Few regions in the world have remained a hotspot
for historical events and developments like the Middle East has. From its pivotal role in developing civilisation
in the ancient past, to becoming the centre of khilafa’s that forged the largest empire
the world had ever known, to the modern age where it is known for being a particularly
chaotic place but with resources that offer the promise of returning to past glory. Its recent past has been hindered by obstacles
that it was not fully equipped to combat; European imperialism came and dominated the
region. But Europe retreated from the Middle East
after WWII, and since then local leaders have cropped up and tried to enact their visions
of how things should be done. Ayatollah Khomeini; Gamal Abdel Nasser; Saddam
Hussein. Join me as I delve into the history of 9 pivotal
countries in the region and explore how the crucial period from the end of WWII to the
late 1970s shaped the Middle East we know today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is probably
the most important geopolitical issue in the Middle East. Its development has shaped the destiny of
numerous surrounding countries. Ever since the inception of Israel in 1948,
the region has seen numerous wars being fought between Arab states and Israel that have at
times even needed the intervention of global superpowers. In many ways, the stability of the Middle
East rests upon this issue being resolved, even if it does seem unlikely. To understand the enmity, we have to go back
to the turn of the 20th century, especially the role of the British in WWI. You can find out more about that in the video
I made. For this video, our story begins towards the
end of the British Mandate in Palestine. Before we continue a quick word from the sponsor
- this is a really exciting one as Blinkist is an app that helps you understand the most
important things from over 5,500 non-fiction books and podcasts in bite-sized fashion. This wide compendium of knowledge is spread
across 27 categories and can be enjoyed whenever, wherever. Available in both audio and written form,
Blinkist allows you to fit entertaining education into your everyday life. I just finished listening to the Blinks on
Henry Kissinger’s ‘World Order’, I’ve been meaning to read this for a while and
Blinkist was able to give me a nice 21 minute taster of what to expect from the book. World Order is much acclaimed for its prescient
analysis of major developments throughout history which have come to shape the geo-political
order we have today. With Blinkist you can discover great books
such as these and other history-defining titles such as Thomas Paine’s ‘Common Sense’
and Sun Tzu’s ‘The Art of War’. They also have an exciting new feature called
Blinkist Spaces, which allows you to share, add and recommend titles all in one place. All members of a shared Space can access all
titles in the Space—with or without a Blinkist premium subscription. I’ve created my own called Hikma, which
you too can access by signing up with Blinkist. Get a 20% off Blinkist monthly Premium by
clicking my promolink in the description. They even have a 7-day free trial! (LINK) Thanks Blinkist for sponsoring, check
link below to subscribe. Back to the video we go! https://www.blinkist.com/hikmahistory WWII proved to be particularly important for
the future of Palestine. Certain Zionist groups such as Irgun had initiated
an insurgency against the British authorities, the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946
being the most famous example. At the same time, Arabs were still unhappy
with the lack of prospects for self-governance. Feeling unable to deal with a problem it had
created, in 1947 Britain stated its desire to terminate its Mandate and pass the Palestine
Question to the newly created United Nations. In the immediate aftermath of WWII, the persecution
faced by the Jews at the hands of the Nazis in Europe certainly won the Zionist cause
a great deal of sympathy in the international arena. In late 1947, the UN announced its Plan to
partition Palestine into an Arab and Jewish state; the Arabs were absolutely furious,
whilst the Zionists rejoiced for the most part. The very next day a civil war erupted between
the two sides that would see itself metamorphosize into a war between the newly established Israel
and several Arab states who invaded in May 1948. By early 1949, Israel had emerged victorious
against its numerous foes. The War is remembered in Israel as the War
of Independence; whilst Palestinians remember the conflict as the Nakba, the Catastrophe. Seen as a low point in Palestinian history,
it is an appropriate name considering some 750,000 of them were forced to flee their
homes. Israel gained 60% of the area proposed for
an Arab state by the UN, passing the Law of Return in 1950 which over the next few decades
allowed over a million Jews around the world, especially Muslim countries, the right to
gain Israeli citizenship. The territory not conquered by Israel was
the West Bank and East Jerusalem, both of which were annexed by Jordan, whilst Egypt
occupied the Gaza Strip. Crucially, Israel had only signed Armistice
agreements with the Arab States. With the absence of peace treaties, the prospect
of war always loomed large. There would be three more major Arab-Israeli
Wars. The first of which, the 1956 Suez Crisis saw
Britain, France and Israel try to unsuccessfully gang up on Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt. In the 1950s and 60s, ideas of Pan-Arabism
were hugely popular, Nasser being seen as its charismatically defiant leader. The cause of Falasteen was left to its Arab
brethren. The problem was, often times, the other Arab
leaders were looking at it from the perspective of their own national interests. It was only in the aftermath of Israel’s
stunning in the 6 day war of 1967 that the Palestinian’s really tried to instrumentalise
their own agency and take centre stage on the political scene. Already in 1964, the PLO, the Palestinian
Liberation Organisation had been created as an umbrella organisation with various activist
militant groups, all united by the aim to liberate Palestine. Key nationalist militant groups, calling themselves
fedayeen, included Yasser Arafat-led Fatah and the PFLP headed by George Habash. Initially the insurgents attacked Israeli
targets from within the occupied territories, bearing in mind that the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip had both been overtaken by the IDF, the Israeli Defence Force during the
6 day war; but that quickly proved to be unfeasible, as the IDF sharply cracked down on their activity. Then the PLO moved their bases to neighbouring
Jordan; enjoying great success in raising the profile of the Palestinian armed struggle
