October 1952. However, they successfully appealed to exaggerated anti-communist sentiments in the U.S., depicting both Mossadegh and Iran as unstable and likely to fall to communism as they weakened.

The anti-Mossadeq plan was orchestrated under the code-name “Operation Ajax” by the CIA, and “Operation Boot” by the British MI6. In August, the American CIA, with the help of bribes to politicians, soldiers, mobs, and newspapers and information from the British embassy and secret service, organized a riot which gave the Shah an excuse to remove Mossadegh.

The Shah seized the opportunity and issued an edict forcefully removing the immensely popular and democratically-elected Mossadegh from power when General Fazlollah Zahedi led tanks to Mossadegh’s residence and arrested him. On December 21, 1953, he was sentenced to death, but his sentence was later commuted to three years’ solitary confinement in a military prison followed by life in prison.

1953 Iranian Coup

Tanks in the streets of Tehran after the coup, 1953

Photo of a tank covered by men celebrating the Coup in the streets of Tehran, 1953

With a pro-Western Shah and the new pro-Western Prime Minister, Fazlollah Zahedi, Iranian oil began flowing again and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which changed its name to British Petroleum in 1954, tried to return to its old position. However, public opinion was so opposed that the new government could not permit it.

Under pressure from the U.S., British Petroleum was forced to accept membership in a consortium of companies that would bring Iranian oil back on the international market. It was incorporated in London in 1954 as a holding company called Iranian Oil Participants. This group of companies, all based outside the Middle East, came to be known as the “Seven Sisters” or the “Consortium for Iran” cartel and dominated the global petroleum industry from the mid-1940s to the 1970s. Until the oil crisis of 1973, the members of the Seven Sisters controlled around 85% of the world’s known oil reserves. Afterward, the oil industry began to nationalize throughout the Middle East.

34.3: Israel and Palestine

34.3.1: Zionism

Zionism, the national movement for a Jewish homeland that resulted in the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, has been controversial since its beginnings in the late 19th century.

Learning Objective

Explain the arguments for and against Zionism

Key Points

After thousands of years of the Jewish diaspora, with Jews living as minorities in countries across the globe, a movement called Zionism, with the goal of establishing a Jewish homeland and sovereign state, emerged in the late 19th century.
The political movement was formally established by the Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl in 1897 following the publication of his book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State).
The movement was energized by rising anti-semitism in Europe and anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia and aimed at encouraging Jewish migration to Ottoman Palestine.
The movement was eventually successful in establishing Israel on May 14, 1948, as the homeland for the Jewish people.
Advocates of Zionism view it as a national liberation movement for the repatriation to their ancestral homeland of a persecuted people residing as minorities in a variety of nations.
Critics of Zionism view it as a colonialist, racist, and exceptionalist ideology that led advocates to violence during Mandatory Palestine, followed by the exodus of Palestinians and the subsequent denial of their human rights.

Key Terms

pogrom: A violent riot aimed at the massacre or persecution of an ethnic or religious group, particularly one aimed at Jews. The term originally entered the English language to describe 19th and 20th century attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire.
Theodor Herzl: An Austro-Hungarian journalist, playwright, political activist, and writer. He was one of the fathers of modern political Zionism. He formed the World Zionist Organization and promoted Jewish migration to Palestine in an effort to form a Jewish state (Israel).
Ashkenazi Jews: A Jewish diaspora population who coalesced as a distinct community in the Holy Roman Empire around the end of the first millennium. The traditional diaspora language is Yiddish.

Zionism: A Jewish Homeland

Zionism is the national movement of the Jewish people that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan, or the Holy Land).

After almost two millennia of the Jewish diaspora residing in various countries without a national state, the Zionist movement was founded in the late 19th century by secular Jews, largely as a response by Ashkenazi Jews to rising antisemitism in Europe, exemplified by the Dreyfus affair in France and the anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire. The political movement was formally established by the Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl in 1897 following the publication of his book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State). At that time, the movement sought to encourage Jewish migration to Ottoman Palestine.

Herzl considered antisemitism an eternal feature of all societies in which Jews lived as minorities, and that only a separation could allow Jews to escape eternal persecution. “Let them give us sovereignty over a piece of the Earth’s surface, just sufficient for the needs of our people, then we will do the rest!” he proclaimed.

Herzl proposed two possible destinations to colonize, Argentina and Palestine. He preferred Argentina for its vast and sparsely populated territory and temperate climate, but conceded that Palestine would have greater attraction because of the historic ties of Jews with that area. He also accepted to evaluate Joseph Chamberlain’s proposal for possible Jewish settlement in Great Britain’s East African colonies.

Theodore Herzl

Theodor Herzl is considered the founder of the Zionist movement. In his 1896 book Der Judenstaat, he envisioned the founding of a future independent Jewish state during the 20th century.

A photo of the profile of Theodore Herzl.

Although initially one of several Jewish political movements offering alternative responses to assimilation and antisemitism, Zionism expanded rapidly. In its early stages, supporters considered setting up a Jewish state in the historic territory of Palestine. After World War II and the destruction of Jewish life in Central and Eastern Europe where these alternative movements were rooted, Zionism became the dominant view about a Jewish national state.

Creating an alliance with Great Britain and securing support for Jewish emigration to Palestine, Zionists also recruited European Jews to immigrate there, especially those who lived in areas of the Russian Empire where anti-semitism was prevalent. The alliance with Britain was strained as the latter realized the implications of the Jewish movement for Arabs in Palestine, but the Zionists persisted. The movement was eventually successful in establishing Israel on May 14, 1948, as the homeland for the Jewish people. The proportion of the world’s Jews living in Israel has steadily grown since the movement emerged.

Until 1948, the primary goals of Zionism were the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, in-gathering of the exiles, and liberation of Jews from the antisemitic discrimination and persecution they experienced during their diaspora. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism continues primarily to advocate on behalf of Israel and to address threats to its continued existence and security.

Major aspects of the Zionist idea are represented in the Israeli Declaration of Independence:

The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.

After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.

Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses.

Advocates of Zionism view it as a national liberation movement for the repatriation of a persecuted people residing as minorities in a variety of nations to their ancestral homeland. Critics of Zionism view it as a colonialist, racist, and exceptionalist ideology that led advocates to violence during Mandatory Palestine, followed by the exodus of Palestinians and the subsequent denial of their human rights.

Opposition and Controversy

Zionism has been characterized as colonialism and criticized for promoting unfair confiscation of land, expelling and causing violence towards the Palestinians. Others view Zionism not as colonialist movement, but as a national movement that is contending with that of Palestine. David Hoffman rejected the claim that Zionism is a “settler-colonial undertaking” and instead characterized Zionism as a national program of affirmative action, adding that there is unbroken Jewish presence in Israel back to antiquity.

The first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, stated that “There will be no discrimination among citizens of the Jewish state on the basis of race, religion, sex, or class.” However, critics of Zionism consider it a racist movement. According to historian Avi Shlaim, throughout its history up to present day, Zionism “is replete with manifestations of deep hostility and contempt towards the indigenous population.” Some criticisms of Zionism claim that Judaism’s notion of the “chosen people” is the source of racism in Zionism.

In December 1973, the UN passed a series of resolutions condemning South Africa and included a reference to an “unholy alliance between Portuguese colonialism, Apartheid and Zionism.” At the time there was little cooperation between Israel and South Africa, although the two countries would develop a close relationship during the 1970s. Parallels have also been drawn between aspects of South Africa’s apartheid regime and certain Israeli policies toward the Palestinians that are seen as manifestations of racism in Zionist thinking.

Some critics of anti-Zionism have argued that opposition to Zionism can be hard to distinguish from antisemitism, and that criticism of Israel may be used as an excuse to express viewpoints that might otherwise be considered antisemitic.

On the other hand, anti-Zionist writers such as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Michael Marder, and Tariq Ali have argued that the characterization of anti-Zionism as antisemitic is inaccurate, that it sometimes obscures legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies and actions, and that it is sometimes used as a political ploy in order to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel.

Some antisemites have alleged that Zionism was or is part of a Jewish plot to take control of the world. One particular version of these allegations, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” achieved global notability. The protocols are fictional minutes of an imaginary meeting by Jewish leaders of this plot. Analysis and proof of their fraudulent origin goes as far back as 1921. A 1920 German version was extensively used as propaganda by the Nazis and remains widely distributed in the Arab world. The protocols are cited in the 1988 Hamas charter.

34.3.2: The Partitioning of Palestine

The UN Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the United Nations that recommended a partition of Mandatory Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish States. It was rejected by the Palestinians, leading to a civil war and the end of the British Mandate.

Learning Objective

Analyze the partitioning of Palestine

Key Points

In 1923, the land of Palestine, previously under the control of the Ottoman Empire, was made a British Mandate by the League of Nations.
During WWI, the British made conflicting promises to the Arab and Jewish populations of Palestine.
In 1937, following a six-month-long Arab General Strike, the British established the Peel Commission, which concluded that the Mandate was not working and proposed a partition of Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab States. The proposal was rejected by the Palestinians.
At the beginning of WWII, in 1939, the British put a limit on the immigration of Jews into Palestine.
After World War II, in August 1945 President Truman asked for the admission of 100,000 Holocaust survivors into Palestine, but the British maintained limits on Jewish immigration, which led to a new inquiry into partitioning Palestine.
By 1947, the British announced their desire to terminate the Palestine Mandate and placed the Question of Palestine before the United Nations, which developed a non-binding recommendation for independent Arab and Jewish states.
The proposal was rejected by the Palestinians and civil war broke out.

Key Terms

Arab League: A regional organization of Arab countries in and around North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Arabia. It was formed in Cairo on March 22, 1945 with six members: Kingdom of Egypt, Kingdom of Iraq, Transjordan (renamed Jordan in 1949), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.
Peel Commission: A British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by Lord Peel, appointed in 1936 to investigate the causes of unrest in Mandatory Palestine. It was administered by Britain following the six-month-long Arab general strike in Mandatory Palestine.
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine: A 1947 proposal by the United Nations that recommended a partition of Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British Mandate.
Jihad: An Islamic term referring to the religious duty of Muslims to maintain and spread the religion.

Background and Early Proposals for Partition

The British administration was formalized by the League of Nations under the Palestine Mandate in 1923 as part of the Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. The Mandate reaffirmed the 1917 British commitment to the Balfour Declaration for the establishment in Palestine of a “National Home” for the Jewish people, with the prerogative to carry it out. A British census of 1918 estimated 700,000 Arabs and 56,000 Jews.

In 1937, following a six-month Arab General Strike and armed insurrection that aimed to pursue national independence and secure the country from foreign control, the British established the Peel Commission. The Jewish population had been attacked during the Arab revolt, leading to the idea that the two populations could not be reconciled. The Commission concluded that the Mandate had become unworkable, and recommended Partition into an Arab state linked to Transjordan, a small Jewish state, and a mandatory zone.

To address problems arising from the presence of national minorities in each area, the Commission suggested a land and population transfer involving the transfer of some 225,000 Arabs living in the envisaged Jewish state and 1,250 Jews living in a future Arab state, a measure deemed compulsory “in the last resort.” The Palestinian Arab leadership rejected partition as unacceptable, given the inequality in the proposed population exchange and the transfer of one-third of Palestine, including most of its best agricultural land, to recent immigrants. The Jewish leaders, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion, persuaded the Zionist Congress to lend provisional approval to the Peel recommendations as a basis for further negotiations. In a letter to his son in October 1937, Ben-Gurion explained that partition would be a first step to “possession of the land as a whole.”

The British Woodhead Commission was set up to examine the practicality of partition. The Peel plan was rejected and two possible alternatives were considered. In 1938 the British government issued a policy statement declaring that “the political, administrative and financial difficulties involved in the proposal to create independent Arab and Jewish States inside Palestine are so great that this solution of the problem is impracticable.” Representatives of Arabs and Jews were invited to London for the St. James Conference, which proved unsuccessful.

MacDonald White Paper of May 1939 declared that it was “not part of [the British government’s] policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State,” and sought to limit Jewish immigration to Palestine and restricted Arab land sales to Jews. However, the League of Nations commission held that the White Paper was in conflict with the terms of the Mandate as put forth in the past. The outbreak of the Second World War suspended any further deliberations. The Jewish Agency hoped to persuade the British to restore Jewish immigration rights and cooperated with the British in the war against Fascism. Aliyah Bet was organized to spirit Jews out of Nazi-controlled Europe despite British prohibitions. The White Paper also led to the formation of Lehi, a small Jewish organization that opposed the British.

After World War II, in August 1945 President Truman asked for the admission of 100,000 Holocaust survivors into Palestine, but the British maintained limits on Jewish immigration in line with the 1939 White Paper. The Jewish community rejected the restriction on immigration and organized an armed resistance. These actions and United States pressure to end the anti-immigration policy led to the establishment of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry. In April 1946, the Committee reached a unanimous decision for the immediate admission of 100,000 Jewish refugees from Europe into Palestine, a repeal of the White Paper restrictions of land sale to Jews, that the country be neither Arab nor Jewish, and the extension of U.N. Trusteeship. U.S. endorsed the Commission findings concerning Jewish immigration and land purchase restrictions, while the U.K. conditioned its implementation on U.S. assistance in case of another Arab revolt. In effect, the British continued to carry out White Paper policy. The recommendations triggered violent demonstrations in the Arab states and calls for a Jihad and an annihilation of all European Jews in Palestine.

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

By 1947, the British announced their desire to terminate the Palestine Mandate and placed the Question of Palestine before the United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations. The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on May 15, 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and surveyed the situation in Palestine, then issued a report on August 31 recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem placed under international administration.

On November 29, the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, to adopt a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan of Partition. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. The partition plan required that the proposed states grant full civil rights to all people within their borders regardless of race, religion, or gender. Both the United States and Soviet Union supported the resolution. The five members of the Arab League, who were voting members at the time, voted against the Plan.

The Jewish Agency, the Jewish state-in-formation, accepted the plan, and nearly all Jews in Palestine rejoiced at the news.

The partition plan was rejected out of hand by Palestinian Arab leadership and by most of the Arab population. Meeting in Cairo on November and December 1947, the Arab League adopted a series of resolutions endorsing a military solution to the conflict.

Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to enforce it, arguing it was not accepted by the Arabs. Britain also refused to share the administration of Palestine with the UN Palestine Commission during the transitional period. In September 1947, the British government announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end at midnight on May 14, 1948.

Some Jewish organizations also opposed the proposal. Irgun leader Menachem Begin announced, “The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature by institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.” These views were publicly rejected by the majority of the nascent Jewish state.

Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, a civil war broke out and the UN plan was not implemented.

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine 1947

A map of the UN plan for partitioning Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish States and a Special International Regime for the city of Jerusalem.

The proposed plan divided Palestine into three parts: an Arab State, a Jewish State and the City of Jerusalem, linked by extraterritorial crossroads. The proposed Arab State would include the central and part of western Galilee, with the town of Acre, the hill country of Samaria and Judea, an enclave at Jaffa, and the southern coast stretching from north of Isdud (now Ashdod) and encompassing what is now the Gaza Strip, with a section of desert along the Egyptian border. The proposed Jewish State would include the fertile Eastern Galilee, the Coastal Plain, stretching from Haifa to Rehovot and most of the Negev desert, including the southern outpost of Umm Rashrash (now Eilat). The Jerusalem Corpus Separatum included Bethlehem and the surrounding areas.

34.3.3: The Jewish State

The “Jewish state” is a political term used to describe the nation state of Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people, but the religious versus secular usage of the term and its possible exclusionary implications have been debated since the founding of Israel in 1948.

Learning Objective

Define and describe “the Jewish State”

Key Points

Since the late 19th century with the rise of Zionism, there were waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine, but during WWII and the Holocaust, the urgency of Jewish migration out of Europe heightened in conflict with the limits placed on Jewish immigration to Palestine in 1939.
After World War II, Britain found itself in intense conflict with the Jewish community over immigration, as well as continued conflict with the Arab community.
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine, which was rejected by the Palestinians and resulted the outbreak of civil war.
On May 14, 1948, the day before the expiration of the British Mandate, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, declared “the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.”
The following day, the armies of four Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, and Iraq—entered what had been British Mandatory Palestine, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War which continued for one year until a cease-fire.
The term “Jewish state” has been in common usage in the media since the establishment of Israel, and the term was used interchangeably with Israel.

