Alwaght- A century after signing of Sykes-Picot Agreement, the analysts and observers are now talking about the end of the agreement and advent of a new order with an administration of the US and Russia.
Meanwhile, the Israeli regime, among the others, endorses the end of nation state building process which was set in motion by Sykes-Picot Agreement in the Middle East.
The Israeli officials repeatedly made their ideas clear on the end of 100-years-old order of the Middle East which was based on the 1916 Sykes-Picot deal between Britain and France.
Moshe Ya'alon, the former Israeli defense minister, has talked about the need for breaking the Middle East countries into smaller states and birth of new states in the region, including an independent state of Kurdistan.
This analysis brings in spotlight the reasons behind the Israeli leaders' stances.
Is the US seeking collapse of the Sykes-Picot-drawn boundaries of the region?
The article also aims at answering one more question: How useful were the region’s developments to the Israeli interests?
What is Sykes-Picot Agreement?
Being a decisive factor in Middle East's modern political history, the Sykes-Picot deal has left the most significant impacts on the sociopolitical life of Middle East citizens.
According to the agreement, the territories of the defeated Ottoman Empire in the First World War were divided between the victorious empires of Britain and France. France took under its administration both Syria and Lebanon while the British Empire took under its administration Iraq- formerly Mosul State. But Palestine was held under administration of the League of the Nations, an intergovernmental organization appeared prior to the UN.
During this period, Britain pledged to form a Jewish state for the Jewry in the Palestinian territories, and it fulfilled its promise in 1948.
Generally, following Sykes-Picot Agreement a principle governed the political equations of the Middle East: any force which seeks redrawing the boundaries of the Agreement would face opposition of the internal, regional and international forces. But foundation of the Israeli regime after the Agreement was an exception of this principle, taking place due to support of Britain and the US.
Foundation of a Jewish state brought about multi-decade crises for the region. Several Arab-Israeli wars and years of Palestinian struggles against the Israeli occupation were all outcomes of foundation of the Israeli regime within Middle East boundaries after introduction of Sykes-Picot order to the region.
After long years of the regional crisis fueled by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a new set of crises swept the region following 2011 Arab uprisings. The region’s crises even saw an intensification after emergence of ISIS terror organization in 2014, and the borders that resulted from Sykes-Picot Agreement were exposed to a tangible collapse process.
Meanwhile, the Israeli leaders have firmly welcomed the crises, calling for breakup of the Middle East nation states with their current form.
On the other side, the US has taken a meaningful stances mostly in line with those of the Israelis.
Why did the Israeli and American officials take such a position on the collapse of the Sykes-Picot-drawn boundaries? Here are the answers with a focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Israeli-Palestinian struggle is no longer a focal point in the Middle East
Without doubt, following the 1950 up to a couple of years ago, the conflict between the Israeli and the Palestinians was a key issue in the region. For several decades, the notion was that should the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is settled, the political stability and security could be restored to the region. To put it another way, the borders drawn by Sykes-Picot deal would observe a peaceful period in case of calm between the Israelis and the Palestinians. After seven decade of eruption of the Israeli conflict with the Palestinians, not only the crisis was not solved but also it remained top issue of the Middle East. But arrival of new crises, specifically Syria's, after 2011 drove out the Palestinian cause as a top issue to a large extent. Now the Palestinians' issue can be considered as third-degree.
In the recent years, fighting against terrorism and the Kurdish cause are respectively first and second-degree issues of the Middle East region. This can be easily understood with a look at the headlines of the media reports. ISIS crisis and the Kurdish independence are high on the agenda of the media outlets rather than the struggle of the Palestinians with the Israelis. This is a very convenient happening for the Israeli leaders, because the Palestine cause is undergoing a large-scale de-problematization process. Thereby, Tel Aviv seeks a concentration on the terrorism and the Kurdish independence and subordination of the Palestinian crisis.
Tel Aviv’s regional rivals' power decline
In addition to de-problematization of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, another goal that the Israeli leaders are chasing amid the Middle East crisis is impairment of their former regional rivals. Certainly, the Alawites-led government of Syria was a permanent threat to the Israeli regime. Several wars between Syria and the Israeli regime over the occupied Golan Heights as well as fierce clashes between Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Tel Aviv always posed serious security threats to the Israeli national interests.
But presently Damascus government of President Bashar al-Assad is grappling with a devastating crisis. Hezbollah’s forces are fighting the terrorists in Syria and so have no capacity- at least for now- to seriously challenge Tel Aviv.
Furthermore, the split of Iraq and Syria could give birth to a neutral state if not ally to the Israeli regime in the region. Therefore Tel Aviv sought weakening and elimination of its regional challengers, and also birth of allied nation states through Middle East recent years' crises.
US foreign policy's plan for breakup of Sykes-Picot order
In first view, many analysts suggest that rise of ISIS and challenging the borders of Syrian and Iraqi sovereignty are the major signs of collapse of Sykes-Picot order in the region, but with a further focus it could be understood that the US President Barack Obama's hasty plan for exit from the region - for example from Iraq-, and adopting the proxy wars in West Asia are the major forces pushing ahead decline of the Sykes-Picot order and not appearance of such a terror force like ISIS.
The fact is that in a time that the Sykes-Picot borders in Iraq and Syria have become a flashpoint of crisis, Washington seeks withdrawal of its forces from the region to steer clear of direct involvement.
Exit of Washington from the Sykes-Picot borders could be considered as a consistent plan followed by the Americans in a bid to redraw Middle East boundaries to block such challenging powers in the region as Iran.
In the current circumstances, even if new states declare foundation out of the crisis-hit countries of Syria and Iraq- as is the case with the Kurds seeking independent Kurdistan-, Washington definitely implies agreement through lapsing into silence or not seriously opposing the move. This lays bare the fact that the US foreign policy has come up with the conviction that there must be a review of the boundaries of the national sovereignty of the region’s countries.
Additionally, the US support for and cooperation with the opposition forces in both Iraqi and Syrian conflicts indicate that the US plans are in full accordance with Israeli plans and interests.
The recent work of Washington with the Kurdish forces of Iraq and Syria in anti-ISIS fight is a showcase of the US foreign policy's desire for transformation of the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