and attracting increased numbers of recruits. In the process, the fedayeen brandished themselves
as freedom fighters and tried to get the world to pay attention to the Palestinian’s plight
by carrying out brazen operations like hijacking civilian airplanes. In fact, the PLO became so powerful that it
was likened to a “state within a state” in Jordan; to neutralise the threat to his
sovereignty, in 1970 King Hussein of Jordan ordered the Jordanian Forces to attack it
in an event known as Black September. The ultimate trigger for this was actually
the Dawson’s Field Hijackings by the PFLP. The name Black September was co-opted by a
new fedayeen group which decided to escalate the level of violence used, this is best exemplified
by their attack at the 1972 Munich Olympics. By 1971 the PLO had been kicked out of Jordan
and relocated to Southern Lebanon, which they used as a base to strike Israel. Lebanon was a fractured country at that point
and the PLO asserted themselves as key players within its domestic politics. In 1975, a messy civil war erupted which the
PLO was involved at the heart of. 3 years later, Israel invaded Southern Lebanon,
having had enough of fedayeen attacks on its soil. They would be forced to get involved in the
country once again in 1982, when their second invasion of Lebanon forced the PLO out of
the country. All the while this was happening, the enmity
between Israel and its Arab neighbours had not subsided. In 1973, Syria and Egypt attacked Israel;
whilst it was certainly no victory for the Arabs, they did surprisingly well relative
to their previous performances. But Nasser’s successor, Anwar Sadat, was
keen to normalise relations with his Jewish neighbour to whom Egypt had lost control of
the Sinai Peninsula. In 1978, the two former foes came together
at the Camp David Accords mediated by American president Carter, where the Egyptians agreed
to recognise the state of Israel and Israel agreed to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula. Subsequently, President Sadat and Prime Minister
Begin of Israel both won the Nobel Peace Prize. The Arab world however was shocked, its leader
Egypt was judged to have made a deal with the enemy and sold the Palestinians out; consequently
being kicked out of the Arab League. Sadat would pay for Camp David Accords with
his life, being in assassinated in 1981 by an Islamist. As for the Palestinians, their struggle had
become well publicised but yet they had little to show for it. By the beginning of the 1980s, they remained
stateless, much of them scattered around the Arab world with refugee status. Israel, on the other hand, had gone from fighting
for its survival to being in a relatively comfortable position against its foes. It’s often the case that negotiations take
place only once one side is overwhelmingly dominant. Having thus achieved the upper hand against
its numerous Arab foes, in the space of 15 years between the late 70s and the mid 90s,
Israel would go on to sign peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and even signed agreements
with the PLO. This transition was also reflected in its
internal developments as well. As its external worries lessened, so too did
the need for a state-controlled economy. From the 1970s onwards, Israel experienced
a shift towards free market reforms that saw its economy become more liberalised. Even as Egypt came under the influence of
European Imperialism at the end of the 19th century, it remained a centre of dynamic avant-garde
ideas. Throughout the 20th century, the revolutionary
sentiment was channelled to oppose imperialism and assert Egyptian sovereignty. The pinnacle of this assertiveness was reached
under the enigmatic Gamal Abdel Nasser, whose presidency in the 1950s and 1960s saw Egypt
became the standard to which all the other Arab countries aspired to be. Nasser’s popularity grew to such levels
that his Arab socialist ideology was exported and threatened to undermine any Arab government
that defied it. Egypt was the first Arab country to gain independence
from its colonial occupier, but countless issues still plagued the Land of the Nile. King Farouk lived lavishly as one of the world’s
richest men while most of his subjects were quite poor. The vital passageway of the Suez Canal was
still owned and occupied by the British; and Egypt had lost the 1948 war against Israel,
with many blaming the corruption of the elite for the defeat. All of this was a recipe for revolution. The situation enraged almost every Egyptian
from various segments of society, especially the officers of the Armed Forces. On top of that, Arab nationalism had invoked
the passion of the masses and was seen as a powerful force for change. In January 1952, riots and a great fire ensued
after British troops had killed 43 Egyptian policemen near the Canal Zone. Egypt had reached a boiling point, the end
of the monarchy was near. In July 1952, the Free Officers Movement,
led by Mohamed Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser staged a coup d’etat, taking over the government. A year later, the monarchy was abolished,
and the groundwork for a new Egypt was being laid. This was no easy task, as Nasser had to overtake
Naguib and eliminate rivals like the Muslim Brotherhood in order to cement his rule. To help him with this, Nasser relied on heavy
handed tactics that included not tolerating dissent and empowering the secret police. At the same time, Nasser elevated the standard
of living of ordinary Egyptians and brought about wide-spread changes to society that
made him hugely popular with his citizenry. Employing socialist-style policies, he introduced
land reforms which placed limits on the amount of land that could be owned and re-distributed
the excess land of the wealthy to millions of peasants who became owners for the first
time. Nasser also launched a housing programme which
saw thousands of Egyptians being re-housed in modern blocks of flats. The lack of medical care in the country saw
him open up new clinics and hospitals. His most noteworthy project was the Aswan
Dam. With the Egyptian economy being largely agricultural,
water supply was a key issue. So Nasser decided to build the Aswan Dam to
ensure the regular availability of water. Seeking funds from Western states and organisations
for its construction, Nasser was rejected after he made contact with their Soviet rivals
for military assistance. Consequently, the Egyptian leader had to find
other means to pay for his Dam; so he nationalised the British-owned Suez Canal in July 1956. His Pan-Arab and Anti-Imperialist appeal made
him the hero of the East and the enemy of the West. Due to this bold move, Israel conspired with
Britain and France to launch a joint attack on Egypt in October of that year. Although the Triple Alliance was winning militarily,