Key Terms

Eretz-Israel: The traditional Jewish name for an area of indefinite geographical extension in the Southern Levant. Related biblical, religious, and historical English terms include the Land of Canaan, the Promised Land, the Holy Land, and Palestine.
Nuremberg Laws: Antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany introduced on September 15, 1935, by the Reichstag at a special meeting convened at the annual Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi Party (NSDAP). The two laws were the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour, which forbade marriages and extramarital intercourse between Jews and Germans and the employment of German females under 45 in Jewish households, and the Reich Citizenship Law, which declared that only those of German or related blood were eligible to be Reich citizens. The remainder were classed as state subjects, without citizenship rights.
David Ben-Gurion: The primary founder of the State of Israel and the first Prime Minister of Israel. On May 14, 1948, he formally proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel and was the first to sign the Israeli Declaration of Independence, which he helped write. He led Israel during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and united the various Jewish militias into the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Subsequently, he became known as “Israel’s founding father.”

The Founding of Israel

In 1933, Hitler came to power in Germany, and in 1935 the Nuremberg Laws made German Jews (and later Austrian and Czech Jews) stateless refugees. Similar rules were applied by the many Nazi allies in Europe. The subsequent growth in Jewish migration and the impact of Nazi propaganda aimed at the Arab world led to the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. Britain established the Peel Commission to investigate the situation. The commission did not consider the situation of Jews in Europe, but called for a two-state solution and compulsory transfer of populations. Britain rejected this solution and instead implemented the White Paper of 1939. This planned to end Jewish immigration by 1944 and allow no more than 75,000 additional Jewish migrants. This was disastrous to European Jews, who were already gravely discriminated against and in need of refuge. The British maintained this policy until the end of the Mandate.

During World War II, as the horrors of the Holocaust became known, the Zionist leadership formulated the One Million Plan, a reduction from Ben-Gurion’s previous target of two million immigrants. Following the end of the war, a massive wave of stateless Jews, mainly Holocaust survivors, began migrating to Palestine in small boats in defiance of British rules. The Holocaust united much of the rest of world Jewish community behind the Zionist project. The British either imprisoned these Jews in Cyprus or sent them to the British-controlled Allied Occupation Zones in Germany. The British, having faced the 1936–1939 Arab revolt against mass Jewish immigration into Palestine, were now facing opposition by Zionist groups in Palestine for subsequent restrictions.

After World War II, Britain found itself in intense conflict with the Jewish community over Jewish immigration limits, as well as continued conflict with the Arab community over limit levels. The Haganah, a Jewish paramilitary organization, prepared an armed struggle against British rule.

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine. This specified borders for new Arab and Jewish states and an area of Jerusalem to be administered by the UN under an international regime. The end of the British Mandate for Palestine was set for midnight on May 14, 1948, but the Palestinians rejected the plan.

On December 1, 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, and Arab gangs began attacking Jewish targets. The Jews were initially on the defensive as civil war broke out, but in early April 1948 moved onto the offensive. The Arab Palestinian economy collapsed and 250,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled.

On May 14, 1948, the day before the expiration of the British Mandate, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, declared “the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.” The only reference in the text of the Declaration to the borders of the new state is the use of the term Eretz-Israel (“Land of Israel”).

Declaration of the State of Israel

David Ben-Gurion proclaiming the Israeli Declaration of Independence on May 14, 1948.

David Ben-Gurion proclaiming the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948. He stands at a conference table, surrounded by people. Above him hangs a picture of Theodor Herzl.

The following day, the armies of four Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, and Iraq—entered what had been British Mandatory Palestine, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Contingents from Yemen, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Sudan also joined the war. The purpose of the invasion was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state at inception, and some Arab leaders talked about driving the Jews into the sea. According to Benny Morris, Jews felt that the invading Arab armies aimed to slaughter the Jews. The Arab League stated that the invasion was to restore law and order and prevent further bloodshed.

After a year of fighting, a ceasefire was declared and temporary borders, known as the Green Line, were established. Jordan annexed what became known as the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip. The United Nations estimated that more than 700,000 Palestinians were expelled by or fled from advancing Israeli forces during the conflict—what would become known in Arabic as the Nakba (“catastrophe”).

The Jewish State

The “Jewish state” is a political term used to describe the nation state of Israel. The state of Israel defined itself in its declaration of independence as a “Jewish state,” a term that appeared in the United Nations partition decision of 1947. The term has been in common usage in the media since the establishment of Israel and is used interchangeably with Israel.

Since its establishment, Israel has passed many laws which reflect on the Jewish identity and values of the majority (about 75% in 2016) of its citizens. However, the secular versus religious debate in Israel in particular has focused debate on the Jewish nature of the state. Another aspect of the debate is the status of minorities in Israel, most notably the Israeli Arab population.

There has been ongoing debate in Israel about whether the state should recognize more Jewish culture, encourage Judaism in schools, and enshrine certain laws of Kashrut and Shabbat observance. This debate reflects a historical divide within Zionism and among the Jewish citizens of Israel, which has large secular and traditional/Orthodox minorities as well as a majority that lies somewhere in between.

Secular Zionism, the historically dominant stream, is rooted in a concept of the Jews as a people with a right to self-determination, and to have a state where they would be unafraid of antisemitic attacks and live in peace.

The notion that Israel should be constituted in the name of and maintain a special relationship with a particular group of people, the Jewish people, has drawn much controversy vis-à-vis minority groups living in Israel – the large number of Muslim and Christian Palestinians residing in Israel and, to the extent that those territories are claimed to be governed as part of Israel and not as areas under military occupation, in the West Bank and Gaza. For example, the Israeli National Anthem, Hatikvah, refers to Jews by name as well as alluding to the concept of Zionism, and contains no mention of Palestinian Arab culture. This anthem therefore excludes non-Jews from its narrative of national identity. Similar criticism has been made of the Israeli flag which resembles the Tallit (a Jewish prayer shawl) and features a Star of David, universally acknowledged as a symbol of Judaism. Critics of Israel as a Jewish state, particularly a nation state, have suggested that it should adopt more inclusive and neutral symbolism.

34.3.4: Palestinian Refugees

During the 1948 Palestine War, around 85% (720,000 people) of the Palestinian Arab population of what became Israel were expelled from their homes, fleeing to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan.

Learning Objective

Trace the Palestinian refugee populations in places such as Jordan

Key Points

During the Palestine War of 1948, the first phase of the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, 85% of the Palestinian Arab population fled from their homes in what became known as the Palestinian Exodus of 1948.
There is heated debate among historians and politicians as to the causes of the Exodus, and the status of this debate has bearing on the claim of Palestinians to their land.
The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing, while others dispute this charge.
Displaced Palestinian Arabs, known as Palestinian refugees, were settled in Palestinian refugee camps throughout the Arab world, with most fleeing to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan.
Most Arab nations denied citizenship to the Palestinian refugees, except in Jordan, where most have citizenship or the equivalent rights of citizens.
In a 2007 study, Amnesty International denounced the “appalling social and economic condition” of Palestinians in Lebanon.

Key Terms

Palestinian Exodus of 1948: Also known as the Nakba, this event occurred when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes during the 1948 Palestine war.
refugee: A displaced person who has been forced to cross national boundaries and cannot return home safely because of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
Gaza Strip: A small, self-governing Palestinian territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, bordering Egypt on the southwest for 6.8 miles and Israel on the east and north along a 32-mile border. Together with the West Bank, it comprises the territories claimed by the Palestinians as the State of Palestine.
West Bank: A landlocked territory near the Mediterranean coast of Western Asia, forming the bulk of the Palestinian territories. It shares a border with Jordan across the Jordan River.

Palestinian Exodus of 1948

During the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War that followed, around 750,000 Palestinian Arabs (85% of the population) fled or were expelled from their homes, out of approximately 1.2 million Arabs living in former British Mandate of Palestine. This event was known as the Nakba (Arabic for “disaster” or “catastrophe”).

This number did not include displaced Palestinians inside Israeli-held territory. More than 400 Arab villages and about ten Jewish villages and neighborhoods were depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict, most of during 1948. According to estimates based on earlier census, the total Muslim population in Palestine was 1,143,336 in 1947. After the war, around 156,000 Arabs remained in Israel and became Israeli citizens.

The causes of the exodus are a subject of fundamental disagreement between historians. Factors involved include Jewish military advances, destruction of Arab villages, psychological warfare, and fears of another massacre by Zionist militias after the Deir Yassin massacre, which caused many to leave out of panic; direct expulsion orders by Israeli authorities; the voluntary self-removal of the wealthier classes; collapse in Palestinian leadership and Arab evacuation orders; and an unwillingness to live under Jewish control.

In the years after, a series of laws passed by the first Israeli government prevented Arabs from returning to their homes or claiming their property. Most remained refugees, as do their descendants. The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing, while others dispute this charge.

The Palestinian refugee problem and debate about the Palestinian right of return are also major issues of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Palestinians and their supporters have staged annual demonstrations and commemorations on May 15 of each year, which is known to them as “Nakba Day.” The popularity and number of participants in these annual Nakba demonstrations has varied over time.

Palestinian Exodus

Palestine refugees making their way from their former homes in Galilee, October–November 1948

Palestine refugees making their way from Galilee in October–November 1948

Life After the Exodus

Displaced Palestinian Arabs, known as Palestinian refugees, were settled in Palestinian refugee camps throughout the Arab world. Most fled to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. The United Nations established UNRWA as a relief and human development agency tasked with providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinian refugees. Arab nations refused to absorb Palestinian refugees, instead keeping them in refugee camps while insisting that they be allowed to return.

Refugee status was also passed to their descendants, who were also largely denied citizenship in Arab states except in Jordan. The Arab League instructed its members to deny Palestinians citizenship “to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right of return to their homeland.” More than 1.4 million Palestinians still live in 58 recognized refugee camps, while more than 5 million Palestinians live outside Israel and the Palestinian territories.

More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan. Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship. The percentage of Palestinian refugees living in refugee camps to those who settled outside the camps is the lowest of all UNRWA fields of operations. Palestine refugees are allowed access to public services and health care, as a result, refugee camps are becoming more like poor city suburbs than refugee camps. Most Palestine refugees moved out of the camps to other parts of the country. Following the capture of the West Bank by Israel in 1967, Jordan revoked the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians to thwart any attempt to permanently resettle from the West Bank to Jordan. West Bank Palestinians with family in Jordan or Jordanian citizenship were issued yellow cards guaranteeing them all the rights of Jordanian citizenship if requested.

100,000 Palestinians fled to Lebanon because of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and were not allowed to return. As of January 2015, there are 452,669 registered refugees in Lebanon.

In a 2007 study, Amnesty International denounced the “appalling social and economic condition” of Palestinians in Lebanon. Until 2005, Palestinians were forbidden to work in over 70 jobs because they do not have Lebanese citizenship, but this was later reduced to around 20 as of 2007 after liberalization laws. In 2010, Palestinians were granted the same rights to work as other foreigners in the country.

Lebanon gave citizenship to about 50,000 Christian Palestinian refugees during the 1950s and 1960s. In the mid-1990s, about 60,000 Shiite Muslim refugees were granted citizenship. This caused protest from Maronite authorities, leading to citizenship being given to all Christian refugees who were not already citizens.

34.3.5: The Six-Day War

The Six-Day War, which had its origins in the ongoing tense relations between Israel and its neighboring Arab nations, was a decisive victory for Israel, tripling its territory from before the war.

Learning Objective

Describe the events of the Six-Day War

Key Points

Relations between Israel and its neighboring Arab nations had never fully normalized following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, fought immediately after the Israel declared itself an independent nation-state.
Issues such as the Palestinian refugee crisis and the Suez Crisis of 1956 created an antagonistic stance toward Israel throughout the Arab world, and by June 1967, tensions were at their height.
In reaction to the mobilization of Egyptian forces along the Israeli border in the Sinai Peninsula, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields, which destroyed nearly the entire Egyptian air force .
Egypt, pretending they won the initial battles, convinced Jordan and then Syria to enter the war, which also resulted in Israeli victories.
At the end of the war, six days later, Israel gained control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.
Israeli morale and international prestige was greatly increased by the outcome of the war, but their over-confidence may have contributed to future military losses against Egypt in the Yom Kippur War of 1973.

Key Terms

Yom Kippur War: A war fought by a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria against Israel from October 6 to 25, 1973. The fighting mostly took place in the Sinai and the Golan Heights, territories that had been occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat wanted also to reopen the Suez Canal. Neither specifically planned to destroy Israel, although the Israeli leaders could not be sure of that.
1948 Arab–Israeli War: A war between the State of Israel and a military coalition of Arab states, forming the second stage of the 1948 Palestine war. The ongoing civil war between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine transformed into an interstate conflict between Israel and the Arab states following the Israeli Declaration of Independence the previous day. A combined invasion by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, entered Palestine.

The Six-Day War, also known as the June War, 1967 Arab–Israeli War, or Third Arab–Israeli War, was fought between June 5 and 10, 1967, by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt (known at the time as the United Arab Republic), Jordan, and Syria.

Relations between Israel and its neighbors had never fully normalized following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. In the period leading up to June 1967, tensions became dangerously heightened. In reaction to the mobilization of Egyptian forces along the Israeli border in the Sinai Peninsula, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields. The Egyptians were caught by surprise, and nearly the entire Egyptian air force was destroyed with few Israeli losses, giving the Israelis air superiority. Simultaneously, the Israelis launched a ground offensive into the Gaza Strip and the Sinai, which again caught the Egyptians by surprise. After some initial resistance, Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered the evacuation of the Sinai. Israeli forces rushed westward in pursuit of the Egyptians, inflicted heavy losses, and conquered the Sinai.

Nasser induced Syria and Jordan to begin attacks on Israel by using the initially confused situation to claim that Egypt defeated the Israeli air strike. Israeli counterattacks resulted in the seizure of East Jerusalem and the West Bank from the Jordanians, while Israel’s retaliation against Syria resulted in its occupation of the Golan Heights.

On June 11, a ceasefire was signed. Arab casualties were far heavier than those of Israel: fewer than a thousand Israelis were killed compared to over 20,000 from the Arab forces. Israel’s military success was attributed to the element of surprise, an innovative and well-executed battle plan, and the poor quality and leadership of the Arab forces. As a result of the war, Israel gained control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Israeli morale and international prestige were greatly increased by the outcome of the war, and the area under Israeli control tripled. However, the speed and ease of Israel’s victory would lead to a dangerous overconfidence within the ranks of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), contributing to initial Arab successes in the subsequent 1973 Yom Kippur War. The displacement of civilian populations resulting from the war would have long-term consequences, as 300,000 Palestinians fled the West Bank and about 100,000 Syrians left the Golan to become refugees. Across the Arab world, Jewish minority communities were expelled, with refugees going to Israel or Europe.

Results of the Six-Day War

Territory held by Israel before and after the Six Day War. Israel gained control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.

Map of Israel and the land seized during the Six-Day War, including the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights.

Origins of the Conflict

The origins of the Six-Day War include both longstanding and immediate issues. At this time, the earlier foundation of Israel, the resulting Palestinian refugee issue, and Israel’s participation in the invasion of Egypt during the Suez crisis of 1956 were significant grievances for the Arab world. Arab nationalists, led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, continued to be hostile to Israel’s existence and made grave threats against its Jewish population. By the mid-1960s, relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors had deteriorated to the extent that a number of border clashes had taken place.

In April 1967, Syria shot at an Israeli tractor plowing in the demilitarized zone, which escalated to a prewar aerial clash. In May 1967, following misinformation about Israeli intentions provided by the Soviet Union, Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers who had been stationed in the Sinai Peninsula since the Suez conflict, and announced a blockade of Israel’s access to the Red Sea (international waters) via the Straits of Tiran, which Israel considered an act of war. Tension escalated, with both sides’ armies mobilizing. Less than a month later, Israel launched a surprise strike which began the Six-Day War.

Aftermath

The political importance of the 1967 War was immense; Israel demonstrated that it was able and willing to initiate strategic strikes that could change the regional balance. Egypt and Syria learned tactical lessons and would launch an attack in 1973 in an attempt to reclaim their lost territory.

Following the war, Israel experienced a wave of national euphoria, and the press praised the military’s performance for weeks afterward. New “victory coins” were minted to celebrate. In addition, the world’s interest in Israel grew, and the country’s economy, which had been in crisis before the war, flourished due to an influx of tourists and donations, as well as the extraction of oil from the Sinai’s wells.

In the Arab nations, populations of minority Jews faced persecution and expulsion following the Israeli victory. According to historian and ambassador Michael B. Oren:

Mobs attacked Jewish neighborhoods in Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Morocco, burning synagogues and assaulting residents. A pogrom in Tripoli, Libya, left 18 Jews dead and 25 injured; the survivors were herded into detention centers. Of Egypt’s 4,000 Jews, 800 were arrested, including the chief rabbis of both Cairo and Alexandria, and their property sequestered by the government. The ancient communities of Damascus and Baghdad were placed under house arrest, their leaders imprisoned and fined. A total of 7,000 Jews were expelled, many with merely a satchel.

