In 2015, British journalist Tim Marshall published Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Tell You Everything You Need to Know About Global Politics. This book breaks the globe into ten regions, analyzing how geographical features like rivers, mountains, and seas influence political decisions, military strategies, and economic development. Tim Marshall is praised for making a complex topic accessible and engaging. However, his book also faces criticism for certain omissions. Critics point out that by focusing solely on geography, Marshall sometimes neglects other significant factors in political decision-making. In any case, it is useful to learn from the ideas in Prisoners of Geography.
Below, there is a summary of the sixth chapter of the book, which focuses on the Middle East. You can find all available summaries of this book at the links below:
- Chapter 1 (Russia)
- Chapter 2 (China)
- Chapter 3 (United States)
- Chapter 4 (Western Europe)
- Chapter 5 (Africa)
- Chapter 6 (Middle East)
The name “Middle East” reflects a European perspective, both in its conception and in the way the region’s borders were drawn. European powers created artificial borders, often ignoring the region’s natural and cultural landscapes. This historical imposition has led to ongoing attempts to redefine these borders, sometimes through violent means. For instance, in 2014, the Islamic State released a video showing the erasure of the Iraq-Syria border, challenging the concept of fixed national boundaries.
Originally, the Middle East had fewer borders, primarily shaped by natural geography, ethnicity, and religion without the rigid structure of nation-states. This vast region stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to Iran and from the Black Sea to the Arabian Sea. It encompasses diverse landscapes including deserts, oases, mountains, rivers, and cities, rich in natural resources like oil and gas. The Arabian Desert, touching several countries, is a significant feature influencing settlement patterns. The concept of nation-states and fixed borders was alien to the local inhabitants, who traditionally moved freely across the region.
The Ottoman Empire, ruling from Istanbul, controlled a large portion of what is now the Middle East without strictly defined borders. It divided the region into administrative areas, or ‘Vilayets’, based on tribal locations rather than formal boundaries. This approach changed when the Empire weakened. The British and French, eyeing control, drew arbitrary lines across the region. The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, a secret deal between Britain and France, split the region into spheres of influence, disregarding the indigenous ways of life and governance.
‘Sykes-Picot’ has since become synonymous with the Western imposition of arbitrary nation-states in the Middle East. This intervention, while not the sole cause, has contributed to the region’s ongoing unrest and extremism. The current map of the Middle East, with its relatively young and fragile nation-states like Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, and Palestine, is a testament to the lasting impact of European colonization and the artificial nature of its borders.
Islam, the predominant religion in the Middle East, encompasses a diverse range of beliefs and practices. The most significant split in Islam dates back to 632 CE, following the death of the Prophet Muhammad. This division led to the emergence of Sunni and Shia Muslims. Sunni Muslims, who form about 85% of the global Muslim population, base their practices on the traditions of the Prophet and believe his successor should be chosen through Arab tribal traditions. Shia Muslims, on the other hand, follow the lineage of the Prophet’s son-in-law, Ali, and his descendants, Hassan and Hussein, who were assassinated.
This historical schism has resulted in both doctrinal and cultural differences between Sunnis and Shias, leading to conflicts as well as periods of peaceful coexistence. Within these two branches, further subdivisions exist. Sunni Islam includes groups like the strict Hanbali tradition, influential in places like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and the Salafi movement, associated with jihadist ideology. Shia Islam also has internal divisions, with groups like the Twelvers, Ismailis, and Zaidis, each with their own beliefs and interpretations.
The legacy of European colonialism further complicated the religious landscape. Arab nations, carved out by colonial powers, often ended up being governed by leaders who favored their own branch of Islam and tribal affiliations. This led to governance that did not necessarily represent the diverse religious and tribal groups within these arbitrarily drawn borders.
Iraq exemplifies the turmoil resulting from this imposition of borders and governance. The religious Shia population never fully accepted Sunni-led control over their holy cities. This tension was further aggravated by the division of the region by colonial powers and later Iraqi dictators, who often ruled through fear and propaganda, ignoring the region’s deep-seated tribal and religious identities.