Nasser won a key diplomatic victory after the three invading countries were forced to
withdraw due to international pressures. It did not matter that the Egyptian Army had
lost most of the confrontations, Nasser was now the undisputed leader of the Arabs, having
vanquished the imperialist threat. Egypt went on to become the capital of the
Arab World. As living standards and national morale hit
an all-time high, a Golden Age of art, film and music came about. Through the Voice of the Arabs radio station
and Egypt’s cultural prowess, Nasser’s government held unparalleled influence over
the entire Arab world. In a move to cement his status as the new
Salaheddin, he pushed for unification with Syria. The historic move came about in 1958, as the
United Arab Republic was established; but the project soon ended in failure, as Egypt
came to dominate Syria. The inequality of the relationship naturally
angered the Syrian political elites; and so, a coup took place in Syria in 1961 which ended
the Union. Despite this setback, Nasser was still wildly
popular in the Arab World. Seeking to export the Nasserist ideological
outlook abroad, he became involved in the internal affairs of several Arab states, where
he gave support to pro-Nasserist officers and politicians in their quest to assume power. Nasser even got involved in the North Yemen
Civil War; dubbed as Egypt’s Vietnam, the war drained the Egyptian state of money and
resources. Still, enthusiasm was everywhere until 6 fateful
days in 1967 changed everything. After Egypt made it clear that it intended
to go to war with Israel, the Zionists launched a pre-emptive strike in early June that completely
destroyed the Egyptian Air Force. This sealed the fate of the war. The Israelis rapidly advanced, occupying the
Gaza Strip and all of Sinai by the time the war ended 6 days later. Nasser publicly resigned due to the humiliation,
but mass demonstrations calling for his immediate return led to him remaining in power. The tide of Pan-Arabism had shored up and
the optimism of the Arab Masses turned into shame and sadness. Its charismatic leader Nasser would die only
3 yrs later, in 1970. Despite the humiliating defeat, he was still
loved by his nation, evidenced by five million people showing up to his funeral. He was succeeded by his Vice-President, Anwar
Sadat. Sadat launched what he termed the Corrective
Movement, which involved making key changes to foreign policy and the economy in order
to distance himself from Nasserist policies. Seeking to realign Egypt with the United States,
he expelled large numbers of Soviet military advisors and implemented a set of liberal
economic policies dubbed infitah (openness) that privatized much of the economy. One important task on his agenda was reclaiming
the Sinai Peninsula, so he collaborated with Syria on a joint offensive against Israel. Egypt was to regain the Sinai, whilst Syria
would regain the Golan Heights. On 6 October 1973, the Egyptians and Syrians
led a surprise attack on Israel. The Egyptians scored victories early on, and
were able to cross into the Sinai Desert. Despite the initial shock of the attack, the
Israeli Forces recomposed themselves and even gained the ascendancy by the end. A ceasefire then came into effect on the 25th
of October without Egypt having regained the Sinai. Seeking to normalise relations with his Jewish
neighbour, Sadat and Prime Minister Begin of Israel signed the Camp David Accords in
1978. The Egyptians would become the first Arab
state to recognise the state of Israel; whilst the Israelis agreed to hand the Sinai Peninsula
back to the Egyptians. Although Sadat and Begin won the Nobel Peace
Prize, most Arab governments viewed this as a stab in the back. Egypt went from being the leader of the Arab
world to being expelled from the Arab League as a result of the peace treaty. Upon assuming power, Sadat relaxed the restrictions
Nasser had placed on Islamists, but this came back to haunt him as he was assassinated by
Salafi extremists in 1981, with his recognition of Israel being used as the key grievance
for the attack’s motivation. Besides Egypt, the other hub of ideological
activity was Syria. Becoming a centre of Arab nationalism early
on, Syria’s political development in the euphoric aftermath of gaining independence
was characterised by extreme instability. It had to contend with a new belligerent neighbour
in the shape of Israel that it fought multiple wars with; it also had to deal with numerous
changes in government as it struggled to prevent the rise of
the Ba’athist Party. Seen as a stronghold of Arab nationalist thought,
the French found Syria to be a very difficult place to subjugate. In mid 1941, the British had retaken Syria
and Lebanon from the Nazi-allied Vichy France. Intense efforts from nationalists in the immediate
aftermath of WWII secured Syrian Independence in 1946. However, Syrians would find out that French
colonialism was just one of the many challenges that obstructed their nation building mission. Established as a democracy with nationalist
Shukri al-Quwatli as President, the Syrian political scene would remain fragile and chaotic
all the way until 1970s. In addition, straight after its independence,
war became a thorn in its side. In 1948, the State of Israel was established,
infuriating the Arab & Muslim world. With its status as the unofficial home of
Arab nationalism, Syria felt compelled to join its fellow Arab states in its offensive
against Zionist Israel. The Syrian military was inefficient and inexperienced,
subsequently being routed out of northern Palestine and forced to sign an armistice
with Israel in 1949. That year proved to be pivotal for modern
Syrian history because before the war was even over, the country had the first of its
many coup d’états. In March, Army Chief of Staff Husni al-Zaim
used political instability and military humiliation at the hands of Israel as justification for
his bloodless military coup. Within the context of the Cold War rivalry,
President Al-Quwatli had tolerated a strong Communist Party presence within his country;
and allegations of US involvement in the coup have been made in the years after the incident. The domino effect had begun. Before the end of the year, Adib al-Shishakli
completed a trilogy of coups, when talk of unification with Hashemite Iraq became advanced. Even though the Syrian economy would grow
substantially during the 1950s, political instability would continue. In order to solidify his control, Shishakli
violently repressed the more independent-minded groups, such as the Druze. Shishakli’s quest to build a totalitarian
regime upset the influential political and merchant classes. As a result, yet another coup took place in
1954, which had the support of a wide base across the political scene. A short period of democracy followed that