Following the war, Israel made an offer for peace that included the return of most of the recently captured territories. According to Chaim Herzog:

On June 19, 1967, the National Unity Government [of Israel] voted unanimously to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace agreements. The Golans would have to be demilitarized and special arrangement would be negotiated for the Straits of Tiran. The government also resolved to open negotiations with King Hussein of Jordan regarding the Eastern border.

In September, the Khartoum Arab Summit resolved that there would be “no peace, no recognition and no negotiation with Israel.” However, as Avraham Sela notes, the Khartoum conference effectively marked a shift in the perception of the conflict by the Arab states away from one centered on the question of Israel’s legitimacy to one focusing on territories and boundaries.

34.4: The Monarchies of the Middle East

34.4.1: Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy organized around Sunni Islam and home to the second largest oil reserves in the world, has enjoyed friendly relations with the West, especially the United States.

Learning Objective

Review the history of the Saudi royal family and how they have stayed in power

Key Points

Saudi Arabia, which was unified from four regions in 1932 by its first king, Ibn Saud, was once one of the poorest nations in the world, but quickly became one of the wealthiest in the Arab world after the discovery of massive oil reserves in 1938.
Since then, its stated foreign policy objectives are to maintain its security and its paramount position on the Arabian Peninsula, and as the world’s largest exporter of oil, to maintain cooperative relations with other oil-producing and major oil-consuming countries.
Consequently, it has enjoyed good relations with the West, especially the United States, as a strategic energy and security ally.
Saudi Arabia is an absolute hereditary monarchy, governed by a king, and the royal family dominates the political system.
The royal family’s vast numbers allow it to control most of the kingdom’s important posts and be involved and present at all levels of government.
The ultraconservative Wahhabi religious movement within Sunni Islam has been called “the predominant feature of Saudi culture,” with its global spread largely financed by the oil and gas trade.

Key Terms

Sunni Islam: The largest denomination of Islam. Its name comes from the word Sunnah, referring to the exemplary behavior of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The differences between this sect and Shia Muslims arose from a disagreement over the choice of Muhammad’s successor and subsequently acquired broader political significance, as well as theological and juridical dimensions.
absolute monarchy: A form of monarchy in which one ruler has supreme authority that is not restricted by any written laws, legislature, or customs. These are often, but not always, hereditary monarchies. In contrast, in constitutional monarchies, the head of state’s authority derives from and is legally bounded or restricted by a constitution or legislature.

Saudi Arabia, officially known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is an Arab state in Western Asia constituting the bulk of the Arabian Peninsula. The area of modern-day Saudi Arabia formerly consisted of four distinct regions: Hejaz, Najd, and parts of Eastern Arabia (Al-Ahsa), and Southern Arabia (‘Asir). The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was founded in 1932 by Ibn Saud. He united the four regions into a single state through a series of conquests beginning in 1902 with the capture of Riyadh, the ancestral home of his family, the House of Saud. Saudi Arabia has since been an absolute monarchy, effectively a hereditary dictatorship governed along Islamic lines. The ultraconservative Wahhabi religious movement within Sunni Islam has been called “the predominant feature of Saudi culture,” with its global spread largely financed by the oil and gas trade. Saudi Arabia is sometimes called “the Land of the Two Holy Mosques” in reference to Al-Masjid al-Haram (in Mecca) and Al-Masjid an-Nabawi (in Medina), the two holiest places in Islam.

The new kingdom was one of the poorest countries in the world, reliant on limited agriculture and pilgrimage revenues. In 1938, vast reserves of oil were discovered in the Al-Ahsa region along the coast of the Persian Gulf, and full-scale development of the oil fields began in 1941 under the U.S.-controlled Aramco (Arabian American Oil Company). Oil provided Saudi Arabia with economic prosperity and substantial political leverage internationally. Saudi Arabia has since become the world’s largest oil producer and exporter, controlling the world’s second largest oil reserves and the sixth largest gas reserves. The kingdom is categorized as a World Bank high-income economy with a high Human Development Index, and is the only Arab country to be part of the G-20 major economies. However, the economy of Saudi Arabia is the least diversified in the Gulf Cooperation Council, lacking any significant service or production sector (apart from the extraction of resources). The country has attracted criticism for its restrictions on women’s rights and usage of capital punishment.

Oil in Saudi Arabia

Dammam No. 7, the first commercial oil well in Saudi Arabia, struck oil on March 4, 1938. Saudi Arabia has since become the world’s largest oil producer and exporter, controlling the world’s second largest oil reserves, and the sixth largest gas reserves.

Photograph of Dammam No. 7

Politics: Absolute Monarchy

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. However, according to the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia adopted by royal decree in 1992, the king must comply with Sharia (Islamic law) and the Quran, while the Quran and the Sunnah (the traditions of Muhammad) are declared to be the country’s constitution. No political parties or national elections are permitted. Critics regard it as a totalitarian dictatorship.

In the absence of national elections and political parties, politics in Saudi Arabia takes place in two distinct arenas: within the royal family, the Al Saud, and between the royal family and the rest of Saudi society. Outside of the Al-Saud, participation in the political process is limited to a relatively small segment of the population and takes the form of the royal family consulting with the ulema, tribal sheikhs, and members of important commercial families on major decisions. This process is not reported by the Saudi media.

The king combines legislative, executive, and judicial functions and royal decrees form the basis of the country’s legislation. The king is also the prime minister and presides over the Council of Ministers (Majlis al-Wuzarāʾ), which comprises the first and second deputy prime ministers and other ministers.

The royal family dominates the political system. The family’s vast numbers allow it to control most of the kingdom’s important posts and be involved and present at all levels of government. The number of princes is estimated to be at least 7,000, with most power and influence being wielded by the 200 or so male descendants of Ibn Saud. The key ministries are generally reserved for the royal family, as are the thirteen regional governorships. The royal family is politically divided by factions based on clan loyalties, personal ambitions, and ideological differences.

Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud, the first king of Saudi Arabia, ruled for 21 years. In 1953, Saud of Saudi Arabia succeeded as the king of Saudi Arabia upon his father’s death, until 1964 when he was deposed in favor of his half brother Faisal of Saudi Arabia, after an intense rivalry, fueled by doubts in the royal family over Saud’s competence. In 1975, Faisal was assassinated by his nephew, Prince Faisal bin Musaid, and was succeeded by his half-brother King Khalid. King Khalid died of a heart attack in June 1982. He was succeeded by his brother, King Fahd, who added the title “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques” to his name in 1986 in response to considerable fundamentalist pressure to avoid use of “majesty” in association with anything except God.

Fahd continued to develop close relations with the United States and increased the purchase of American and British military equipment. In response to civil unrest, a number of limited “reforms” were initiated by King Fahd. In March 1992, he introduced the “Basic Law”, which emphasized the duties and responsibilities of a ruler. In December 1993, the Consultative Council was inaugurated. It is composed of a chairman and 60 members—all chosen by the King to respond to dissent while making as few actual changes in the status quo as possible.

In 2005, King Fahd died and was succeeded by Abdullah, who continued the policy of minimum reform and clamping down on protests. The king introduced a number of economic reforms aimed at reducing the country’s reliance on oil revenue: limited deregulation, encouragement of foreign investment, and privatization. In 2015, Abdullah was succeeded as king by his half-brother Salman.

Foreign Relations

Saudi Arabia is a non-aligned state whose stated foreign policy objectives are to maintain its security and paramount position on the Arabian Peninsula, and as the world’s largest exporter of oil, to maintain cooperative relations with other oil-producing and major oil-consuming countries.

Saudi Arabian stated policy is focused on cooperation with the oil-exporting Gulf States, the unity of the Arab world, Islamic strength and solidarity, and support for the United Nations. In practice, the main concerns in recent years have been relations with the United States, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iraq, the perceived threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran, the effect of oil pricing, and using its oil wealth to increase the influence of Islam and especially the conservative school of Islam supported by the country’s rulers.

United States recognized the government of King Ibn Saud in 1931. In the 1930s, oil exploration by Standard Oil commenced. There was no U.S. ambassador resident in Saudi Arabia until 1943, but as World War II progressed, the United States began to believe that Saudi oil was of strategic importance.

In 1951, under a mutual defense agreement, the U.S. established a permanent U.S. Military Training Mission in the kingdom and agreed to provide training support in the use of weapons and other security-related services to the Saudi armed forces. This agreement formed the basis of a longstanding security relationship. The United States is one of Saudi Arabia’s largest trading partners and closest allies, with full diplomatic relations since 1933 that remain strong today. However, Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the United States has been put under pressure since late 2013 after the United States backed from its intervention in the Syrian Civil War and thawed relations with Iran.

34.4.2: Jordan

Jordan is a constitutional monarchy known as one of the safest and most hospitable countries in the region, accepting refugees from almost all surrounding conflicts as early as 1948, with an estimated 2.1 million Palestinians and 1.4 million Syrian refugees residing in there.

Learning Objective

Describe the Jordanian monarchy and some characteristics of the regime

Key Points

Jordan is an Arab kingdom in the Middle East, strategically located at the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and Europe.
Jordan is a constitutional monarchy, with a king (currently Abdullah II) and a prime minister.
The king appoints and may dismiss all judges by decree, approves amendments to the constitution after passing by both parliaments, declares war, and acts as the supreme leader of the armed forces; the king may also dissolve parliament and dismiss the government at his discretion.
Jordan is considered to be among the safest of Arab countries in the Middle East and has avoided long-term terrorism and instability.
In the midst of surrounding turmoil, Jordan has been greatly hospitable, accepting refugees from almost all surrounding conflicts as early as 1948, with 2.1 million Palestinians and 1.4 million Syrian refugees residing in the country.
Jordan is a key ally of the United States and UK, and together with Egypt is one of only two Arab nations to have signed peace treaties with Israel, Jordan’s direct neighbor.

Key Terms

constitutional monarchy: A form of monarchy in which the sovereign exercises authority in accordance with a written or unwritten constitution. It differs from absolute monarchy (in which a monarch holds absolute power), in that the monarchs are bound to exercise their powers and authorities within the limits prescribed by an established legal framework.
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation: An international organization founded in 1969 consisting of 57 member states, with a collective population of over 1.6 billion as of 2008. The organization states that it is “the collective voice of the Muslim world” and works to “safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony.”
Gulf War: A war waged by coalition forces from 34 nations led by the United States against Iraq in response to Iraq’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait.

Jordan, officially The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, is an Arab kingdom in Western Asia on the East Bank of the Jordan River. Jordan is bordered by Saudi Arabia to the east and south, Iraq to the northeast, Syria to the north, Israel, Palestine, and the Dead Sea to the west and the Red Sea to its extreme southwest. Jordan is strategically located at the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and Europe. The capital, Amman, is Jordan’s most populous city as well as the country’s economic, political, and cultural center.

What is now Jordan has been inhabited by humans since the Paleolithic period. Three stable kingdoms emerged there at the end of the Bronze Age: Ammon, Moab, and Edom. Later rulers include the Nabataean Kingdom, the Roman Empire, and the Ottoman Empire. After the Great Arab Revolt against the Ottomans in 1916 during World War I, the Ottoman Empire was partitioned by Britain and France. The Emirate of Transjordan was established in 1921 by then Emir Abdullah I and became a British protectorate. In 1946, Jordan became an independent state officially known as The Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. Jordan captured the West Bank during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and the name of the state was changed to The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1949. Jordan is a founding member of the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and is one of two Arab states to have signed a peace treaty with Israel. The country is a constitutional monarchy, but the king holds wide executive and legislative powers.

Jordan is a relatively small, semi-arid, almost landlocked country with a population numbering at 9.5 million. Sunni Islam, practiced by around 92% of the population, is the dominant religion and coexists with an indigenous Christian minority. Jordan is considered among the safest Arab countries in the Middle East and has avoided long-term terrorism and instability. In the midst of surrounding turmoil, it has been greatly hospitable, accepting refugees from almost all surrounding conflicts as early as 1948, with an estimated 2.1 million Palestinians and 1.4 million Syrian refugees residing in the country. The kingdom is also a refuge to thousands of Iraqi Christians fleeing the Islamic State. While Jordan continues to accept refugees, the recent large influx from Syria placed substantial strain on national resources and infrastructure.

Jordan is classified as a country of “high human development” with an “upper middle income” economy. The Jordanian economy, one of the smallest in the region, is attractive to foreign investors because of its skilled workforce. The country is a major tourist destination, and attracts medical tourism to its well-developed health sector. Nonetheless, a lack of natural resources, large flow of refugees, and regional turmoil have crippled economic growth.

Politics of Jordan

Jordan is a constitutional monarchy, but the King holds wide executive and legislative powers. He serves as head of state and commander-in-chief and appoints the prime minister and heads of security directorates. The prime minister is free to choose his own cabinet and regional governors. However, the king may dissolve parliament and dismiss the government.

The Parliament of Jordan consists of two chambers: the upper Senate and the lower House of Representatives. All 65 members of the Senate are directly appointed by the king, they are usually veteran politicians or held previous positions in the House of Representatives or government. The 130 members of the House of Representatives are elected through proportional representation in 23 constituencies on nationwide party lists for a 4-year election cycle. Minimum quotas exist in the House of Representatives for women (15 seats, though they won 20 seats in the 2016 election), Christians (9 seats), and Circassians and Chechens (3 seats). Three constituencies are allocated for the Bedouins of the northern, central, and southern Badias. The king appoints and may dismiss all judges by decree, approves amendments to the constitution after passing by both parliaments, declares war, and acts as the supreme leader of the armed forces. Cabinet decisions, court judgments, and the national currency are issued in his name. The Cabinet, led by a prime minister, was formerly appointed by the king, but following the 2011 Jordanian protests, King Abdullah agreed to an elected cabinet. The cabinet is responsible to the Chamber of Deputies on matters of general policy; a two-thirds vote of “no confidence” by the Chamber can force the cabinet to resign.

King Hussein ruled Jordan from 1953 to 1999, surviving a number of challenges to his rule, drawing on the loyalty of his military, and serving as a symbol of unity and stability for both the Jordanians and Palestinian communities in Jordan. King Hussein ended martial law in 1989 and ended suspension on political parties that was initiated following the loss of the West Bank to Israel and to preserve the status quo in Jordan. In 1989 and 1993, Jordan held free and fair parliamentary elections. Controversial changes in the election law led Islamist parties to boycott the 1997, 2011, and 2013 elections.

King Abdullah II succeeded his father Hussein following the latter’s death in February 1999. Abdullah moved quickly to reaffirm Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel and its relations with the United States. During his first year in power, he refocused the government’s agenda on economic reform.

Jordan’s continuing structural economic difficulties, burgeoning population, and open political environment led to the emergence of various political parties. Moving toward greater independence, Jordan’s parliament has investigated corruption charges against several regime figures and become the major forum in which differing political views, including those of political Islamists, are expressed.

On February 1, 2012, it was announced that King Abdullah had dismissed his government. This has been interpreted as a pre-emptive move in the context of the Tunisian Jasmine Revolution and unfolding events in nearby Egypt.

King Abdullah of Jordan

The current King of Jordan is Abdullah II, who assumed the throne in 1999.

Close-up photo of King Abdullah of Jordan.

Foreign Relations

The kingdom has followed a pro-Western foreign policy and maintained close relations with the United States and the United Kingdom. During the first Gulf War (1990), these relations were damaged by Jordan’s neutrality and its maintenance of relations with Iraq. Later, Jordan restored its relations with Western countries through its participation in the enforcement of UN sanctions against Iraq and in the Southwest Asia peace process. After King Hussein’s death in 1999, relations between Jordan and the Persian Gulf countries greatly improved.

Jordan is a key ally of the U.S. and UK and together with Egypt, is one of only two Arab nations to have signed peace treaties with Israel, Jordan’s direct neighbor. Jordan supports Palestinian statehood through the two-state solution. The ruling Hashemite family has had custodianship over holy sites in Jerusalem since the beginning of the 20th century, a position reinforced in the Israel-Jordan peace treaty. Turmoil in Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa mosque between Israelis and Palestinians created tensions between Jordan and Israel concerning the former’s role in protecting the Muslim and Christian sites in Jerusalem.

Jordan is a founding member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and of the Arab League.

