How the Sykes–Picot Agreement redrew the Middle East and why its legacy still hurts

Many political arguments about the modern Middle East eventually circle back to one early 20th century document: the Sykes–Picot Agreement. It is often blamed for almost every border dispute and civil war in the region.

The reality is more complicated, but understanding what Sykes–Picot was, why it happened, and what followed helps make sense of today’s conflicts and the frustrations many people still feel about outside interference.

What was the Sykes–Picot Agreement?

The Sykes–Picot Agreement was a secret deal made in 1916 during the First World War between Britain and France, with Russia’s approval. It outlined how they expected to divide much of the Ottoman Empire’s Arab provinces if they won the war.

The agreement was named after the negotiators: British official Mark Sykes and French diplomat François Georges-Picot. It was not a public treaty. Most people in the region had no idea it existed, even while they were being encouraged to rebel against Ottoman rule.

Why European powers wanted a secret deal

Britain and France were thinking about strategic interests rather than local wishes. They cared about things like routes to India, access to oil, control of ports, and keeping each other’s influence in balance.

The Ottoman Empire had joined the war on the side of Germany and its allies. European leaders believed the empire might collapse, so they tried to plan in advance how to divide territories such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine to avoid clashes among themselves later.

Overlapping promises and rising tensions

The Sykes–Picot Agreement did not exist in isolation. At almost the same time, Britain was making other promises that did not fully match it, which helps explain later anger and mistrust.

One was the Hussein–McMahon correspondence, in which British officials gave broad encouragement to an Arab revolt against the Ottomans and hinted at postwar independence for many Arab lands. Another was the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which supported creating a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.

These overlapping commitments were vague, sometimes contradictory and certainly not transparent to the people whose lives would be affected. After the war, when it became clear that European rule would expand instead of Arab independence, many felt deeply betrayed.

What Sykes–Picot actually drew on the map

The agreement divided influence into colored zones on a map. France expected control or strong influence over what is now Syria and Lebanon and parts of southeastern Turkey. Britain expected the same over much of present-day Iraq, Jordan and the Gulf coast.

Some areas were meant to be under direct colonial administration, others under indirect control, for example as “independent” Arab states that would in practice follow British or French guidance. The details later changed, but the basic idea of dividing influence between London and Paris remained.

From secret map to real mandates

Sykes–Picot alone did not create the modern states of the region, but it prepared the ground. After the war, the new League of Nations approved “mandates”, which gave Britain and France formal authority to administer former Ottoman territories.

France took the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon. Britain took the Mandate for Iraq and the Mandate for Palestine, which then also included what became Jordan. Over the next two decades, boundaries were adjusted and new monarchies established, often with limited local consultation.

Why the new borders were so fragile

The new frontiers were usually drawn to satisfy outside powers rather than to reflect local identities, languages, trade routes or tribal lands. As a result, many communities found themselves split between new states or bundled into the same state despite long-standing rivalries.

Kurdish regions were divided among several countries. In Iraq, for example, Sunni and Shia Arabs and Kurdish communities were placed in one kingdom under a Hashemite monarchy supported by Britain. In Syria and Lebanon, France experimented with carving out separate areas based on religion and community, which left a legacy of competition and mistrust.

Human consequences: rule, resistance and memory

Living under mandates meant that people who had hoped for independence now faced foreign administrators, military garrisons and imposed decisions about schools, infrastructure and taxation. This fuelled protests, revolts and new political movements.

Examples include uprisings in Iraq in 1920, rebellions in Syria through the 1920s and 1930s, and growing tension in Palestine between different communities and the British authorities. These experiences shaped political culture: suspicion of outside interference, pride in resistance and a deep sense that promised self-determination had been postponed or denied.

How much of today’s conflict is “because of Sykes–Picot”?

In modern debates, Sykes–Picot is sometimes treated as the single cause of most regional problems. This is too simple. Many later events have also been crucial, including independence struggles, coups, Cold War rivalries and local leaders’ decisions.

However, the agreement did set a pattern that still matters. It encouraged thinking of the region as a space for outside powers to manage. It introduced borders that often did not match social reality and then locked them in place. It also left deep memories of division and broken promises that are still referenced in speeches, schoolbooks and political slogans.

What we can learn from this history

Studying Sykes–Picot is not just about blaming people in the past. It offers practical lessons about how borders and agreements are made, and how ignoring local voices can have long-term costs.

For readers today, a few takeaways are useful: treat simple explanations with care, remember that maps are political tools, and pay attention to whose interests are included or excluded when new lines are drawn. These questions matter not only in the Middle East, but anywhere that outside powers try to redesign political space without genuine local participation.

How to explore the topic further

If you want to go deeper, start with basic maps that show the Ottoman provinces before 1914, the Sykes–Picot zones, and the later mandate borders. Comparing them makes the changes easier to understand.

It is also worth reading local perspectives, not only British or French documents. Memoirs, literature and scholarship from the region highlight how people experienced these changes, rather than just how diplomats described them. This helps turn a distant agreement into a human story about promises, power and the struggle for self-rule.