was wracked with tension as the prominence of leftists drew the country into the rivalry
between the US and the USSR, in an episode known as the Syrian Crisis of 1957. Whilst Syria was experiencing extreme volatility,
Egypt had been catapulted into a regional leadership role thanks to the modernization
it experienced under a pan-Arab socialist government that had inspired the Arab world. Gamal Abdel Nasser’s message of Arab unity
made him wildly popular, especially in Syria. In 1958, with the political scene in disarray
and public opinion calling for it, President al-Quwatli signed off on the unification of
his country with Egypt, forming the United Arab Republic which was to be led by Nasser. The euphoria from the merger soon subsided
when became obvious that Egypt would overshadow Syria. Positions of importance within Syria were
filled by Egyptians. Nasser tried to deal with Syria’s political
instability by banning all political parties, including the increasingly popular Arab Socialist
Ba’ath Party. On top of this, the UAR gave Syria’s economy
a socialist orientation, an unpopular move amongst the large and numerous merchant families
that dominated Syrian society. As the former Syrian minister of propaganda
put it, 'the smallest member of the (Egyptian) retinue thought that he had inherited our
country”. All of this frustration materialized into
a coup by disgruntled Syrian officers in 1961. The UAR was broken up and Syria asserted its
independence once again. Although its liberties were restored, its
stability was most definitely not. The next 18 months would see a wave of coups
take place. In March 1963, Ba’athist military officers
launched a decisive coup that seized power. A month before, the Iraqi branch of their
party had also taken power by force. Ba’athism, from the Arabic Ba’ath meaning
“resurrection” was an ideology that espoused Pan-Arab, anti-imperialist and Arab socialist
ideals. Their political party in Syria had been effectively
split between the military committee led by Salah Jadid and Hafez al-Assad; and the civilian
faction led by its ideological founders Michel Aflaq and Salahudin al-Bitar. Even at this time, the prospect of a federation
with Egypt and Iraq was seriously explored but never came to fruition. An internal power struggle ensued within the
Ba’ath Party between the old guard represented by Aflaq and al-Bitar vs the radical new guard
led by Jadid and al-Assad. The latter emerged victorious in the 1966
coup and subsequently hijacked the leadership of the Ba’athist Party in Syria. The Ba’athist assumption of power provided
the nail in the coffin for Syria’s democracy as dissent was largely banned. Out of the 4 officers who led the 1966 coup,
3 came from religious minorities, a Druze and 2 Alawites. This meant that the country’s Sunni majority
no longer monopolized power. They also pursued socialist policies which
would undercut the prominence of established mercantile and political families. In 1967, Syria entered the Six Day War and
was battered by the Israelis, losing the strategically important Golan Heights, causing 100,000 people
to flee as refugees. The Ba’athist governing council once again
became engulfed in internal conflict between Jadid and al-Assad, the latter emerging victorious
when he launched his Corrective Revolution in 1970. Hafez al-Assad mixed his strategic intelligence
with unprecedented brutality to ensure he did not suffer the same fate as his predecessors. To do this, he played off of Syria’s religious
diversity. At the same time as promoting the idea of
“one Arab nation with an eternal message”, Hafez used sectarian divisions to further
entrench his rule. The Syrian political chambers were stacked
with Sunni’s, to appease a potentially hostile majority, whilst his fellow Alawites were
over-represented in important positions within the Armed Forces. In another attempt to appeal to upper society,
he liberalized some of the economy and slashed many of the reforms of the ‘60s. The fact that the country was being run by
an Alawite proved to be a contentious issue; especially since the offshoot of Shia Islam
was considered heretical by some of the country’s majority Sunni’s. Even though he tried to portray himself as
a pious Muslim, Hafez alienated many with the secular nature of his 1973 constitution. Islamist groups represented the biggest challenge
to his authority, initiating an uprising in 1976 that was to last 6 years. With the Muslim Brotherhood being cast into
a leadership position of the Islamist uprising, Hafez was finally able to quell the insurrection
with the devastating 1982 Hama Massacre. Foreign policy-wise, Al-Assad was largely
pre-occupied by two issues. Firstly, Israel. Together with Egypt, Syria declared war against
its neighbor in 1973; although it started well for the Arabs, the war finished on a
familiar note with the Israeli’s being in a dominant position. Later Syria severed ties with Egypt in the
aftermath of its peace treaty with Israel. The other important issue involved its other
neighbor, Lebanon. With the onset of sectarian fuelled Lebanese
Civil War, Syria intervened in 1976 on the side of the Maronite-dominated government. The Syrian intervention in Lebanon would go
on to draw large-scale criticisms for its domination of the country. It would maintain its presence in Lebanon
until 2005, when a popular movement now known as the Cedar Revolution forced them to withdraw
from the country. Syria’s next door neighbor had broken off
from it and asserted its own national consciousness starting in the 19th century. After WWI, it had benefitted in attaining
self-determination under French patronage, until it gained its independence in 1943. At first the country achieved a great deal
of progress, as its economy became one of the most prosperous in the region during the
1960s. Beirut became the ‘Paris of the Middle East’. But by the 1970s the country would be dragged
into the most destructive civil war in 20th century Middle East. The Middle East has a rich tradition of religious
and cultural diversity. This diversity is exemplified by the modern
state of Lebanon. The country has a large population of Christians,
split mainly between the Maronites and the Greek Orthodox; Muslims also make up a large
percentage of its inhabitants, consisting of both Sunnis and Shias. Then there are numerous minority groups such
as the Druze. Unfortunately for the Lebanese people, this
diversity was taken advantage of by modern Imperial powers who sought to play the different
ethnic and religious groups against one another to further their own interests. The French mandate in Lebanon and Syria after
WWI can be understood within this framework. Overall, Lebanon has a grand total of eighteen