34.4.3: The Emirates of the Arabian Peninsula

The emirates of the Middle East (the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait) are monarchies ruled by emirs and represent some of the wealthiest Arab nations.

Learning Objective

Compare and contrast the emirates of the Arabian Peninsula

Key Points

Most emirates have either disappeared, been integrated in a larger modern state or changed their rulers’ styles. True emirate-states have become rare, with only three in existence today.
The United Arab Emirates is a federal state that comprises seven federal emirates, each administered by a hereditary emir. These form the electoral college for the federation’s President and Prime Minister.
The UAE is criticized for its human rights record, including the specific interpretations of Sharia law used in its legal system that make flogging and stoning legal punishments.
Qatar has the highest per capita income in the world, backed by the world’s third largest natural gas reserves and oil reserves.
Kuwait is among the Middle East’s freest countries in terms of civil liberties and political rights, and Kuwaiti women are among the most emancipated in the Middle East.
Unlike other Gulf states, Kuwait does not have Sharia courts.

Key Terms

Arab Spring: A revolutionary wave of both violent and non-violent demonstrations, protests, riots, coups, and civil wars in the Arab world that began on December 17, 2010, in Tunisia with the Tunisian Revolution, and spread through the Arab League and surrounding countries. Major insurgencies and civil wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen resulted, along with civil uprisings in Bahrain and Egypt; large street demonstrations in Algeria, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, and Sudan; and minor protests in Djibouti, Mauritania, the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and the Western Sahara.
Emirate: A political territory is ruled by a dynastic Islamic monarch-style emir. It also means principality.
Apostasy: A person’s formal renunciation of a religion, also used in the broader context of embracing an opinion contrary to one’s previous beliefs.
Sharia law: The religious law governing the members of the Islamic faith. It is derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith.

United Arab Emirates

The United Arab Emirates, or the UAE, is a federal absolute monarchy in Western Asia at the southeast end of the Arabian Peninsula and bordering seas in the Gulf of Oman, occupying the Persian Gulf. It borders with Oman to the east and Saudi Arabia to the south, although the United Arab Emirates shares maritime borders with Qatar in the west and Iran in the north and sea borders with Iraq, Kuwait, and Bahrain. In 2013, the UAE’s population was 9.2 million, of which 1.4 million are Emirati citizens and 7.8 million are expatriates.

The country is a federation of seven emirates that was established on December 2nd, 1971. The constituent emirates are Abu Dhabi (which serves as the capital), Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah, and Umm al-Quwain. Each emirate is governed by an absolute monarch; together, they jointly form the Federal Supreme Council. One of the monarchs is selected as the President of the United Arab Emirates. Although elected by the Supreme Council, the presidency and prime ministership are essentially hereditary. The emir of Abu Dhabi holds the presidency, and the emir of Dubai is prime minister.

Islam is the official religion of the UAE,and Arabic is the official language, although English and Indian dialects are widely spoken and are the languages of business and education, especially in Abu Dhabi and Dubai.

The UAE’s oil reserves are the seventh-largest in the world, while its natural gas reserves are the 17th-largest. Sheikh Zayed, ruler of Abu Dhabi and the first President of the UAE, oversaw the development of the Emirates and steered oil revenues into health care, education, and infrastructure. The UAE’s economy is the most diversified in the Gulf Cooperation Council, with its most populous city of Dubai an important global city and international aviation hub. Nevertheless, the country remains principally reliant on its export of petroleum and natural gas.

The UAE is criticized for its human rights record, including the specific interpretations of Sharia used in its legal system. Flogging and stoning have been legal punishments in the UAE, a requirement derived from Sharia law. Some domestic workers in the UAE are victims of Sharia judicial punishments such as flogging and stoning. The annual Freedom House report on Freedom in the World has listed the United Arab Emirates as “Not Free” every year since 1999, the first year for which records are available on their website. UAE has escaped the Arab Spring; however, more than 100 Emirati activists were jailed and tortured because they sought reforms. Since 2011, the UAE government has increasingly carried out forced disappearances. Many foreign nationals and Emirati citizens have been arrested and abducted by the state.

Burj Khalifa

Burj Khalifa, a skyscraper in Dubai, is the tallest human-made structure in the world.

Photo of the skyscraper Burj Khalifa

Qatar

Qatar is a sovereign country located in Western Asia, occupying the small Qatar Peninsula on the northeastern coast of the Arabian Peninsula. Its sole land border is with Saudi Arabia to the south, with the rest of its territory surrounded by the Persian Gulf. A strait in the Persian Gulf separates Qatar from the nearby island country of Bahrain, and maritime borders are shared with the United Arab Emirates and Iran.

Following Ottoman rule, Qatar became a British protectorate in the early 20th century until gaining independence in 1971. Qatar has been ruled by the House of Thani since the early 19th century. Sheikh Jassim bin Mohammed Al Thani was the founder of the State of Qatar. Qatar is a hereditary monarchy and its head of state is Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. Whether it should be regarded as a constitutional or an absolute monarchy is a matter of opinion. In 2003, the constitution was overwhelmingly approved in a referendum, with almost 98% in favor. In 2013, Qatar’s total population was 1.8 million, with 278,000 Qatari citizens and 1.5 million expatriates.

Qatar is a high-income economy and a developed country, backed by the world’s third largest natural gas reserves and oil reserves. The country has the highest per capita income in the world. Qatar is classified by the UN as a country of very high human development and is the most advanced Arab state for human development. Qatar is a significant power in the Arab world, supporting several rebel groups during the Arab Spring both financially and through its globally expanding media group, Al Jazeera Media Network. For its size, Qatar wields disproportionate influence in the world, and has been identified as a middle power.

Sharia law is the main source of Qatari legislation according to Qatar’s Constitution. In practice, Qatar’s legal system is a mixture of civil law and Sharia law. Sharia law is applied to laws pertaining to family law, inheritance, and several criminal acts (including adultery, robbery and murder). In some cases in Sharia-based family courts, a female’s testimony is worth half a man’s. Codified family law was introduced in 2006. Islamic polygamy is allowed in the country. Stoning is a legal punishment in Qatar, while apostasy is a crime punishable by the death penalty. Blasphemy is punishable by up to seven years in prison and proselytizing can be punished by up to 10 years in prison. Homosexuality is punishable by the death penalty.

Emirate of Qatar

Former Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in 2013.

Photo of former Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani and US Secretary of State John Kerry in 2013, seated, talking with one another in a ornately decorated room.

Kuwait

Kuwait is a country in Western Asia. Situated in the northern edge of Eastern Arabia at the tip of the Persian Gulf, it shares borders with Iraq and Saudi Arabia. As of 2016, Kuwait has a population of 4.2 million people; 1.3 million are Kuwaitis and 2.9 million are expatriates (70% of the population).

Oil reserves were discovered in 1938. From 1946 to 1982, the country underwent large-scale modernization. In the 1980s, Kuwait experienced a period of geopolitical instability and an economic crisis following the stock market crash. In 1990, Kuwait was invaded by Iraq. The Iraqi occupation came to an end in 1991 after military intervention by coalition forces. At the end of the war, there were extensive efforts to revive the economy and rebuild national infrastructure.

Kuwait is a constitutional emirate with a semi-democratic political system. It has a high-income economy backed by the world’s sixth largest oil reserves. The Kuwaiti dinar is the highest-valued currency in the world. According to the World Bank, the country has the fourth-highest per capita income in the world.

The Constitution of Kuwait was promulgated in 1962. Kuwait is among the Middle East’s freest countries in terms of civil liberties and political rights. Kuwait ranks highly in regional metrics of gender equality, with the region’s highest Global Gender Gap ranking. The court system in Kuwait is secular; unlike other Gulf states, Kuwait does not have Sharia courts.

34.4.4: OPEC

OPEC, whose members are largely from the Middle East, is an oil cartel created in 1960 to counterbalance the political and economic power of the mostly U.S.-based multinational oil companies known as the “Seven Sisters.”

Learning Objective

Explain what OPEC is and why it exists

Key Points

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is an oil cartel, mostly made up of Middle Eastern nations, that aims “to coordinate and unify the petroleum policies of its member countries and ensure the stabilization of oil markets.”
It was created in 1960, a year after the “Seven Sisters” multinational oil companies unilaterally reduced their posted prices for Venezuelan and Middle Eastern crude oil by 10 percent.
The 1973 oil crisis began in October of that year when the members of the Arab sub-group of OPEC proclaimed an oil embargo against the United States and other industrialized nations that supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War.
By the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen from US $3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally.
The embargo caused an oil crisis, with many short- and long-term effects on global politics and economics.
The 1979 (or second) oil crisis or oil shock occurred in the United States due to decreased oil output in the wake of the Iranian Revolution.

Key Terms

Iranian Revolution: The overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty under Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who was supported by the United States, and its eventual replacement with an Islamic republic under the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution. This was supported by various leftist and Islamist organizations and Iranian student movements.
Yom Kippur War: A war fought by a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria against Israel from October 6 to 25, 1973. The fighting mostly took place in the Sinai and the Golan Heights, territories occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967.
cartel: An agreement between competing firms to control prices or exclude entry of a new competitor in a market. It is a formal organization of sellers or buyers that agree to fix selling prices, purchase prices, or reduce production using a variety of tactics.

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is an intergovernmental organization of 13 nations, founded in 1960 in Baghdad by the first five members (Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela), and headquartered since 1965 in Vienna. As of 2015, the 13 countries accounted for an estimated 42 percent of global oil production and 73 percent of the world’s “proven” oil reserves, giving OPEC a major influence on global oil prices that were previously determined by American-dominated multinational oil companies.

OPEC’s stated mission is “to coordinate and unify the petroleum policies of its member countries and ensure the stabilization of oil markets, in order to secure an efficient, economic, and regular supply of petroleum to consumers, a steady income to producers, and a fair return on capital for those investing in the petroleum industry.” The organization is also a significant provider of information about the international oil market. As of December 2016, OPEC’s members are Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia (the de facto leader), United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. Two-thirds of OPEC’s oil production and reserves are in its six Middle Eastern countries that surround the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

The formation of OPEC marked a turning point toward national sovereignty over natural resources, and OPEC decisions have come to play a prominent role in the global oil market and international relations. The effect is particularly strong when wars or civil disorders lead to extended interruptions in supply. In the 1970s, restrictions in oil production led to a dramatic rise in oil prices and OPEC’s revenue and wealth, with long-lasting and far-reaching consequences for the global economy. In the 1980s, OPEC started setting production targets for its member nations; when the production targets are reduced, oil prices increase, most recently from the organization’s 2008 and 2016 decisions to trim oversupply.

Economists often cite OPEC as a textbook example of a cartel that cooperates to reduce market competition, but whose consultations are protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity under international law. In December 2014, “OPEC and the oil men” ranked as #3 on Lloyd’s list of “the top 100 most influential people in the shipping industry.” However, their influence on international trade is periodically challenged by the expansion of non-OPEC energy sources, and by the recurring temptation for individual OPEC countries to exceed production ceilings and pursue conflicting self-interests.

History

In 1949, Venezuela and Iran took the earliest steps in the direction of OPEC by inviting Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to improve communication among petroleum-exporting nations as the world recovered from World War II. At the time, some of the world’s largest oil fields were just entering production in the Middle East. The United States had established the Interstate Oil Compact Commission to join the Texas Railroad Commission in limiting overproduction. The US was simultaneously the world’s largest producer and consumer of oil, and the world market was dominated by a group of multinational companies known as the “Seven Sisters,” five of which were headquartered in the U.S. Oil-exporting countries were motivated to form OPEC as a counterweight to this concentration of political and economic power.

In February 1959, the multinational oil companies (MOCs) unilaterally reduced their posted prices for Venezuelan and Middle Eastern crude oil by 10 percent. In September 1960, the Baghdad Conference was held at the initiative of Tariki, Pérez Alfonzo, and Iraqi prime minister Abd al-Karim Qasim. Government representatives from Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela met in Baghdad to discuss ways to increase the price of crude oil produced by their countries and respond to unilateral actions by the MOCs. Despite strong U.S. opposition, according to historian Nathan Citiano, “[t]ogether with Arab and non-Arab producers, Saudi Arabia formed the Organization of Petroleum Export Countries (OPEC) to secure the best price available from the major oil corporations.”

In October 1973, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, consisting of the Arab majority of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) declared significant production cuts and an oil embargo against the United States and other industrialized nations that supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War, an event known as the 1973 oil crisis. A previous embargo attempt was largely ineffective in response to the Six-Day War in 1967. However, in 1973, the result was a sharp rise in oil prices and OPEC revenues, from US$3/barrel to US$12/barrel, and an emergency period of energy rationing, intensified by panic reactions, declining U.S. oil production, currency devaluations, and a lengthy UK coal-miners dispute.

For a time, the UK imposed an emergency three-day workweek. Seven European nations banned non-essential Sunday driving. U.S. gas stations limited the amount of gasoline that could be dispensed, closed on Sundays, and restricted the days when gasoline could be purchased based on license plate numbers. Even after the embargo ended in March 1974 following intense diplomatic activity, prices continued to rise. The world experienced a global economic recession, with unemployment and inflation surging simultaneously, steep declines in stock and bond prices, major shifts in trade balances and petrodollar flows, and a dramatic end to the post-WWII economic boom.

1973 Oil Crisis

An undersupplied U.S. gasoline station, closed during the oil embargo in 1973

A photo of a gas station in 1973 with a sign next to the pumps saying “PUMPS CLOSED.”

The 1973–1974 oil embargo had lasting effects on the United States and other industrialized nations, which established the International Energy Agency in response. Oil conservation efforts included lower speed limits on highways, smaller and more energy-efficient cars and appliances, year-round daylight saving time, reduced usage of heating and air-conditioning, better insulation, increased support of mass transit, national emergency stockpiles, and greater emphasis on coal, natural gas, ethanol, nuclear, and other alternative energy sources. These long-term efforts became effective enough that U.S. oil consumption would rise only 11 percent during 1980–2014, while real GDP rose 150 percent. But in the 1970s, OPEC nations demonstrated convincingly that their oil could be used as both a political and economic weapon against other nations, at least in the short term.

The 1979 oil crisis occurred in the United States due to decreased oil output in the wake of the Iranian Revolution. Despite the fact that global oil supply decreased by only ~4%, widespread panic resulted, driving the price far higher than justified by supply. The price of crude oil more than doubled to $39.50 per barrel over the next 12 months, and long lines once again appeared at gas stations as they had in the 1973 oil crisis.

In 1980, following the outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War, oil production in Iran nearly stopped, and Iraq’s oil production was severely cut as well. Economic recessions were triggered in the U.S. and other countries. Oil prices did not subside to pre-crisis levels until the mid-1980s.

After 1980, oil prices began a 20-year decline, eventually reaching 60 percent fall-off during the 1990s. As with the 1973 crisis, global politics and power balance were impacted. Oil exporters such as Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela expanded production; the USSR became the top world producer; North Sea and Alaskan oil flooded the market; and OPEC lost influence.

34.5: Iran

34.5.1: Iran under the Shah

After the 1953 coup to overthrow Prime Minister Mosaddegh, the Shah of Iran became increasingly autocratic, and Iran entered a phase of close relations with the United States, modernization, and secularization – all of which contributed to the Shah’s overthrow in 1979.

Learning Objective

Describe Iran’s political climate under the governance of the Shah

Key Points

In 1941, following an Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, Reza Shah was forced to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Pahlavi; subsequently, Iran became a major conduit for British and American aid to the Soviet Union until the end of the ongoing war.
Mohammad Mosaddegh, elected as the prime minister in 1951, became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized its petroleum industry and oil reserves.
He was deposed in the 1953 Iranian coup d’état, which was supported by the American and British intelligence agencies (CIA and MI6), thereby increasing the Shah’s power.
After the coup, the Shah became increasingly autocratic and sultanistic, and Iran entered a phase of decades-long, controversial close relations with the United States and other foreign governments.
While the Shah increasingly modernized Iran and claimed to retain it as a fully secular state, arbitrary arrests and torture by his secret police, the SAVAK, were used to crush all forms of political opposition.
Mohammad Reza also introduced the White Revolution, a series of economic, social, and political reforms with the proclaimed intention of transforming Iran into a global power and modernizing the nation by nationalizing certain industries and granting women suffrage.
Several factors contributed to strong opposition to the Shah among certain groups within Iran, the most significant of which were U.S. and UK support for his regime and clashes with Islamists and increased communist activity. By 1979, political unrest had transformed into a revolution which on January 17 forced him to leave Iran.