The Kurdish people, predominantly located in northern Iraq, have long sought autonomy. They have maintained a distinct identity despite facing cultural and military repression, such as the al-Anfal campaign led by Saddam Hussein, which targeted Kurdish villages. The Gulf War and the subsequent conflict in 2003 provided an opportunity for the Kurds to establish a degree of autonomy. While not a sovereign state, Iraqi Kurdistan has gained many attributes of statehood, and the possibility of an internationally recognized Kurdistan remains a subject of debate.
However, the formation of a Kurdish state poses significant challenges. The Kurdish region is divided among rival factions and extends into neighboring countries like Syria, Turkey, and Iran, raising questions about the future shape of Kurdistan and the response of these countries. Furthermore, the internal unity among the Kurds is uncertain, with different groups having varied visions for a potential Kurdish state. The future of Iraq itself is uncertain, as these dynamics continue to reshape the region’s political and cultural landscape.
Jordan, also known as the Hashemite Kingdom, was formed by the British after World War I. To resolve promises made to both the Saud and Hashemite tribes, who had aided the British against the Ottomans, the British divided the Arabian Peninsula. They established Saudi Arabia, named after the Saud family, and Transjordan, which meant “the other side of the Jordan River.” Transjordan, with its capital at Amman, eventually became Jordan in 1948. The Hashemites, originally from Mecca, ruled over a population that now largely consists of Palestinians, especially after the 1967 Israeli occupation of the West Bank. This influx, along with Iraqi and Syrian refugees, has significantly strained Jordan’s resources and altered its demographic landscape, creating tensions regarding loyalty to King Abdullah and the capacity of the country to support its population.
Lebanon’s formation and demographic shifts are equally complex. Historically seen as a part of Syria, the French, after World War I, established it as a separate entity, aligning with the region’s Arab Christians. They named it Lebanon after nearby mountains. Over time, demographic changes have dramatically altered Lebanon’s religious landscape. The Christian population, once dominant, has been overtaken by Shia and Sunni Muslims, further complicated by the influx of Palestinian refugees. This demographic shift has led to recurrent conflicts, including the 1958 civil war and later sectarian tensions.
Lebanon’s capital, Beirut, along with other regions, is sharply divided along religious lines, with areas dominated by Shia, Sunni, and Alawite communities. The Shia group Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is particularly influential in the southern parts of the country and the Beqaa Valley. This religious and political fragmentation means that Lebanon, while appearing unified on a map, is deeply divided on the ground. The Lebanese army, though officially existing, would likely disintegrate in the event of a civil war, as seen during the 1975-1990 conflict, with soldiers returning to their local militias.
This pattern of military fragmentation was also evident in Syria. As the civil war escalated in 2011, the Syrian armed forces began to disintegrate, with many soldiers joining local groups, reflecting the deep-rooted sectarian and regional divisions within the country.
Syria, a nation characterized by its diverse religious and tribal composition, unraveled under the strain of its internal divisions. The majority Sunni Muslim population, about 70%, coexisted with significant minorities of other faiths, yet underlying tensions were always present. This was evident in the distinct dominance of certain groups in specific areas and the ease with which unity could dissolve into division, a situation similar to Iraq.
Historically, the French colonial administration employed a divide-and-rule strategy, favoring minority groups like the Alawites, then known as Nusayris. The Alawites, initially a marginalized community, were strategically placed in the police and military, eventually rising to significant power. This rise is exemplified by the Assad family, who have ruled Syria since Hafez Assad’s coup in 1970. The Alawite dominance, particularly under Bashar Assad, has been a source of tension, given their minority status in the largely Sunni country. This tension exploded into civil war in 2011, partly fueled by long-standing grievances, such as the brutal suppression of a Sunni uprising by Hafez Assad in 1982.
The future of Syria remains uncertain. One possibility is the retreat of the Alawites to their coastal and hill strongholds, echoing a similar situation in the 1920s and 1930s. However, this scenario is complicated by the presence of Sunni Muslims in these areas and the likelihood of a new Sunni-dominated government seeking to reclaim these regions. Syria’s current situation resembles a patchwork of fiefdoms controlled by various warlords, with President Assad being the most powerful among them. The prolonged civil war, reminiscent of Lebanon’s 15-year conflict, suggests a grim and unstable future for Syria.