officially recognized religious sects, which makes dividing power a particularly strenuous
task. A census carried out in 1932 put the Christians
at a 51% majority and this has been used as the bedrock of a political system that has
given the Christians a greater say in running the affairs of the country. The Christian ascendancy and the results of
the 1932 census were enshrined in the National Pact of 1943, an unwritten agreement between
Muslim and Christian leaders which determined what the political structure of Lebanon would
look like. Here are some of the key points of the agreement:
The President and Commander of the Armed Forces were both to be Maronites; the Prime Minister
was to be a Sunni; The Speaker of Parliament was to be a Shia; The Deputy Speaker of Parliament
and Deputy Prime Minister was to be a Greek Orthodox Christian; the Chief of the General
Staff of the Armed Forces was to be a Druze; and within Parliament there would always be
a ratio of 6:5 in favour of the Christians to Muslims. Although it initially kept the peace, the
fact that this political model was based off a census meant that if there was a shift in
demographics, it could open the door for future turbulence. And that’s exactly what would happen. In 1943 Lebanon gained independence from the
French. Shortly after, the establishment of Israel
and the subsequent conflict it produced resulted in over 100,000 Palestinian refugees fleeing
north to Lebanon. Many felt that the arrival of the largely
Sunni Palestinians would upset the delicate sectarian balance, which resulted in their
exclusion from fully integrating with Lebanese society. In 1952, the Maronite Camille Chamoun became
President. He was notable for his unbridled support of
the United States, an unpopular position in a region where Gamal Abdel Nasser’s brand
of Arab Socialism was gospel. Discontent grew, especially in Muslim and
Druze circles, who not only had great sympathy with Arabist ideas, but felt underrepresented
in government. When pro-Chamoun troops fired on a group of
protestors in May 1957, killing seven and injuring seventy three, tensions were ignited. The following month, pro-Chamoun candidates
won an overwhelming majority in parliamentary elections, an event that the opposition publicly
denounced as fraudulent. Nasser took note of the increasing discontent
with a pro-American regime in Egypt's neighborhood and began materially and diplomatically supporting
anti-Chamoun factions. The following year, Egypt and Syria united
and formed the UAR, which emboldened pro-Nasserists in Lebanon. Demonstrations kicked off again and only grew
bigger. Finally, the straw that broke the camel’s
back took place in May 1958, when a newspaper editor critical of Chamoun’s government
was assassinated. Anti-government and anti-American riots broke
out, and Syria began arming militants. Many countries accused Nasser of provoking
sectarian conflict, and Chamoun felt the rope tightening around his neck. Sandwiched between a hostile union, he called
on the Americans for help. After President Eisenhower authorized it,
U.S. Marines were deployed in Lebanon to ensure the Americans did not lose a valuable ally
in the region. The troops withdrew by October the same year,
and as a compromise between the two sides, the slightly more moderate Fouad Chehab was
appointed President. Civil war was narrowly avoided for the time
being. It is worth noting that this crisis took two
forms; that of a proxy war between capitalists and socialists, typical of the Cold War, and
a sectarian conflict between Christians and Muslims. The following decade was one of calm and prosperity. Aside from the political stability, Beirut’s
large banking sector, strategic location and sprawling port made it the financial capital
of the region. Western countries and wealthy Persian Gulf
states invested, earning Beirut the nickname “The Paris of the Middle East.” Tourism became an important part of its economy. For a time, things were going smoothly in
Lebanon, but in such a volatile part of the world, disputes in other countries tended
to trickle over. The 1967 Six Day War brought even more Palestinian
refugees to Lebanon; a problem that was confounded in 1970 when the PLO were forcibly expelled
from Jordan and had to move their base to Lebanon. An armed and foreign force was concerning
to many Lebanese, particularly the Maronites, but many Sunnis welcomed the guerillas, who
they saw as equalizing the balance of power that had so long been tipped in favour of
the Christians. The presence of the PLO brought to the surface
ideological and sectarian conflicts that had previously been swept under the rug. When observing the start of the Lebanese civil
war, historians tend to point out 1 or 2 specific incidents as beginning the conflict, but in
reality, it was the result of an accumulation of tensions. One key incident that can be identified within
the sequence of these events took place in early 1975. Camille Chamoun, now ex-president of Lebanon
and leader of the Maronite National Liberal Party, had business interests in relation
to fishing. He wanted to monopolize fishing off the coast
of Sidon, a large and predominantly Sunni port city in the South of Lebanon. The unionized local fishermen, led by former
mayor Maarouf Saad, opposed this and led a small demonstration in the city. Whilst rallying, Saad was shot and killed
by a sniper. Exact details have not been confirmed, but
the general consensus at the time was that the killer was a soldier in the Lebanese Army. Saad’s funeral was attended by thousands,
both Muslim Lebanese and the many Palestinians living in the city. Led in part by the PLO, the funeral evolved
into a massive demonstration, and protests, sometimes violent ones, erupted across the
country. More than a dozen were killed by state security
forces. The circumstances for a conflict were brewing,
but it became clear that Lebanon was in a state of Civil War on April 13, 1975. At a church in East Beirut, a Maronite family
was having a Baptism ceremony and many notable figures, most importantly Pierre Gemayel,
were attending. As all were waiting outside of a Church, gunmen
fired out of a truck decorated with the symbolism of a Leftist Palestinian group. Four were killed, but the militias missed
Pierre. Still, Gemayel’s armed faction, the Kataeb,
were outraged at the audacity of such an attempt. And so that day, the Kataeb set up checkpoints
throughout the city. When they came across a group of civilians
returning from a pro-PLO political rally in a bus, they fired on it and killed 27 or 28
passengers (they had claimed that these were PLO guerillas). As a result, armed clashes began. In the years following, the various militia
groups rendered the Lebanese military ineffective. Christians were expelled en masse from West