Key Terms

Tudeh Party: An Iranian communist party formed in 1941, with Soleiman Mohsen Eskandari as its head. It had considerable influence in its early years and played an important role during Mohammad Mosaddegh’s campaign to nationalize the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and his term as prime minister. The crackdown that followed the 1953 coup against Mosaddeq is said to have “destroyed” the party, although it continued.
White Revolution: A far-reaching series of reforms in Iran launched in 1963 by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and lasting until 1978. Mohammad Reza Shah’s reform program was built especially to weaken those classes that supported the traditional system. It consisted of several elements, including land reform, sale of some state-owned factories to finance this land reform, enfranchisement of women, nationalization of forests and pastures, formation of a literacy corps, and institution of profit-sharing schemes for workers in industry.
Shah: A title given to the emperors, kings, princes, and lords of Iran (historically known as Persia).

The Shah of Iran

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was the Shah of Iran from September 16, 1941, until his overthrow by the Iranian Revolution on February 11, 1979. He came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father, Reza Shah. During Mohammad Reza Shah’s reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized under the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Mosaddegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized its petroleum industry and oil reserves. He was deposed in the 1953 Iranian coup d’état, an Anglo-American covert operation that marked the first time the United States had overthrown a foreign government during the Cold War.

Under Mohammad Reza’s reign, Iran marked the anniversary of 2,500 years of continuous monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. Concurrent with this celebration, Mohammad Reza changed the benchmark of the Iranian calendar from the hegira (the migration of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Medina in the year 622) to the beginning of the Persian Empire, measured from Cyrus the Great’s coronation. Mohammad Reza also introduced the White Revolution, a series of economic, social, and political reforms with the proclaimed intention of transforming Iran into a global power and modernizing the nation by nationalizing certain industries and granting women suffrage. The core of this program was land reform. Modernization and economic growth proceeded at an unprecedented rate, fueled by Iran’s vast petroleum reserves, the third-largest in the world.

A secular Muslim, Mohammad Reza gradually lost support from the Shi’a clergy of Iran as well as the working class, particularly due to his strong policy of modernization and secularization, conflict with the traditional class of merchants known as bazaari, relations with Israel, and corruption issues surrounding himself, his family, and the ruling elite. Various additional controversial policies were enacted, including the banning of the communist Tudeh Party and a general suppression of political dissent by Iran’s intelligence agency, SAVAK. According to official statistics, Iran had as many as 2,200 political prisoners in 1978, a number that multiplied rapidly as a result of the revolution.

Other factors contributed to strong opposition to the Shah among certain groups within Iran, most significantly U.S. and UK support for his regime, clashes with Islamists, and increased communist activity. By 1979, political unrest transformed into a revolution which on January 17 forced him to leave Iran. Soon thereafter, the Iranian monarchy was formally abolished, and Iran was declared an Islamic republic led by Ruhollah Khomeini. Facing likely execution should he return to Iran, he died in exile in Egypt, whose President, Anwar Sadat, had granted him asylum. Due to his status as the last de facto Shah of Iran, he is often known as simply “the Shah.”

Explanations for why Mohammad Reza was overthrown include his status as a dictator put in place by a non-Muslim Western power, the United States, whose foreign culture was seen as influencing that of Iran. Additional contributing factors included reports of oppression, brutality, corruption, and extravagance. Basic functional failures of the regime have also been blamed: economic bottlenecks, shortages, and inflation; the regime’s over-ambitious economic program; the failure of its security forces to deal with protest and demonstration; and the overly centralized royal power structure. International policies pursued by the Shah to supplement national income with remarkable increases of oil prices through his leading role in the Organization of the Oil Producing Countries (OPEC) have been stressed as a major cause of a shift of Western interests and priorities. This was reflected in Western politicians and media, especially the administration of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, questioning human rights in Iran, as well as in strengthened economic ties between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in the 1970s.

Relations with the United States

Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi maintained close ties with the United States during most of his reign. He pursued a Westernizing, modernizing economic policy and a strongly pro-Western foreign policy; he also made a number of visits to America, where he was regarded as a friend. The Shah’s diplomatic foundation was the U.S.’ guarantee that they would protect him, which enabled him to stand up to larger enemies. While the arrangement did not preclude other partnerships and treaties, it provided a somewhat stable environment in which Pahlavi could implement his reforms.

Iran’s long border with America’s Cold War rival, the Soviet Union, and its position as the largest, most powerful country in the oil-rich Persian Gulf, made it a “pillar” of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Prior to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, many Iranian students and other citizens resided in the United States, and the country had a positive and welcoming attitude toward Americans.

In 1953, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq was overthrown by a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-organized coup, in what political scientist Mark Gasiorowski called “a crucial turning point both in Iran’s modern history and in U.S. Iran relations.” He explains that many Iranians argue that “the 1953 coup and the extensive U.S. support for the shah in subsequent years were largely responsible for the shah’s arbitrary rule,” which led to the “deeply anti-American character” of the 1979 revolution.

Following the coup, the United States helped build up the Shah’s regime. In the first three weeks, the American government gave Iran $68 million in emergency aid, and an additional $1.2 billion over the next decade. In this era that ensued until the fall of the shah in 1979, Iran was one of the United States’ closest allies.

During his reign, the Shah received significant American support, frequently making state visits to the White House and earning praise from numerous American presidents. The Shah’s close ties to Washington and his Westernization policies soon angered some Iranians, especially the hardline Islamic conservatives.

Relations with United States

The Shah with John F. Kennedy and Robert McNamara in 1962. During the Shah’s rule, the United States and Iran were close allies. In 1953, the United States helped overthrow the Prime Minister in favor of increasing the Shah’s power.

A photo of the Shah of Iran with John F. Kennedy and Robert McNamara in 1962 in a White House office.

34.5.2: The Iranian Revolution

The Iranian Revolution refers to events involving the overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty under Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who was supported by the United States, and its eventual replacement with an Islamic republic under the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution, supported by various leftist and Islamist organizations and Iranian student movements.

Learning Objective

Examine the reasons for the Iranian Revolution

Key Terms

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: An Iranian Shia Muslim religious leader, revolutionary, and politician. He was the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution that saw the overthrow of the Pahlavi monarchy and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. Following the revolution, he became the country’s Supreme Leader, a position created in the constitution of the Islamic Republic as the highest-ranking political and religious authority of the nation, which he held until his death.
Gharbzadegi: A pejorative Persian term variously translated as “Westoxification,” “Westitis,” “Euromania,” or “Occidentosis.” It is used to refer to the loss of Iranian cultural identity through the adoption and imitation of Western models and Western criteria in education, the arts, and culture and the subsequent transformation of Iran into a passive market for Western goods and a pawn in Western geopolitics.
Islamic Jurists: Experts in fiqh, or Islamic jurisprudence and Islamic Law, the human understanding of the Sharia (believed by Muslims to represent divine law as revealed in the Quran and the Sunnah (the teachings and practices of the Islamic prophet Muhammad).

Examples

The Iranian Revolution was a populist, nationalist and Shi’a Islamic revolution that replaced a dictatorial monarchy with a theocracy based on “Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists” (or velayat-e faqih).
The reasons why the Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) was overthrown and replaced by an Islamic Republic are the subject of historical debate.
The revolution was in part a conservative backlash against the westernization and secularization efforts of the Western-backed Shah, and a more popular reaction to social injustice and other shortcomings of the regime.
The Shah was perceived by many Iranians as beholden to – if not a puppet of – a non-Muslim Western power (the United States) whose culture was contaminating that of Iran.
The first major demonstrations to overthrow Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi began in January 1978.
The Shah fled Iran in January 1979 after strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country, and on February 1, 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran after 15 years of exile and was greeted by several million Iranians.
The final collapse of the Pahlavi dynasty occurred shortly after on February 11, when Iran’s military declared itself “neutral” after guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting.
Iran officially became an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979, when Iranians overwhelmingly approved a national referendum to make it so.
The new theocratic Constitution — whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country — was approved in December 1979.

The Iranian Revolution, also known as the Islamic Revolution, was the revolution that transformed Iran from an absolute monarchy under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to an Islamic republic under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, one of the leaders of the revolution and founder of the Islamic Republic. It began in January 1978 with the first major demonstrations and concluded with the approval of the new theocratic Constitution—whereby Ayatollah Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country—in December 1979.

Demonstrations against the Shah commenced in October 1977, developing into a campaign of civil resistance that included both secular and religious elements and intensified in January 1978. Between August and December 1978, strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country. The Shah left Iran for exile on January 16, 1979, as the last Persian monarch, leaving his duties to a regency council and an opposition-based prime minister. Ayatollah Khomeini was invited back to Iran by the government, and returned to Tehran to a greeting by several million Iranians. The royal reign collapsed shortly after on February 11, when guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting, bringing Khomeini to official power. Iran voted by national referendum to become an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979, and approved a new theocratic-republican constitution whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country in December 1979.

The revolution was unusual for the surprise it created throughout the world: it lacked many of the customary causes of revolution (defeat at war, a financial crisis, peasant rebellion, or disgruntled military), occurred in a nation that was enjoying relative prosperity, produced profound change at great speed, was massively popular, resulted in the exile of many Iranians, and replaced a pro-Western semi-absolute monarchy with an anti-Western authoritarian theocracy based on the concept of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (or velayat-e faqih). It was a relatively non-violent revolution and helped to redefine modern revolutions although there was violence in its aftermath.

Iranian Revolution

The Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, left the country for exile in January 1979 after strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country, and on February 1, 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran to a greeting of several million Iranians.

Photo of a mass demonstration in Tehran, 1979. The streets are completely filled with people, many carrying posters, and one man standing above them all on a platform.

Causes of the Revolution

Reasons advanced for the occurrence of the revolution and its populist, nationalist and, later, Shi’a Islamic character include a conservative backlash against the Westernizing and secularizing efforts of the Western-backed Shah, a liberal backlash to social injustice, a rise in expectations created by the 1973 oil revenue windfall and an overly ambitious economic program, anger over a short, sharp economic contraction in 1977–78, and other shortcomings of the previous regime.

The Shah’s regime became increasingly oppressive, brutal, corrupt, and extravagant. It also suffered from basic functional failures that brought economic bottlenecks, shortages, and inflation. The Shah was perceived by many as beholden to – if not a puppet of – a non-Muslim Western power (the United States) whose culture was affecting that of Iran. At the same time, support for the Shah may have waned among Western politicians and media – especially under the administration of U.S. President Jimmy Carter – as a result of the Shah’s support for OPEC petroleum price increases earlier in the decade. When President Carter enacted a policy that countries guilty of human rights violations would be deprived of American arms or aid, some Iranians gathered the courage to post open letters and petitions in the hope that the repression by the government might subside.

That the revolution replaced the monarchy of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi with Islamism and Khomeini, rather than with another leader and ideology, is credited in part to the spread of the Shia version of the Islamic revival that opposed Westernization and saw Ayatollah Khomeini as following in the footsteps of the Shi’a Imam Husayn ibn Ali and the Shah in the role of Husayn’s foe, the hated tyrant Yazid I. Other factors include the underestimation of Khomeini’s Islamist movement by both the Shah’s reign – who considered them a minor threat compared to the Marxists and Islamic socialists – and by the secularist, opponents of the government, who thought the Khomeinists could be sidelined.

Ayatollah Khomeini and the Ideology of the Revolution

The post-revolutionary leader – Shia cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini – first came to political prominence in 1963 when he led opposition to the Shah and his White Revolution. Khomeini was arrested in 1963 after declaring the Shah a “wretched miserable man” who had “embarked on the [path toward] destruction of Islam in Iran.” Three days of major riots throughout Iran followed, with 15,000 dead from police fire as reported by opposition sources. However, anti-revolutionary sources conjectured that just 32 were killed. Khomeini was released after eight months of house arrest and continued his agitation, condemning Iran’s close cooperation with Israel and its capitulations and extension of diplomatic immunity to American government personnel in Iran. In November 1964, Khomeini was rearrested and sent into exile where he remained for 15 years, until the revolution.

In this interim period of “disaffected calm,” the budding Iranian revival began to undermine the idea of Westernization as progress that had been the basis of the Shah’s secular reign and form the ideology of the 1979 revolution. Jalal Al-e-Ahmad’s idea of Gharbzadegi – that Western culture was a plague or an intoxication to be eliminated
– spread through the nation, along with Ali Shariati’s vision of Islam as the one true liberator of the Third World from oppressive colonialism, neo-colonialism, and capitalism and Morteza Motahhari’s popularized retellings of the Shia faith.

Most importantly, Khomeini preached that revolt and especially martyrdom, against injustice and tyranny was part of Shia Islam, and that Muslims should reject the influence of both liberal capitalism and communism, ideas that inspired the revolutionary slogan “Neither East, nor West – Islamic Republic!”

Away from public view, Khomeini developed the ideology of velayat-e faqih (guardianship of the jurist) as government, that Muslims – in fact everyone – required “guardianship,” in the form of rule or supervision by the leading Islamic jurist or jurists. Such rule was ultimately “more necessary even than prayer and fasting” in Islam, as it would protect Islam from deviation from traditional sharia law and in so doing eliminate poverty, injustice, and the “plundering” of Muslim land by foreign non-believers.

Ayatollah Khomeini

A portrait photo of Ayatollah Khomeini.

34.5.3: The Islamic Republic of Iran

After the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the Shah’s pro-Western, autocratic monarchy was replaced by an Islamic Republic based on the principle of rule by Islamic jurists, which reversed most of the modernization and secularization of the prior regime.

Learning Objective

Compare the Islamic Republic with the government under the Shah

Key Points

The 1979 Iranian Revolution brought about the Islamic Republic of Iran, marking a major shift in the country’s political structure, foreign policy, legal system, and culture.
The leader of the revolution and founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was Iran’s supreme leader until his death in 1989; this era was dominated by the consolidation of the revolution into a theocratic republic under Khomeini and by the costly and bloody war with Iraq.
While the revolution brought about some re-Islamization of Iran, particularly in terms of personal appearance—beards, hijab—it has not prompted a reversal of all modernization or a return to traditional patterns of family life.
The new government began purging itself of the non-Islamist political opposition and of those Islamists who were not considered radical enough.
The Leader of the Revolution (“Supreme Leader”), who is as much a religious leader as a political one, is responsible for delineation and supervision of the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
On November 4, 1979, a group of Muslim students seized the United States Embassy and took 52 personnel and citizens hostage after the United States refused to return Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to Iran to face trial in the court of the new regime and all but certain execution. This event, known as the Iran hostage crisis, lasted 444 days.

Key Terms

Iran hostage crisis: A diplomatic standoff between Iran and the United States in which 52 American diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981, after a group of Iranian students belonging to the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line, who supported the Iranian Revolution, took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. It is the longest hostage crisis in recorded history.
Islamic Republic: The name given to several states in countries ruled by Islamic laws. Despite the similar name, their governments and laws substantially differ. The term “Islamic republic” has come to mean several different things, some contradictory. To some Muslim religious leaders in the Middle East and Africa who advocate it, this type of state is under a particular Islamic form of government. They see it as a compromise between a purely Islamic caliphate and secular nationalism and republicanism. In their conception, the penal code of the state must be compatible with some or all laws of Sharia, and the state may not be a monarchy as many Middle Eastern states are presently.
theocratic: A form of government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives. The civil leader is believed to have a personal connection with the civilization’s religion or belief.

Impact and Aftermath of the Revolution

One of the most dramatic changes in government in Iran’s history was seen with the 1979 Iranian Revolution in which Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown and replaced by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Autocratic monarchy was replaced by an Islamic Republic based on the principle of rule by Islamic jurists, (or “Velayat-e faqih”), where clerics serve as head of state and in many powerful governmental roles. A pro-Western, pro-American foreign policy was exchanged for one of “neither east nor west,” but rather radically Islamist. A rapidly modernizing, capitalist economy was replaced by populist economy and Islamic culture.

The leader of the revolution and founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was Iran’s supreme leader until his death in 1989. He was followed by Ali Khamenei. This era was dominated by the consolidation of the revolution into a theocratic republic under Khomeini, and by the costly and bloody war with Iraq.

The initial impact of the Islamic revolution around the world was tremendous. In the non-Muslim world it has changed the image of Islam, generating much interest in its politics and spirituality of Islam along with fear and mistrust. In the Mideast and Muslim world, particularly in its early years, it triggered enormous enthusiasm and redoubled opposition to western intervention and influence. Islamist insurgents rose in Saudi Arabia (the 1979 week-long takeover of the Grand Mosque), Egypt (the 1981 machine-gunning of the Egyptian President Sadat), Syria (the Muslim Brotherhood rebellion in Hama), and Lebanon (the 1983 bombing of the American Embassy and French and American peace-keeping troops).