International involvement further complicates Syria’s situation. Various external powers, including Russia, Iran, and Lebanese Hezbollah, support the Syrian government, while Arab states back different opposition factions. The Saudis and Qataris, for example, each support different groups, vying for influence in the region. The resolution of these conflicts and the maintenance of these regions as a single, governable entity will require a rare combination of skill, courage, and compromise, especially in the face of Sunni jihadist efforts to expand their ‘caliphate’.
Groups like Al Qaeda and Islamic State have gained support in part due to the lasting effects of colonialism, the failure of pan-Arab nationalism, and the shortcomings of Arab nation-states. Arab leaders have often failed to provide prosperity and freedom, leading many to find the promises of Islamism appealing. These groups yearn for a return to a perceived golden age of Islam, when it led the world in various fields. This nostalgia has exacerbated regional suspicions and hostilities.
Islamic State, initially an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq, gained prominence during the Syrian Civil War. Renaming itself several times, it eventually declared a caliphate in parts of Iraq and Syria in 2014. Its appeal stemmed from its successful territory control and its effective use of social media for propaganda, attracting a global following of jihadists.
However, the fanaticism of such groups imposes limits to their success. Their brutal methods and intolerance towards non-Sunnis have alienated many, including Sunni tribes who may temporarily ally with jihadists for their own goals but are unlikely to support a return to archaic practices. Additionally, the economic viability of territories under their control is questionable, especially in Sunni-dominated areas of Iraq, which lack resources like oil that are abundant in Kurdish and Shia regions.
In Syria, the situation is similarly complex. Shia-dominated areas with economic advantages, like oil fields and ports, are better positioned in the event of a national split. Meanwhile, the jihadist ambition of a global caliphate or even a regional one is limited by their actual capabilities.
The impact of these conflicts extends beyond the Middle East. Jihadists from around the world, including Europe, North America, and Asia, who have joined these groups, pose a significant challenge upon their return to their home countries. These countries are now grappling with the consequences of radicalization, which started decades ago and continues to pose security risks.
The turmoil is not limited to Syria and Iraq. Saudi Arabia has been confronting Al Qaeda, and now faces a new wave of jihadist challenges. Yemen, with its own conflicts and strong jihadist presence, and Jordan, with its growing Islamist movement, are also deeply affected. Jordan, in particular, faces the risk of jihadist incursions and internal unrest, posing a threat to both its own stability and that of neighboring countries like Israel.
The complexities of the Arab Middle East have somewhat shifted focus away from the longstanding Israeli-Arab conflict. Despite this, the Israeli-Palestinian issue remains a significant concern. Historically, the Ottomans viewed the area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean as part of Syria, naming it Filistina. Under British Mandate, this became Palestine. Jews, considering Israel their promised land, especially Jerusalem, had been dispersed globally but maintained a historical connection to the region. By 1948, however, Arab Muslims and Christians had been the majority there for over a millennium.
The 20th century saw increased Jewish immigration to Palestine, spurred by persecution in Eastern Europe and the horrors of the Holocaust. The British supported the establishment of a Jewish homeland, leading to heightened tensions. In 1948, the United Nations proposed partitioning the area into two states, which led to war and the creation of Palestinian refugees, as well as Jewish refugees from other parts of the Middle East.
Jordan and Egypt occupied the West Bank and Gaza, respectively, without granting statehood or citizenship to the residents. Neither Syria, Egypt, nor Jordan showed interest in a separate Palestinian state, considering the region part of their territories. Despite this, Palestinians have developed a strong sense of nationhood, and any Arab attempt to annex parts of a Palestinian state would face significant opposition.
The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in Israeli control of Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. In 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza, but the West Bank remains contested, with many Israeli settlers. Jerusalem is a city of immense religious significance for both Jews and Muslims, making compromise difficult.
Gaza, now separate from Israel, is densely populated and impoverished, constrained by barriers and ongoing conflict. The area serves as a battleground, with militants using it to launch rockets into Israel, which responds with its anti-missile defense system.
The West Bank, larger and landlocked, holds strategic military value. Its mountain ridge offers whoever controls it dominance over the coastal plain and the Jordan Rift Valley. Israel insists on security measures in any future Palestinian state, including restrictions on heavy weaponry and control of the Jordan border. Israel’s small size and lack of strategic depth emphasize its need for defensible borders, a key factor in its approach to the West Bank. This military perspective, coupled with the ideological claims of Jewish settlers, complicates the prospect of an independent Palestinian state with full sovereignty.