Beirut as the PLO and their allies, ranging from Communists to Shia Islamists, made rapid
gains. In December of that year, following the assassination
of four of its members by a group of Muslims, the Maronite Kataeb set up checkpoints once
again. The Lebanese ID cards stated religion on them,
which meant that the Kataeb could kill on a sectarian basis. Anywhere from 200-600 Muslims and Druze were
killed that day, which came to be known as Black Saturday. The following year, another massacre was committed
by the Kateab in the predominantly Palestinian nieghbourhood of Karantina; over 1,000 died. As vengeance, the PLO violated and slaughtered
hundreds of Christians in Damour in brutal fashion. Lebanon, once a symbol of prosperity, was
spiraling into revolt and unchecked violence. The conflict would prove to be one of the
most complicated in modern Middle Eastern history, with alliances constantly shifting
and the war going through various phases. But at least in the early phase of the war,
the combatant militia groups were largely divided between the Maronite dominated Lebanese
Front and the Lebanese National Movement that incorporated Leftists, Palestinian, Shi’a,
Sunni and Druze organizations. To confound matters even further, the conflict
saw a number of foreign countries get involved. Besides the obvious involvement of the USA
and the USSR within the context of the Cold War, neighbouring Syria invaded in 1976 under
the guise of an Arab peacekeeping mission. Initially intervening on the side of the Maronite
Christians, Syrian support would constantly shift between the different militia groups. In 1978, Israel would also invade southern
Lebanon country in response to Palestinian fedayeen attacks on its soil. 4 years later, they would invade again; allying
themselves with the Lebanese Christian militias, the Israelis went on to besiege Beirut and
even forced the PLO to move their headquarters to Tunisia. The Lebanese Civil War would finally come
to an end in 1990. Beirut, once the Paris of the Middle East,
had been split in half by the Green Line that saw mainly-Muslim factions take control of
West Beirut, whilst Christian militia groups used East Beirut as their headquarters in
the city. The city was a key battleground during the
civil war, and as a result it was ravaged by the conflict. Iraq in the 20th century encapsulates the
history of much of the Middle East. Imperialism, oil, nationalism, political turmoil,
modernisation, and even dictatorship. The country embraced independence under the
Hashemite monarchy but this system was overthrown in 1958 as politicised army officers sought
to take matters into their own hands. This only made the situation worse, as a violent
relationship began to develop between the army and assertive but extreme ideologies. Such an atmosphere facilitated the rise of
Saddam Hussein, who’d go onto become a dictator for over 2 decades. Iraq had gained its independence from Britain
in 1932 as a result of a very strong nationalist movement in the country. But this independence was nominal at best;
since the British still controlled the country’s foreign affairs and oil supply. This fostered huge resentment amongst most
sectors of Iraqi society at the British lack of respect for Iraq’s sovereignty. Iraqi nationalists were given an opportunity
to free themselves from the shackles of imperialism with the start of WWII. Led by Rashid Ali Gailani, the nationalists
sought to counterbalance the British by aligning themselves with Germany; subsequently seizing
power in a coup on April 1st 1941. But Iraq and its resources were too important
to the Allied war effort to let this happen, so the British invaded the country a month
later and occupied the whole country once again. In the midst of the British jubilation at
their victory in WWII, they soon realised they no longer had the capacity to maintain
their huge empire. This was especially the case in the Middle
East where nationalism was proving itself to be a powerful force in expressing the wishes
and desires of millions of Arabs. In Iraq, Rashid Ali Gailani was not alone
in wanting to expel the British from his country - Arab nationalist ideas had firmly infiltrated
across all strata of society. In 1948, the Iraqi government tried to sign
a revision of the 1930 Anglo-Iraqi Treaty which would’ve seen British influence inside
the country continue; but the Iraqi people showed their displeasure in the subsequent
Al-Wathbah Uprising. In 1952, the Iraqi Intifada took place, with
wide-spread strikes and protests calling for an end to the British presence in the country
and some even calling for King Faisal to resign. Popular thinkers such as Sati al-Husry had
used his position as Director of General Education in the 1920s to allow Pan-Arab beliefs to
seep into the very fabric of the education system. From the 1940s, there emerged a trend amongst
military officers politicised by nationalism who subsequently tried to vie for power. This trend was only encouraged by the success
of the 1952 Egyptian Revolution and the Free Officers group. When the leader of that group, Gamal Abdel
Nasser followed that up with his victory in the Suez Crisis of 1956, the Arab world’s
imagination was set on fire. In Nasser, the Iraqi nationalists saw a symbol
they could emulate, leading politically conscious military officers to organise and model themselves
after Nasser’s Free Officer Movement. The Hashemite monarchy for its part had tried
to undermine the popularity of these populist ideologies by promising land reforms and greater
rights to its citizens. The government’s position had been strengthened
by the fact that it was receiving more and more money thanks to its oil revenue. But for many in the country, these reforms
were not enough… and it was hard to argue with them - almost all of the wealth generated
from oil went directly to the British or a small group of Iraqi elites. Iraq’s increasing prosperity could not stop
the spirit of rebellion. Everything would change on July 14th 1958. At the beginning of the year, the Hashemite
monarchies of Jordan and Iraq formed the Arab Federation, a confederation that was supposed
to rival Egypt and Syria’s merger into the United Arab Republic that same year. Later in the summer, Jordan’s King Hussein
requested his cousin Faisal of Iraq to send military units to Jordan for fear of a Syrian
attack. The Iraqi Free Officers saw this as the perfect
opportunity to strike. The secret group’s leader Abd al-Karim Qasim
decided against marching to the Jordanian border and instead turned on Baghdad, seizing
the capital. The coup was effective but set a bloody precedent
for the future of political transitions in the country. Since much of the royal family was executed,