The immediate nationwide uprisings against the new government began by the 1979 Kurdish rebellion with the Khuzestan uprisings, along with the uprisings in Sistan and Baluchestan Province and other areas. Over the next several years, these were violently subdued by the new Islamic government. The new government began purging itself of non-Islamist political opposition, as well as of those Islamists who were not considered radical enough. Although both nationalists and Marxists initially joined with Islamists to overthrow the Shah, tens of thousands were executed by the new regime afterward.

On November 4, 1979, a group of Muslim students seized the United States Embassy and took 52 personnel and citizens hostage after the United States refused to return Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to Iran to face trial in the court of the new regime and all but certain execution. This 444-day event was known as the Iran hostage crisis. Attempts by the Jimmy Carter administration to negotiate for the release of the hostages, and a failed rescue attempt, helped force Carter out of office and brought Ronald Reagan to power. On Jimmy Carter’s final day in office, the last hostages were finally set free as a result of the Algiers Accords.

Iran Hostage Crisis

A group photograph of the fifty-two U.S. hostages in a hospital where they spent a few days after their release. The hostages were released after 444 days of detention in Tehran.

Photo of the US hostages being released after 444 in captivity in Iran.

The Cultural Revolution began in 1980 with a three-year closure of universities for inspection and cleanup in the cultural policy of the education and training system.

The Islamic revolutionary regime of Ayatollah Khomeini dramatically reversed the pro-Western foreign policy of the regime it overthrew. Since then, Iran has oscillated between the two opposing tendencies of revolutionary ardor (promoting the Islamic revolution and struggling against non-Muslim tendencies abroad) and moves towards pragmatism (economic development and normalization of foreign relations). Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa call for the killing of British citizen Salman Rushdie for his allegedly blasphemous book, The Satanic Verses, demonstrated the willingness of the Islamic revolutionaries to sacrifice trade and other ties with western countries to threaten an individual citizen living thousands of miles away.

On the other hand, Khomeini’s death in 1989 led to more pragmatic policies, with Presidents Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami leading the charge for stable relations with the west and its own non-Revolutionary-Islamic neighbors such asSaudi Arabia. Following the 2005 election of President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Iran has returned to more a more hardline stance, frequently antagonizing the west and its neighbors while battling for control over the region.

While the revolution brought about some re-Islamization of Iran, particularly in terms of personal appearance—beards, hijab—it has not prompted a total reversal modernization or a return to traditional patterns of family life, such as polygamy and the extended family with numerous children). Despite the lowering of the legal age of marriage for women to 9 and the Ayatollah Khomeini’s support for early marriage for females, the actual average age of marriage for women rose to 22 by 1996.

Government and Politics

The political system of the Islamic Republic is based on the 1979 Constitution and comprises several intricately connected governing bodies. The Leader of the Revolution (“Supreme Leader”) is responsible for delineation and supervision of the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations, and has sole power to declare war or peace. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces, and six of the twelve members of the Guardian Council are appointed by the Supreme Leader. The Assembly of Experts elects and dismisses the Supreme Leader on the basis of qualifications and popular esteem.

According to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the powers of government in the Islamic Republic of Iran are vested in the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive powers, functioning under the supervision of the “Absolute Guardianship and the Leadership of the Ummah,” which refers to the Supreme Leader of Iran.

After the Supreme Leader, the Constitution defines the President of Iran as the highest state authority. The President is elected by universal suffrage for a term of four years and can only be re-elected for one term. Presidential candidates must be approved by the Guardian Council before running to ensure their allegiance to the ideals of the Islamic Revolution. The President is responsible for the implementation of the Constitution and the exercise of executive powers, except for matters directly related to the Supreme Leader.

While the revolution did not dismantle the Pahlavi judiciary in its entirety, it replaced, according to historian Ervand Abrahamian, secular-trained jurists “with seminary-educated ones, and codified more features of the sharia into state laws – especially the Law of Retribution.” Women judges were also removed. Between 1979 and 1982, the entire pre-Revolutionary judiciary was purged, and their duties replaced by “Revolutionary Tribunals” set up in every town. These tribunals ruled on “Islamic law,” but were in practice unfair and biased, with inexperienced and often incompetent judges. Many people were executed or given harsh punishments for both political and criminal acts. There were no appeals, and trials often lasted just minutes. In 1982, the regular court system was reinstated, but with the judges now trained in Islamic law.

34.5.4: The Iran-Iraq War

On September 22, 1980, the Iraqi army invaded the Iranian Khuzestan and the Iran–Iraq War began. This conflict is often compared to World War I for its similar fighting tactics and brutality.

Learning Objective

Analyze the reasons for the Iran-Iraq War

Key Points

Shortly after the success of the revolution, revolutionary leader Ruhollah Khomeini began calling for Islamic revolutions across the Muslim world, including Iran’s Arab neighbor Iraq, the one large state besides Iran in the Gulf with a Shia Muslim majority population.
The war began with Iraq’s invasion of Iran in an attempt by Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein to take advantage of the perceived post-revolutionary chaos and military weakness, as well as the Revolution’s unpopularity with Western governments.
The Iraqis used weapons of mass destruction, most notably mustard gas, against Iranian soldiers.
Although the forces of Saddam Hussein made several early advances, by mid-1982 Iranian forces successfully managed to drive the Iraqi army back into Iraq.
In July 1982, with Iraq thrown on the defensive, Iran invaded Iraq and conducted countless offensives in a bid to conquer territory and capture cities, such as Basra.
The war continued until 1988 when the Iraqi army defeated the Iranian forces inside Iraq and pushed the remaining Iranian troops back across the border.
Subsequently, Khomeini accepted a truce mediated by the UN.
An estimated 200,000-240,000 Iranians and 105,000–200,000 Iraqis were killed during the war.

Key Terms

weapons of mass destruction: Nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapons that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere. The scope and usage of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. It was originally coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives.
Kurds: An ethnic group in the Middle East, mostly inhabiting a contiguous area spanning adjacent parts of eastern and southeastern Turkey (Northern Kurdistan), western Iran (Eastern or Iranian Kurdistan), northern Iraq (Southern or Iraqi Kurdistan), and northern Syria (Western Kurdistan or Rojava). They are culturally and linguistically closely related to the Iranian peoples and are thus often classified as Iranian.
sulfur mustard: Commonly known as mustard gas, this cytotoxic and vesicant chemical warfare agent forms large blisters on exposed skin and in the lungs.

The Iran–Iraq War was an armed conflict between Iran and Iraq lasting from September 22, 1980, when Iraq invaded Iran, to August 1988. The war followed a long history of border disputes and was motivated by fears that the Iranian Revolution in 1979 would inspire insurgency among Iraq’s long-suppressed Shi’i majority, as well as Iraq’s desire to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state.

Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of Iran’s revolutionary chaos and attacked without formal warning, it made only limited progress into Iran and was quickly repelled. Iran regained virtually all lost territory by June 1982. For the next six years, Iran was on the offensive. A number of proxy forces participated in the war, most notably the Iranian People’s Mujahedin of Iran siding with Ba’athist Iraq and Iraqi Kurdish militias of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan siding with Iran—all suffering a major blow by the end of the conflict.

Despite United Nations Security Council calls for a ceasefire, hostilities continued until August 20, 1988. The war finally ended with United Nations Security Council Resolution 598, a UN-brokered ceasefire accepted by both sides. At the war’s conclusion, it took several weeks for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran to evacuate Iraqi territory and honor prewar international borders set by the 1975 Algiers Agreement. The last prisoners of war were exchanged in 2003.

The war cost both sides in lives and economic damage: about half a million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers and an equivalent number of civilians died, with many more injured; however, the war brought neither reparations nor changes in borders. The conflict has been compared to World War I in terms of the tactics used, including large-scale trench warfare with barbed wire stretched across trenches, manned machine gun posts, bayonet charges, human wave attacks across a no man’s land, and extensive use of chemical weapons such as sulfur mustard by the Iraqi government against Iranian troops, civilians, and Kurds. The world powers United States and the Soviet Union, together with many Western and Arab countries, provided military, intelligence, economic, and political support for Iraq.

At the time of the conflict, the United Nations Security Council issued statements that “chemical weapons had been used in the war.” UN statements never clarified that only Iraq was using chemical weapons, and according to retrospective authors “the international community remained silent as Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Iranian[s] as well as Iraqi Kurds.” The Security Council did not identify Iraq as the aggressor of the war until December 11, 1991, 12 years after Iraq invaded Iran and 16 months after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

Iran-Iraq War

Participation of child soldiers on Iranian front (top left); Bodies of Iranian civilians killed in the Iraqi invasion (top right); Port quarter view of USS Stark listing to port after being mistakenly struck by an Iraqi warplane (middle left); Pro-Iraq PMOI forces killed in Operation Mersad (middle right); Iraqi prisoners of war after the re-capture of Khorramshahr by Iranians (below left); ZU-23-2 being used by the Iranian Army (below right).

A photo collage of the Iran-Iraq War. Participation of child soldiers on Iranian front (top left); Bodies of Iranian civilians killed in the Iraqi invasion (top right); Port quarter view of USS Stark listing to port after being mistakenly struck by an Iraqi warplane (middle left); Pro-Iraq PMOI forces killed in Operation Mersad (middle right); Iraqi prisoners of war after the re-capture of Khorramshahr by Iranians (below left); ZU-23-2 being used by the Iranian Army (below right).

Origins

Since the Ottoman–Persian Wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, Iran (known as “Persia” prior to 1935) and the Ottomans fought over Iraq (then known as Mesopotamia) and full control of the Shatt al-Arab until the signing of the Treaty of Zuhab in 1639, which established the final borders between the two countries. The Shatt al-Arab was considered an important channel for both states’ oil exports, and in 1937, Iran and the newly independent Iraq signed a treaty to settle the dispute. In the same year, Iran and Iraq both joined the Treaty of Saadabad, and relations between the two states remained good for decades afterwards.

In April 1969, Iran abrogated the 1937 treaty over the Shatt al-Arab river, and as such ceased paying tolls to Iraq when its ships used the waterway. The Shah justified his move by arguing that almost all river borders around the world ran along the thalweg and claiming that because most of the ships that used the waterway were Iranian, the 1937 treaty was unfair to Iran. Iraq threatened war over the Iranian move, but when on April 24 1969, an Iranian tanker escorted by Iranian warships sailed down the river, Iraq—the militarily weaker state—did nothing. Iran’s abrogation of the treaty marked the beginning of a period of acute Iraqi-Iranian tension that was to last until the 1975 Algiers Agreement.

In the 1975 Algiers Agreement, Iraq made territorial concessions—including the Shatt al-Arab waterway—in exchange for normalized relations. In return for Iraq recognizing that the frontier on the waterway ran along the entire thalweg, Iran ended its support of Iraq’s Kurdish guerrillas. Iraqis viewed the Algiers Agreement as humiliating.

Tensions between Iraq and Iran were fueled by Iran’s Islamic revolution and its appearance of being a Pan-Islamic force in contrast to Iraq’s Arab nationalism. Despite Iraq’s goals of regaining the Shatt al-Arab, the Iraqi government seemed to initially welcome Iran’s Revolution, which overthrew Iran’s Shah, seen as a common enemy. It is difficult to pinpoint when tensions began to build.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called on Iraqis to overthrow the Ba’ath government, which was received with considerable anger in Baghdad. On July 17, 1979, despite Khomeini’s call, Saddam gave a speech praising the Iranian Revolution and called for an Iraqi-Iranian friendship based on non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. When Khomeini rejected Saddam’s overture by calling for Islamic revolution in Iraq, Saddam was alarmed. Iran’s new Islamic administration was regarded in Baghdad as an irrational, existential threat to the Ba’ath government, especially because the secular Ba’ath party discriminated against and posed a threat to the Shia movement in Iraq, whose clerics were Iran’s allies within Iraq and whom Khomeini saw as oppressed.

Saddam’s primary interest in war may have also stemmed from his desire to right the supposed “wrong” of the Algiers Agreement, in addition to finally achieving his desire of annexing Khuzestan and becoming the regional superpower. Saddam’s goal was to replace Egypt as the “leader of the Arab world” and achieve hegemony over the Persian Gulf. He saw Iran’s increased weakness due to revolution, sanctions, and international isolation.

A successful invasion of Iran would enlarge its petroleum reserves and make it the region’s dominant power. With Iran engulfed in chaos, an opportunity for Iraq to annex the oil-rich Khuzestan Province materialized. In addition, Khuzestan’s large ethnic Arab population would allow Saddam to pose as a liberator for Arabs from Persian rule. Fellow Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (despite being hostile to Iraq) encouraged Iraq to attack, as they feared that an Islamic revolution would take place within their own borders.

34.6: Afghanistan

34.6.1: Afghanistan and the Cold War

During the early Cold War, Afghanistan attempted to maintain a non-aligned status, receiving aid from both the Soviet Union and the United States, but ended up relying heavily on assistance from the Soviets.

Learning Objective

Detail how the Cold War spilled over into Afghanistan

Key Points

In the late 19th century, Afghanistan became a buffer state in the “Great Game” between British India and the Russian Empire.
Following the Third Anglo-Afghan War in 1919, King Amanullah unsuccessfully attempted to modernize the country, but throughout the first half of the 20th century maintained good relations with the Soviets.
Afghanistan remained neutral and was neither a participant in World War II nor aligned with either power bloc in the Cold War.
However, it got caught up in the Cold War rivalry as both the Soviet Union and the United States vied for influence by supporting Afghanistan’s infrastructure.
In 1958, Afghanistan’s prime minister Daud Khan tried to create a treaty with America against the Soviet Union because he was frightened of a potential Soviet invasion and needed modern weapons.
After the Americans turned down the Afghanistan government, the Soviet Union provided financial aid, military personal training, and modern weapons, such as AK-47s and rocket launchers.
Prime Minister Daud Khan was forced to resign in 1963 because of the dependence he had created on the Soviet Union.

Key Terms

Great Game: A term used by historians to describe a political and diplomatic confrontation that existed for most of the 19th century between Britain and Russia over Afghanistan and neighboring territories in Central and Southern Asia. Russia was fearful of British commercial and military inroads into Central Asia, and Britain was fearful of Russia adding “the jewel in the crown,” India, to the vast empire it was building in Asia. This resulted in an atmosphere of distrust and constant threat of war between the two empires.
Mohammed Zahir Shah: The last King of Afghanistan, reigning from November 8, 1933, until he was deposed on July 17, 1973. During his four decades of rule, he became a prominent Afghan figure worldwide, establishing friendly relations with many countries and modernizing his country.

Afghan-Soviet Relations

In the 19th century, Afghanistan served as a strategic buffer state between Czarist Russian and the British Empire in the subcontinent during the so-called Great Game. Around the 1830s, Imperial Russia wanted to conquer Afghanistan because of the potential economic profit.

Afghanistan’s relations with Moscow became more cordial after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. The Soviet Union was the first country to establish diplomatic relations with Afghanistan in 1919 after the Third Anglo-Afghan war and signed an Afghan-Soviet nonaggression pact in 1921, which also provided for Afghan transit rights through the Soviet Union. Early Soviet assistance included financial aid, aircraft and attendant technical personnel, and telegraph operators.

After the Third Anglo-Afghan War and the signing of the Treaty of Rawalpindi on August 19, 1919, King Amanullah Khan declared Afghanistan a sovereign and fully independent state. He moved to end his country’s traditional isolation by establishing diplomatic relations with the international community and following a 1927–28 tour of Europe and Turkey, introduced several reforms intended to modernize his nation. A key force behind these reforms was Mahmud Tarzi, an ardent supporter of the education of women. He fought for Article 68 of Afghanistan’s 1923 constitution, which made elementary education compulsory. Slavery was abolished in 1923.

Some of the reforms that were actually put in place, such as the abolition of the traditional burqa for women and the opening of a number of coeducational schools, quickly alienated many tribal and religious leaders. Faced with overwhelming armed opposition, Amanullah Khan was forced to abdicate in January 1929 after Kabul fell to rebel forces led by Habibullah Kalakani. Prince Mohammed Nadir Shah, Amanullah’s cousin, in turn defeated and killed Kalakani in November 1929 and was declared King Nadir Shah. He abandoned the reforms of Amanullah Khan in favor of a more gradual approach to modernization but was assassinated in 1933 by Abdul Khaliq, a Hazara school student.