Israel, while facing security challenges from neighboring states, does not currently confront a direct existential threat. Egypt, bound by a peace treaty and separated by the Sinai Peninsula, poses no immediate danger. Similarly, Jordan, another nation with a peace treaty with Israel, is separated by desert terrain. The threat from Lebanon, primarily from Hezbollah, is limited to cross-border raids and shelling, but could escalate if Hezbollah employs longer-range rockets. Syria, although historically ambitious for coastal access and resentful of losing Lebanon, is unlikely to pose a significant military threat in the near future, especially given its ongoing civil war.
Iran, however, represents a more complex challenge. As a non-Arab, Farsi-speaking nation, it’s geographically and culturally distinct. Its vast territory, mostly uninhabitable due to deserts and salt plains, is flanked by significant mountain ranges like the Zagros and the Elburz. These natural barriers have historically protected Iran from invasions. Iran’s diverse ethnic composition and centralised power structure, combined with its formidable intelligence network, have maintained internal stability despite the potential for external powers to incite internal dissent.
The potential development of nuclear weapons in Iran is a major concern, particularly for Israel. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran could trigger a regional arms race, with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey seeking their own nuclear capabilities. Israel’s apprehension about striking Iran’s nuclear facilities is restrained by logistical challenges and the strategic significance of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil transit chokepoint. Any disruption here could have global economic repercussions, which deters international support for an Israeli attack on Iran.
Iran’s influence has grown, particularly in Iraq, following the American military drawdowns. This expansion alarms Saudi Arabia and has intensified the Saudi-Iranian rivalry, the centerpiece of a Middle Eastern “Cold War.” Both nations vie for regional dominance and represent different Islamic sects. The removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq eliminated a buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia, heightening tensions. While Saudi Arabia has greater financial resources and a larger territory, it lacks Iran’s population size and military confidence. This dynamic contributes to a volatile and uncertain regional landscape.
Turkey, straddling Europe and Asia, maintains a distinct identity from its Arab neighbors. Although part of the Middle East, Turkey has historically sought to distance itself from regional conflicts. Its ambiguous geographic and cultural position has led to challenges in gaining acceptance into the European Union. Concerns over human rights, particularly regarding the Kurds, economic issues, and its predominantly Muslim population have stalled its EU membership. Turkey’s attempts to modernize and align with Western Europe, initiated by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, have seen mixed success in recent years, with some of Atatürk’s secular reforms being rolled back.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan envisions Turkey as a significant player across Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. However, this ambition faces obstacles. Arab nations are wary of Turkey’s potential neo-Ottoman aspirations, Iran views Turkey as a competitor, and strained relations with Egypt further complicate its position. Turkey’s Islamist policies have led to tensions with Israel, affecting potential energy cooperation in the Mediterranean region. Despite these challenges, Turkey’s strategic location, particularly its control over the Bosporus Strait, makes it a key player in NATO and regional politics.
The Arab Spring, which began in 2010, revealed the complexities and varying aspirations within Arab societies. The term itself, coined by the media, oversimplifies the diverse political and social dynamics at play. Unlike the singular focus on democracy in Eastern Europe in 1989, the Arab world’s movements were fragmented, with no clear, unified direction. This fragmentation has led to ongoing strife, with power often held by militias and political factions rather than through democratic institutions.
Egypt’s revolution exemplifies these dynamics, where the military and the Muslim Brotherhood ousted Mubarak, only for the military to eventually regain control. This pattern of power struggles, often lacking a liberal democratic focus, is evident across the region, including in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. Societies facing poverty and insecurity often prioritize immediate needs over abstract democratic ideals.
The reduction of American involvement in the Middle East, due to decreased energy dependence, may lead to increased engagement by other global powers like China and India. The breakdown of the Sykes-Picot agreement, which shaped the modern Middle East’s borders, signifies deep and ongoing regional transformations. Reconfiguring these borders and addressing the underlying issues will be a lengthy and turbulent process, with significant implications both regionally and globally.
Leave a Reply