including King Faisal and his uncle the former regent Abdullah. PM Nuri al-Said tried to escape dressed as
a woman in an abaya but was caught and shot. Abdullah and Said’s bodies were then mutilated
and dragged through the streets of Baghdad by the angry mob. The new revolutionary government under PM
Qasim had come to power with a message that cut across political factions; whilst this
helped in terms of giving it greater popularity, it also gave it a lack of direction and ideological
structure. Two main strands of thought emerged in this
confused atmosphere - one, supported by PM Qasim and the Iraqi Communist Party that focused
on a ‘wataniyah’ or Iraq First policy; whilst another, espoused by pro-Nasserists
and the Ba’ath Party, wanted ‘qawmiyah’ or Pan-Arab policies. The latter sought to unite with Nasser’s
United Arab Republic whilst Qasim and his supporters wanted to put Iraq first and foremost. Despite these issues, things started out well
enough for the newly established Iraqi Republic. Social reforms were implemented, ties were
forged with the USSR and more favourable terms were negotiated with the oil company. Qasim was hugely popular amongst the Kurds
initially, especially since he was part Kurdish on his mother’s side. He invited prominent Kurdish leader Mustafa
Barzani to return from exile, promising to give Kurds regional autonomy in return for
supporting his policies. But by 1961, these relations had soured so
much due to distrust that the First Iraqi-Kurdish war began that year. At the same time, Qasim pursued an aggressive
foreign policy that saw him become isolated. He shunned western powers, choosing to establish
friendly relations with the Soviet Union. He also declared a number of irredentist claims
that threatened its neighbours Iran and Kuwait. The latter specifically would be menaced by
Iraqi claims on its territories throughout the second half of the 20th century. To make matters worse, Qasim was gaining foes
inside of his government. His refusal to expand pan-Arab relations angered
many of the people he worked with in the 1958 Revolution. In 1959, there was even an assassination attempt
on Qasim’s life by Ba’athists that involved a young Saddam Hussein. Consequently he cracked down on dissent, even
going on to execute or jail many opponents, including his friend Abdul Salam Arif who
had also been a leading force behind the 1958 Revolution. Leaving himself politically isolated, it was
no surprise when Ba’athist officers toppled Qasim’s government in the Ramadan Revolution
of 1963. Ironically, Qassim and his comrades died the
same way the former King Faisal did at their hands, the only difference was a brief show
trial prior to the execution. Similar to Syria’s fate in the 1960s, Iraq’s
political scene in the 1960s was incredibly chaotic. Before the end of 1963, there was another
revolution, this time seeing Nasserist officers overthrowing the Ba’athists when negotiations
to unite with Syria and Egypt failed. For the next 5 years Arif ruled followed shortly
after by his brother Abdul Rahman. Their rule saw coup attempts from the Ba’athists
until finally in July 1968 the party took power under Ahmad Hassan Al Bakr. President Al Bakr pursued a policy of nepotism
that saw the rise of his kinsman Saddam Hussein. This nepotism would have huge ramifications
for the rest of Iraq’s country as the preference of placing fellow Sunni Arabs from the North
in important positions would de-stabilise the country’s already somewhat fragile relations
between Sunnis, Shia’s & Kurds. Through a mix of political genius and unprecedented
brutality, by the early 1970s Saddam became the leading figure within the government,
even overshadowing President al-Bakr. Saddam’s career prior to 1968 was unremarkable
to say the least - he was neither a military man nor an intellectual; he had thrown his
lot in with some of his Tikriti kinsman who happened to be Ba’athists. Subsequently he was used as a strongman and
thug by the party - with Abd al-Karim Qasim’s assassination in 1959 being one such example. After 1968, he was catapulted into the political
limelight when he became al-Bakr’s deputy. For as long as Saddam had been alive, massive
tensions existed within Iraqi society that cut across ethnic, religious, political and
socio-economic lines. So he set about to achieve a dual-purpose
- stabilise the political system by unifying the Ba’athist Party as well as addressing
economic issues by improving basic living standards. But Saddam was no angel - he did not do this
out of the kindness of his heart necessarily. The great amount of freedom he was afforded
in re-organising the Ba’athists served to increase his power within his party to the
point that he became the de facto leader of Iraq by the second half of the 1970s. Addressing the country’s socio-economic
needs also heightened his prestige and legitimacy amongst ordinary Iraqis encouraged him to
pursue the promotion of a Stalin-esque Cult of Personality. Saddam’s rise to power went hand-in-hand
with the immense progression that took place in 1970s Iraq. As a result of its oil reserves, the economy
rose rapidly. In 1972 Iraq nationalised its oil industry,
thereby pocketing more of the profit. A year later oil prices boomed in the aftermath
of the 1973 oil crisis and Iraq like many other OPEC members benefitted tremendously. Saddam sought to mollify and bring stability
to Iraqi society by using this money to improve services for ordinary people. At the time what Iraq was offering its citizens
was extraordinary and found few parallels across the Middle East. Saddam supervised a national infrastructure
programme which saw the construction of schools, roads and hospitals. Iraq’s public health system became a regional
leader as healthcare was made free - a feat that earned Saddam an award from UNESCO. Education became public and free on all levels,
as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis learnt to read within a few years. The government also supported farmers by providing
massive subsidies. All the while Saddam was strengthening his
grip on society. In a carrot and stick approach, he had fostered
the development of the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi Intelligence Service. Initially this was mainly used against political
opponents but after 1979, the Mukhabarat was turned against Iraqis; again drawing parallels
with Stalinist Russia. When President al-Bakr stepped down in 1979,
apparently for health reasons, Saddam pulled off a chilling and dramatic show of his power. In July, a week after becoming President,
he convened an assembly of Ba’athist leaders; where he told them that he had uncovered a
plot against the government within the party. With an incredible flair for the dramatic,
Saddam sat there disappointed and visibly hurt by the supposed betrayal as the whole