Mohammed Zahir Shah, Nadir Shah’s 19-year-old son, succeeded to the throne and reigned from 1933 to 1973. Until 1946, Zahir Shah ruled with the assistance of his uncle, who held the post of Prime Minister and continued the policies of Nadir Shah. Another of Zahir Shah’s uncles, Shah Mahmud Khan, became Prime Minister in 1946 and began an experiment allowing greater political freedom, but reversed the policy when it went further than he expected. He was replaced in 1953 by Mohammed Daoud Khan, the king’s cousin and brother-in-law. Daoud Khan sought a closer relationship with the Soviet Union and a more distant one towards Pakistan. Afghanistan remained neutral and was neither a participant in World War II nor aligned with either power bloc in the Cold War. However, it was a beneficiary of the latter rivalry as both the Soviet Union and the United States vied for influence by building Afghanistan’s main highways, airports, and other vital infrastructure. On per capita basis, Afghanistan received more Soviet development aid than any other country.

Zahir Shah

Zahir Shah, the last king of Afghanistan, who reigned from 1933 to 1973.

A photo of Zahir Shah, king of Afghanistan, seated in a chair in military attire.

Relations During the Cold War

The Cold War spanned from the 1950s to the 1990s and was full of conflict between America and Russia. The main superpowers waged war through proxies, or super allies, because any direct conflict with each other could result in nuclear war. The Cold War shaped the Russian mindset about developing countries.

Afghan-American relations became important during the start of the Cold War. In 1958, Prime Minister Daoud Khan became the first Afghan to speak before the United States Congress in Washington, DC. His presentation focused on a number of issues but most importantly underscored the importance of U.S.-Afghan relations. While in Washington, Daoud met with President Dwight Eisenhower, signed an important cultural exchange agreement, and reaffirmed personal relations with Vice President Nixon that began during the latter’s trip to Kabul in 1953.

At that time, the United States declined Afghanistan’s request for defense cooperation but extended an economic assistance program focused on the development of Afghanistan’s physical infrastructure—roads, dams, and power plants. Later, U.S. aid shifted from infrastructure projects to technical assistance programs to develop the skills needed to build a modern economy. Contacts between the United States and Afghanistan increased during the 1950s, especially during the Cuban Revolution between 1953 and 1959. While the Soviet Union was supporting Cuba’s Fidel Castro, the United States was focusing on Afghanistan for strategic purposes: to counter the spread of communism and the strength of the Soviet Union into South Asia, particularly the Persian Gulf.

At the beginning of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1953, the Soviet government had three main long-term objectives. The first was to threaten the Iranian oilfields or put themselves in a position to do so in the coming years. The second was to strengthen influence in the Indian Peninsula. The last goal was to divert western weapons to unproductive areas.

Leading up to the Soviet intervention in the 1970s, Afghanistan’s policy was that of non-alignment, meaning they did not want a superpower ally. However, they still remained on good terms with both America and the Soviet Union. In 1958, Khan tried to create a treaty with America against the Soviet Union because he was frightened of a potential Soviet invasion and needed modern weapons. After the Americans turned down the Afghanistan government, Afghanistan asked U.S.S.R. for aid. With this agreement, the Soviet Union provided financial aid, military personal training, and modern weapons, such as AK-47s and rocket launchers. Daud Khan was forced to resign in 1963 because of the dependence he created on the Soviet Union.

34.6.2: Rise of Anti-Soviet Sentiment

Mohammad Sardar Daoud Khan, who was the former Prime Minister of Afghanistan, seized power in a 1973 coup and became Afghanistan’s first president, making plans to diminish the nation’s relationships with the Soviet Union and instead forge closer contacts with the West.

Learning Objective

Connect Soviet involvement in Afghanistan to the rise of anti-Soviet efforts

Key Points

In 1973, while King Zahir Shah was on an official overseas visit, Mohammad Sardar Daoud Khan, a former Prime Minister of Afghanistan, launched a bloodless coup and became the first President of Afghanistan.
In opposition to his foreign policy as Prime Minister, Daoud sought to distance himself from the Soviets and forge closer relations with the West, especially the United States.
President Daoud met Leonid Brezhnev on a state visit to Moscow from April 12 to 15, 1977, and told the latter that Afghanistan would remain free, and that the Soviet Union would never be allowed to dictate how the country should be governed.
Daoud tried to modernize and improve the economy of Afghanistan, but made little progress.
The PDPA, a Soviet-backed communist party, seized power in a military coup in 1978 best known as the Saur Revolution.
Although supported by the Soviets, the actions taken by the leaders of the PDPA further strained relations with the USSR, which eventually led to their planning an military intervention.

Key Terms

Mohammad Sardar Daoud Khan: The Prime Minister of Afghanistan from 1953 to 1963 who later became the first President of Afghanistan. He overthrew the Musahiban monarchy of his first cousin Mohammed Zahir Shah and declared himself as the first President of Afghanistan from 1973 until his assassination in 1978 as a result of the Saur Revolution led by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). He was known for his progressive policies, his efforts for the improvement of women’s rights, and for initiating two five-year modernization plans that increased the labor force by about 50 percent.
Leonid Brezhnev: The General Secretary of the Central Committee (CC) of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), presiding over the country from 1964 until his death in 1982. His 18-year term as General Secretary was second only to that of Joseph Stalin in duration. During his rule, the global influence of the Soviet Union grew dramatically, in part because of the expansion of the Soviet military during this time. His tenure as leader was marked by the beginning of an era of economic and social stagnation in the Soviet Union.
Saur Revolution: A revolution led by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) against the rule of self-proclaimed Afghan President Mohammed Daoud Khan on April 27-28, 1978. It led to civil war and the intervention of the Soviet Union.

Republic of Afghanistan

Amid charges of corruption and malfeasance against the royal family and poor economic conditions created by the severe 1971–72 drought, former Prime Minister Mohammad Sardar Daoud Khan seized power in a non-violent coup on July 17, 1973, while Zahir Shah was receiving treatment for eye problems and therapy for lumbago in Italy. Daoud abolished the monarchy, abrogated the 1964 constitution, and declared Afghanistan a republic with himself as its first President and Prime Minister. To counteract his previous mishaps as Prime Minister, Daud led Afghanistan back towards independence and non-alignment. Additionally, Daud sent troops as well as diplomats to surrounding nations to build up foreign relations and decrease Afghanistan’s dependence on the Soviet Union.

President Daoud met Leonid Brezhnev on a state visit to Moscow from April 12 to 15, 1977. Daoud asked for a private meeting with the Soviet leader to discuss the increased pattern of Soviet actions in Afghanistan. In particular, he discussed the intensified Soviet attempt to unite the two factions of the Afghan communist parties, Parcham and Khalq. Brezhnev described Afghanistan’s non-alignment as important to the USSR and essential to the promotion of peace in Asia, but warned him about the presence of experts from NATO countries stationed in the northern parts of Afghanistan. Daoud bluntly replied that Afghanistan would remain free, and that the Soviet Union would never be allowed to dictate how the country should be governed.

After returning to Afghanistan, Daoud made plans to diminish his government’s relationships with the Soviet Union, and instead forge closer contacts with the West as well as oil-rich Saudi Arabia and Iran. Afghanistan signed a cooperative military treaty with Egypt and by 1977, the Afghan military and police force were being trained by Egyptian Armed forces. This angered the Soviet Union because Egypt took the same route in 1974 and distanced itself from the Soviets.

During Daoud’s presidency, relations with the Soviet Union continually deteriorated. The Soviets saw his shift to a more Western-friendly leadership as dangerous, including criticism of Cuba’s membership in the Non-aligned Movement and the expulsion of Soviet military and economic advisers. The suppression of political opposition furthermore turned the Soviet-backed People’s Democratic Party (PDPA), an important ally in the 1973 coup against the king, against him.

In 1976, Daoud established a seven-year economic plan for the country. He started military training programs with India and commenced economic development talks with Imperial Iran. Daoud also turned his attention to oil-rich Middle Eastern nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, and others for financial assistance.

Daoud had however achieved little of what he had set out to accomplish in 1978. The Afghan economy hadn’t made any real progress and the Afghan standard of living had not risen. Daoud also garnered much criticism for his single party constitution in 1977, which alienated him from his political supporters. By this time, the two main factions of the PDPA, previously locked in a power struggle, had reached a fragile agreement for reconciliation. Communist-sympathizing army officials were already planning a move against the government. According to Hafizullah Amin, who became Afghan head of state in 1979, the PDPA started plotting the coup in 1976, two years before it materialized.

Saur Revolution

In April 1978, the communist PDPA seized power in Afghanistan in the Saur Revolution. Within months, opponents of the communist government launched an uprising in eastern Afghanistan that quickly expanded into a civil war waged by guerrilla mujahideen against government forces countrywide. The Pakistani government provided these rebels with covert training centers, while the Soviet Union sent thousands of military advisers to support the PDPA government. Meanwhile, increasing friction between the competing factions of the PDPA — the dominant Khalq and the more moderate Parcham — resulted in the dismissal of Parchami cabinet members and the arrest of Parchami military officers under the pretext of a Parchami coup.

In September 1979, Nur Muhammad Taraki, the leader of PDPA, was assassinated in a coup within the PDPA orchestrated by fellow Khalq member Hafizullah Amin, who assumed the presidency. During his short stay in power (104 days), Amin became committed to establishing a collective leadership. When Taraki was ousted, Amin promised “from now on there will be no one-man government …” Attempting to pacify the population, he released a list of 18,000 people who had been executed and blamed the executions on Taraki. Amin was disliked by the Afghan people. During his rule, opposition to the communist regime increased and the government lost control over the countryside. The state of the Afghan military deteriorated under Amin; due to desertions, the number of military personnel in the Afghan army decreased from 100,000 in the immediate aftermath of the Saur Revolution to somewhere between 50,000 and 70,000.

Meanwhile in the Soviet Union, the Special Commission of the Politburo on Afghanistan, consisting of Yuri Andropov, Andrei Gromyko, Dmitriy Ustinov, and Boris Ponomarev, wanted to end the impression that the Soviet government supported Amin’s leadership and policies.

Amin remained trustful of the Soviet Union until the very end, despite the deterioration of official relations with the Soviet Union. When the Afghan intelligence service handed Amin a report that the Soviet Union would invade the country and topple him, Amin claimed the report was a product of imperialism.

Saur Revolution

The day after the Marxist revolution on April 28, 1978.

A photo of several tanks surrounding a building the day after the Marxist revolution on April 28, 1978.

34.6.3: The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

On December 27, 1979, Soviet Union forces stormed the Tajbeg Palace in Afghanistan and killed Afghan President Hafizullah Amin, then installed Babrak Karmal as Amin’s successor.

Learning Objective

Review the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the challenges it faced

Key Points

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was formed after the Saur Revolution on April 27, 1978.
By mid-1978, a rebellion started, with rebels attacking the local military garrison in the Nuristan region of eastern Afghanistan. Civil war soon spread throughout the country.
In September 1979, Deputy Prime Minister Hafizullah Amin seized power, arresting and killing President Taraki.
Based on information from the KGB, Soviet leaders felt that Prime Minister Hafizullah Amin’s actions had destabilized the situation in Afghanistan and the USSR started to discuss how to respond.
Deteriorating relations and worsening rebellions led the Soviet government, under leader Leonid Brezhnev, to deploy the 40th Army on December 24, 1979; arriving in the capital Kabul, they staged a coup, killing president Amin and installing Soviet loyalist Babrak Karmal from a rival faction.
The Soviets did not foresee taking such an active role in fighting the rebels; however, their arrival had the opposite effect as it incensed instead of pacified the people, causing the mujahideen rebels to gain strength and numbers.
The fighting became the Soviet-Afghan War, which lasted for over nine years and was often brutal, with the mujahideen staging guerrilla-style tactics with weapons supplied by the U.S. and other allies.
The UN, along with much of the international community, was highly critical of the Soviet actions.

Key Terms

Babrak Karmal: An Afghan politician installed as president of Afghanistan by the USSR when they invaded in 1979. Policy failures and the stalemate that ensued after the Soviet intervention led the Soviet leadership to become highly critical of his leadership. Under Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union deposed him and replaced him with Mohammad Najibullah.
KGB: The main security agency for the Soviet Union from 1954 until its break-up in 1991, acting as internal security, intelligence, and secret police.
People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA): A socialist party established on January 1, 1965. While a minority, the party helped former prime minister of Afghanistan, Mohammed Daoud Khan, overthrow his cousin, Mohammed Zahir Shah, and established the Republic of Afghanistan. Later in 1978 this party, with help from the Afghan National Army, seized power from Daoud in what is known as the Saur Revolution.

Background

Prior to the arrival of Soviet troops, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) took power after a 1978 coup, installing Nur Mohammad Taraki as president. The party initiated a series of radical modernization reforms throughout the country that were deeply unpopular, particularly among the more traditional rural population and the established power structures. The government vigorously suppressed any opposition and arrested thousands, executing as many as 27,000 political prisoners. Anti-government armed groups were formed, and by April 1979 large parts of the country were in open rebellion. The government itself was highly unstable with in-party rivalry, and in September 1979 the president was deposed by followers of Hafizullah Amin, who then became president.

Based on information from the KGB, Soviet leaders felt that Prime Minister Hafizullah Amin’s actions had destabilized the situation in Afghanistan. Following his initial coup against and killing of President Taraki, the KGB station in Kabul warned Moscow that Amin’s leadership would lead to “harsh repressions, and as a result, the activation and consolidation of the opposition.”

Despite earlier commitments to not intervene in Afghanistan, as the situation continued to deteriorate from May–December 1979, Moscow changed its mind on dispatching Soviet troops. The reasons for this turnabout are not entirely clear, and several speculative arguments include the grave internal situation and inability for the Afghan government to quell the rebellion; the effects of the Iranian Revolution that brought an Islamic theocracy into power, leading to fears that religious fanaticism would spread through Afghanistan and into Soviet Muslim Central Asian republics; and the deteriorating ties with the United States. Conservatives believe that this process was reflective of growing Soviet political influence in the world and that Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in December 1979 was an attempt to preserve, stabilize, and militarily intervene on behalf of the communist regime and thus improve their own political standing.

Soviet Invasion and Coup d’état

On October 31, 1979, Soviet informants to the Afghan Armed Forces, under orders from the inner circle of advisers under Soviet premier Brezhnev, relayed information for them to undergo maintenance cycles for their tanks and other crucial equipment. Meanwhile, telecommunications links to areas outside of Kabul were severed, isolating the capital. With a deteriorating security situation, large numbers of Soviet Airborne Forces joined stationed ground troops and began to land in Kabul on December 25. Simultaneously, Amin moved the offices of the president to the Tajbeg Palace, believing this location to be more secure from possible threats. According to Colonel General Tukharinov and Merimsky, Amin was fully informed of the military movements, having requested Soviet military assistance to northern Afghanistan on December 17. His brother and General Dmitry Chiangov met with the commander of the 40th Army before Soviet troops entered the country to work out their initial routes and locations.

On December 27, 1979, 700 Soviet troops dressed in Afghan uniforms, including KGB and GRU special forces officers, occupied major governmental, military, and media buildings in Kabul, including their primary target – the Tajbeg Presidential Palace.

That operation began at 7 p.m. when the KGB-led Soviet Zenith Group destroyed Kabul’s communications hub, paralyzing Afghan military command. At 7:15, the assault on Tajbeg Palace began; as planned, president Hafizullah Amin was killed. Simultaneously, other objectives were occupied. The operation was fully complete by the morning of December 28, 1979.

A Soviet-organized government, led by Parcham’s Babrak Karmal but inclusive of both factions, filled the vacuum. Soviet troops were deployed to stabilize Afghanistan under Karmal in substantial numbers, although the Soviet government did not expect to do most of the fighting in Afghanistan. As a result, however, the Soviets were now directly involved in what had been a domestic war .

Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

Soviet paratroopers aboard a BMD-1 tank in Kabul.

Soviet paratroopers aboard a BMD-1 tank in Kabul during the Soviet invasion.

International Reaction

Foreign ministers from 34 Islamic nations adopted a resolution that condemned the Soviet intervention and demanded “the immediate, urgent and unconditional withdrawal of Soviet troops” from the Muslim nation of Afghanistan. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution protesting the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan by a vote of 104–18. According to political scientist Gilles Kepel, the Soviet intervention or “invasion” was “viewed with horror” in the West, considered a “fresh twist” on the geo-political “Great Game” of the 19th Century in which Britain feared that Russia sought access to the Indian Ocean and posed “a threat to Western security,” explicitly violating “the world balance of power agreed upon at Yalta” in 1945.

War Continues

Soviet troops occupied the cities and main arteries of communication, while the mujahideen waged guerrilla war in small groups in the almost 80 percent of the country that escaped government and Soviet control. Soviets used their air power to deal harshly with both rebels and civilians, leveling villages to deny safe haven to the enemy, destroying vital irrigation ditches, and laying millions of land mines.

The Soviets did not foresee taking on such an active role in fighting the rebels and attempted to downplay their involvement as light assistance to the Afghan army. However, the arrival of the Soviets had the opposite effect as it incensed instead of pacified the people, causing the mujahideen to gain in strength and numbers. Originally the Soviets thought their forces would strengthen the backbone of the Afghan army and provide assistance by securing major cities, lines of communication, and transportation. The Afghan army forces had a high desertion rate and were loath to fight, especially since the Soviet forces pushed them into infantry roles while they manned the armored vehicles and artillery.

The mujahideen favored sabotage operations such as damaging power lines, knocking out pipelines and radio stations, and blowing up government office buildings, air terminals, hotels, cinemas, and so on. In the border region with Pakistan, the mujahideen would often launch 800 rockets per day. Between April 1985 and January 1987, they carried out over 23,500 shelling attacks on government targets. They concentrated on both civilian and military targets, knocking out bridges, closing major roads, attacking convoys, disrupting the electric power system and industrial production, and attacking police stations and Soviet military installations and air bases. They assassinated government officials and PDPA members and laid siege to small rural outposts.

By the mid-1980s, the Soviet contingent was increased to 108,800 and fighting increased throughout the country, but the military and diplomatic cost of the war to the USSR was high. By mid-1987 the Soviet Union, now under reformist leader Mikhail Gorbachev, announced it would start withdrawing its forces. The final troop withdrawal started on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989. Due to its length, it has sometimes been referred to as the “Soviet Union’s Vietnam War” by the Western media, and is thought to be a contributing factor to the fall of the Soviet Union.

34.6.4: The United States and the Mujahideen

The United States viewed the conflict in Afghanistan as an integral Cold War struggle, and the CIA provided assistance to anti-Soviet mujahideen rebels through the Pakistani intelligence services in a program called Operation Cyclone.

Learning Objective

Discuss the ties between the United States and the mujahideen

Key Points

Although U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s focus was more on Iran during the months before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he initiated a covert program through the CIA to financially support the Afghan rebels, the mujahideen, in July 1979.
After the Soviet invasion in December 1979, which was a surprise to Carter, the CIA expanded the program, code-named Operation Cyclone, and began providing weapons along with money to the mujahideen through the Pakistani intelligence services.
Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken. More than $20 billion in U.S. funds was funneled into the country to train and arm Afghan resistance groups.
The U.S.-built Stinger antiaircraft missile, supplied to the mujahideen in very large numbers beginning in 1986, struck a decisive blow to the Soviets.
The Stingers were so renowned and deadly that in the 1990s, the United States conducted a “buy-back” program to keep unused missiles from falling into the hands of anti-American terrorists, an effort which was covertly renewed in the early 2000s.
Conspiracy theorists have alleged that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were beneficiaries of CIA assistance, a claim which is refuted by many experts.

Key Terms

Reagan Doctrine: A strategy orchestrated and implemented by the United States under the Reagan Administration to overwhelm the global influence of the Soviet Union in an attempt to end the Cold War. Under this doctrine, the United States provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist guerrillas and resistance movements to “roll back” Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Operation Cyclone: The code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program to arm and finance the Jihadi warriors, mujahideen, in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, prior to and during the military intervention by the USSR in support of its client, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.
mujahideen: The term for one engaged in Jihad. In English usage, it originally referred to the guerrilla type military outfits led by the Muslim Afghan warriors in the Soviet–- War, but now may refer to jihadist outfits in other countries.

U.S. Response to Afghan-Soviet War

American President Jimmy Carter was surprised by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, as the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community during 1978 and 1979—reiterated as late as September 29, 1979—was that “Moscow would not intervene in force even if it appeared likely that the Khalq government was about to collapse.” Indeed, Carter’s diary entries from November 1979 until the Soviet invasion in late December contain only two short references to Afghanistan, and are instead preoccupied with the ongoing hostage crisis in Iran. Despite the focus on Iran, Carter had authorized a collaboration between the CIA and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and through the ISI, the CIA began providing $500,000 worth of non-lethal assistance to the mujahideen on July 3, 1979—several months before the Soviet invasion.

In the aftermath of the invasion, Carter was determined to respond vigorously to what he considered a dangerous provocation. In a televised speech, he announced sanctions on the Soviet Union, promised renewed aid to Pakistan, and committed the United States to the Persian Gulf’s defense. Carter also called for a boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, which raised a bitter controversy.

The thrust of U.S. policy for the duration of the war was determined by Carter in early 1980 when he initiated a program to arm the mujahideen through Pakistan’s ISI and secured a pledge from Saudi Arabia to match U.S. funding for this purpose. U.S. support for the mujahideen accelerated under Carter’s successor, Ronald Reagan, at a final cost to U.S. taxpayers of some $3 billion.

Operation Cyclone

Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) covert program to arm and finance the Jihadi warriors, mujahideen, in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, prior to and during the military intervention by the USSR in support of its client, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. The program leaned heavily toward supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by the regime of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in neighboring Pakistan, rather than less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention. Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken. Funding began with $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987. Funding continued after 1989 as the mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah’s PDPA during the civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992).

President Reagan greatly expanded the program as part of the Reagan Doctrine of aiding anti-Soviet resistance movements abroad. To execute this policy, Reagan deployed CIA Special Activities Division paramilitary officers to equip the mujihadeen forces against the Soviet Army. Although the CIA and Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson received the most attention for their roles, the key architect of the strategy was Michael G. Vickers, a young CIA paramilitary officer working for Gust Avrakotos, the CIA’s regional head who had a close relationship with Wilson. Vicker’s strategy was to use a broad mix of weapons, tactics, logistics, and training programs to enhance the rebels’ ability to fight a guerrilla war against the Soviets. Reagan’s program assisted in ending the Soviet’s occupation in Afghanistan.

The United States offered two packages of economic assistance and military sales to support Pakistan’s role in the war against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. The first six-year assistance package (1981–87) amounted to $3.2 billion, equally divided between economic assistance and military sales. The U.S. also sold 40 F-16 aircraft to Pakistan during 1983–87 at a cost of $1.2 billion outside the assistance package. The second six-year assistance package (1987–93) amounted to $4.2 billion. Out of this, $2.28 billion was allocated for economic assistance in the form of grants or loan that carried the interest rate of 2–3 percent. The rest of the allocation ($1.74 billion) was in the form of credit for military purchases. More than $20 billion in U.S. funds was funneled into the country to train and arm the Afghan resistance groups. The support proved vital to the mujahideen’s efforts against the Soviets.

The U.S.-built Stinger antiaircraft missile, supplied to the mujahideen in very large numbers beginning in 1986, struck a decisive blow to the Soviet war effort as it allowed the lightly armed Afghans to effectively defend against Soviet helicopter landings in strategic areas. The Stingers were so renowned and deadly that in the 1990s, the United States conducted a “buy-back” program to keep unused missiles from falling into the hands of anti-American terrorists. This program may have been covertly renewed following the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan in late 2001 out of fear that remaining Stingers could be used against U.S. forces in the country.

The Soviets were unable to quell the insurgency and withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, precipitating the dissolution of the Soviet Union. However, the decision to route U.S. aid through Pakistan led to massive fraud as weapons sent to Karachi were frequently sold on the local market rather than delivered to the Afghan rebels. Karachi soon “became one of the most violent cities in the world.” Pakistan also controlled which rebels received assistance. Of the seven mujahideen groups supported by Zia’s government, four espoused Islamic fundamentalist beliefs—and these fundamentalists received most of the funding.

Conspiracy theorists have alleged that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were beneficiaries of CIA assistance. This is refuted by experts such as Steve Coll—who notes that declassified CIA records and interviews with CIA officers do not support such claims—and Peter Bergen, who concludes: “The theory that bin Laden was created by the CIA is invariably advanced as an axiom with no supporting evidence.” U.S. funding went to the Afghan mujahideen, not the Arab volunteers who arrived to assist them.

Reagan and the Mujahideen

President Reagan meeting with Afghan mujahideen leaders in the Oval Office in 1983

President Reagan meeting with Afghan Mujahideen leaders in the Oval Office in 1983

34.6.5: Emergence of Extremism

The Taliban is an Sunni Islamic fundamentalist movement that rose to power in Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew in 1989 and ruled from 1996-2001, enforcing a strict interpretation of Islamic law that resulted in the brutal treatment of many Afghans, especially women.

Learning Objective

Generalize how the conflict in Afghanistan led to the rise of Islamism and the Taliban

Key Points

In 1989, with mounting international pressure and military losses against the Afghan rebels, the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, ending the Soviet-Afghan War.
Fighting in Afghanistan continued, with the Afghan government under the leadership of President Mohammad Najibullah launching attacks against the rebels without international support.
Afghanistan descended into political chaos and an estimated 25,000 people died during this period.
Southern and eastern Afghanistan were under the control of local commanders and in 1994, the Taliban, a Sunni Islamic fundamentalist political movement, took control of southern Afghanistan and forced the surrender of dozens of local leaders.
In 1996, the Taliban seized Kabul (the capital) and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, imposing a strict form of Sharia, which resulted in the brutal treatment of many Afghans, especially women, including sex trafficking and massacres.
In 2001, the Taliban was overthrown and a new government established, but Afghanistan remains one of the poorest countries in the world due to a lack of foreign investment, government corruption, and the continued Taliban insurgency.

Key Terms

Taliban: A Sunni Islamic fundamentalist political movement in Afghanistan currently waging war (an insurgency, or jihad) within that country. From 1996 to 2001, it held power in Afghanistan and enforced a strict interpretation of Sharia, or Islamic law, of which the international community and leading Muslims have been highly critical.
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan: An Islamic state established in September 1996 when the Taliban began its rule of Afghanistan after the fall of Kabul. At its peak, the Taliban established control over approximately 90% of the country, whereas parts of the northeast were held by the Northern Alliance. The regime ended on December 9, 2001, forced out by the Northern Alliance backed by U.S. air forces.
Al Qaeda: A militant Sunni Islamist multi-national organization founded in 1988 by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam, and several other Arab volunteers who fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Osama bin Laden: The founder of al-Qaeda, the organization that claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the United States, along with numerous other mass-casualty attacks worldwide.

Soviet Withdrawal From Afghanistan

Faced with mounting international pressure and numerous casualties, the Soviets withdrew in 1989 but continued to support Afghan President Mohammad Najibullah until 1992. Following the Soviet withdrawal, some of the foreign volunteers (including Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda) and young Afghan refugees, went on to continue violent jihad in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and abroad. According to political scientist Mohammed H. Hafez, some of the thousands of Afghan Arabs who left Afghanistan went on to become “capable leaders, religious ideologues and military commanders,” who played “vital roles” as insurgents or terrorists in places such as Algeria, Egypt, Bosnia, and Chechnya. Tens of thousands of Afghan refugee children in Pakistan were educated in madrases “in a spirit of conservatism and religious rigor,” explains political scientist Gilles Kepel, and went on to fill the ranks and leadership of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Sipah-e-Sahaba in Pakistan. When the Soviet Union fell shortly after its withdrawal from Afghanistan, the volunteers were overjoyed, believing that—in the words of Osama bin Laden—the credit for “the dissolution of the Soviet Union … goes to God and the mujahideen in Afghanistan … the US had no mentionable role.”

Continued Civil War

From 1989 until 1992, Najibullah’s government tried to solve the ongoing civil war with economic and military aid, but without Soviet troops on the ground. Pakistan’s spy agency (ISI), headed by Hamid Gul at the time, was interested in a trans-national Islamic revolution that would cover Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia. For this purpose, Pakistan masterminded an attack on Jalalabad for the mujahideen to establish its own government in Afghanistan. Najibullah tried to build support for his government by portraying his government as Islamic, and in the 1990 constitution the country officially became an Islamic state and all references of communism were removed. Nevertheless, Najibullah did not win any significant support, and with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, he was left without foreign aid. This coupled with the internal collapse of his government led to his ousting from power in April 1992. After the fall of Najibullah’s government, the post-communist Islamic State of Afghanistan was established by the Peshawar Accord, a peace and power-sharing agreement under which all the Afghan parties were united in April 1992, except for the Pakistani supported Hezb-e Islami of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Hekmatyar started a bombardment campaign against the capital city Kabul, which marked the beginning of a new phase in the war.

Due to the sudden initiation of the war, working government departments, police units, and a system of justice and accountability for the newly created Islamic State of Afghanistan did not have time to form. Atrocities were committed by individuals of the different armed factions while Kabul descended into lawlessness and chaos. For civilians there was little security from murder, rape, and extortion. An estimated 25,000 people died during the most intense period of bombardment by Hekmatyar’s Hezb-i Islami and the Junbish-i Milli forces of Abdul Rashid Dostum, who created an alliance with Hekmatyar in 1994. Half a million people fled Afghanistan.

Southern and eastern Afghanistan were under the control of local commanders such as Gul Agha Sherzai and others. In 1994, the Taliban (a movement originating from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-run religious schools for Afghan refugees in Pakistan) also developed in Afghanistan as a political-religious force. The Taliban first took control of southern Afghanistan in 1994 and forced the surrender of dozens of local Pashtun leaders.

In late 1994, forces of military commander Ahmad Shah Massoud held on to Kabul. Rabbani’s government took steps to reopen courts, restore law and order, and initiate a nationwide political process with the goal of national consolidation and democratic elections. Massoud invited Taliban leaders to join the process but they refused.

Afghan Civil War

A totally destroyed section of Kabul during the civil war in 1993.

A totally destroyed section of Kabul in 1993.

Taliban Takes Power

The Taliban’s early victories in late 1994 were followed by a series of defeats that resulted in heavy losses. The Taliban attempted to capture Kabul in early 1995 but were repelled by forces under Massoud. In September 1996 as the Taliban, with military support from Pakistan and financial support from Saudi Arabia, prepared for another major offensive, Massoud ordered a full retreat from Kabul. The Taliban seized Kabul in the same month and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. They imposed a strict form of Sharia, similar to that found in Saudi Arabia.

The Taliban have been condemned internationally for the harsh enforcement of their interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, which has resulted in the brutal treatment of many Afghans, especially women. During their rule from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban and their allies committed massacres against Afghan civilians, denied UN food supplies to 160,000 starving civilians, and conducted a policy of scorched earth, burning vast areas of fertile land and destroying tens of thousands of homes. In its post-9/11 insurgency, the group has been accused of using terrorism as a specific tactic to further their ideological and political goals. Several Taliban and al-Qaeda commanders also ran a network of human trafficking, abducting women and selling them into sex slavery in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

After the fall of Kabul to the Taliban, Massoud and Dostum formed the Northern Alliance. The Taliban defeated Dostum’s forces during the Battles of Mazar-i-Sharif (1997–98). Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Pervez Musharraf, began sending thousands of Pakistanis to help the Taliban defeat the Northern Alliance. From 1996 to 2001, the al-Qaeda network of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri was also operating inside Afghanistan. From 1990 to September 2001, around 400,000 Afghans died in the internal mini-wars.

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

Map of the situation in Afghanistan in late 1996; Massoud (red), Dostum (green) and Taliban (yellow) territories.

The map shows that the southern two thirds of Afghanistan was Taliban territory. The remaining third of the country was divided between Dostums territory in the northwest and Massouds territory in the northeast. The Dostums territory and Massouds territory together comprised the Northern Alliance.

On September 9, 2001, Massoud was assassinated by two Arab suicide attackers in Panjshir province of Afghanistan. Two days later, the September 11 attacks were carried out in the United States. The U.S. government suspected Osama bin Laden as the perpetrator of the attacks, and demanded that the Taliban hand him over. After refusing to comply, the October 2001 Operation Enduring Freedom was launched. During the initial invasion, U.S. and UK forces bombed al-Qaeda training camps. The United States began working with the Northern Alliance to remove the Taliban from power.

Fall of the Taliban: Continued Insurgency

In December 2001, after the Taliban government was overthrown and the new Afghan government under President Hamid Karzai was formed, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was established by the UN Security Council to assist the Karzai administration and provide basic security. Taliban forces also began regrouping inside Pakistan, while more coalition troops entered Afghanistan and began rebuilding the war-torn country.

Shortly after their fall from power, the Taliban began an insurgency to regain control of Afghanistan. Over the next decade, ISAF and Afghan troops led many offensives against the Taliban but failed to fully defeat them. Afghanistan remains one of the poorest countries in the world due to a lack of foreign investment, government corruption, and the Taliban insurgency.