affair was videotaped. One of the alleged leaders of the conspiracy,
the ex-President’s Secretary who happened be tortured beforehand, then read out 68 names
of party members that were apparently involved. These men were subsequently executed over
the next few weeks. Saddam had completed his purge and was now
the undisputed leader. But what ensued was a far cry from the earlier
success he had in the 1970s. An Islamic Republic had been established in
Iran by Ayatollah Khomeini the same year Saddam became President. He became worried that the new Shi’a theocratic
government would exploit Iraq’s sectarian tensions - a problem that was especially worrisome
for Saddam since Iraq was majority Shia even though its government was largely ruled by
Sunnis. In addition, Iraq had irredentist claims over
Iran’s Arab-dominant Khuzestan province since the 1960s. In 1974 when the Second Iraqi-Kurdish War
started, the Iraqi government had to go to war with Mustafa Barzani’s Kurdish militia
that was supported the then ruling Shah of Iran. The war only ended when Iran promised to stop
aiding the Kurds in return for resolutions to border issues along the Persian Gulf at
the 1975 Algiers Agreement. In September 1980, Saddam abrogated this agreement
and invaded Iran, hoping that his military superiority as well as Iran’s domestic turmoil
would win him the war. But this did not happen. Instead, Iran became galvanised by the outside
threat and met the invasion with stiff resistance. The war dragged on for 8 years with no territorial
gains for either side as it resulted in a stalemate. Unfortunately for the Iraqi people, the war
undermined much of the socio-economic development that had taken place in the previous decade. Saddam’s rule would stubbornly survive until
2003, when an international coalition led by the USA invaded Iraq and ousted the Ba’athists
from power. Saddam was tried for crimes against humanity
and hanged in 2006. Before I go, I wanna address something very
quickly. I’m sure many of you will wonder why the
Kurdish story features so little in this video. There’s a simple reason for that - my aim
with this video is to give a general overview of Iraq’s history from the 1940s until the
1970s. This means that anything which requires me
to go into detail but veers me away from approaching Iraqi history in this period from a birds-eye
POV will be left out. I do intend to make more content about Kurds
in general and if you want to know more about their 20th century history, check out my video
on Why Kurdistan Is Not A Country. Until next time, Peace! How Jordan Became So Stable
Since its inception as a state in 1921, Iraq’s neighbour Jordan has been ruled by the same
Hashemite monarchy that once ruled Iraq. Unlike the terrible fate suffered by the Iraqi
branch of the royal family, the Hashemites of Jordan have fared much better; under the
leadership of its long-time ruler King Hussein, Jordan became a beacon of stability in the
Middle East. This is despite its turbulent history which
saw it be confronted by momentous challenges such as a belligerent and assertive neighbour
in Israel and the threat of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and his Socialist Pan-Arab
ideological views. Within a year of WWII ending, Transjordan
was able to gain formal independence from Britain; with its leader Emir Abdullah being
recognised as a King. Abdullah was the son of the Sheriff of Mecca,
the man who proclaimed the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans in WWI and the scion of the Hashemite
dynasty which now ruled both Iraq and Transjordan. The Hashemites maintained positive relations
with the British even after independence so there was still a great deal of British influence
inside the country, especially in the military; the nation’s elite fighting, the Arab Legion
was headed by British officers. The first major test for this fledgling state
came just 2 years later, when the UN determined Palestine should be split between the Arabs
and the newly settled Jews. The resolution was met with fury and condemnation
throughout the Islamic world. Although there is evidence to suggest King
Abdullah had privately maintained amicable relations with Zionist leaders in Mandatory
Palestine, he joined the coalition of Arab nations in declaring war against newly established
Israel. This underscores a trend in Jordanian history
in this period - that the Monarchy sometimes took actions contrary to the ones it desired,
because of pressure from public sentiment or even regional circumstances forcing their
hand. In any case, the war ended up being a disaster
for the coalition; as Israel was not only able to keep the territory allotted to the
Jews by the UN but a further 60% of the proposed Arab state as well. Transjordan was perhaps the only Arab country
that showed a good account of itself militarily; with its Arab Legion taking control of the
West Bank and even East Jerusalem. Now that they controlled both sides of the
Jordan River, the country officially changed its name to Jordan in 1949. The very next year it formally annexed the
West Bank as well, much to the displeasure of its Arab neighbours. The country’s population tripled as a result,
from 400,000 to 1.3 million. These new citizens were then given full individual
rights, something that was in contrast to Palestinian refugees living in most other
neighbouring Arab countries. This highlights an essential point that needs
to be remembered in order to understand the country’s history in the second half of
the 20th century - that perhaps no other Arab country was as close to the Palestinian struggle
as Jordan. After all, 2/3 of its population were Palestinians! However, King Abdullah’s perceived lack
of intransigence towards his Zionist neighbour worried many of his citizens. So in 1951, as he was visiting Al-Aqsa Mosque
in Jerusalem for Friday Prayers with his 15 year old grandson, the future King Hussein,
a Palestinian gunman opened fire and assassinated Jordan’s only ruler thus far. Apparently Hussein was also shot, but the
bullet was deflected by a medal he was given by his now dead grandfather. The throne then passed to Abdullah’s son
Talal. The new king introduced the country’s constitution
the following year in 1952. But this was the one and only noteworthy achievement
from Talal’s reign. Because he was subsequently forced to abdicate
the same year; after it became obvious that he was suffering from the mental illness,
Schizophrenia. His son Hussein would ascend the throne at
the age of 17, being dubbed the “boy king”. This happened at a time when the Hashemite
regime was in existential danger. Gamal Abdel Nasser had come to power in Egypt
and seemingly galvanised the Arab world; in the process positioning himself as a foe to
the traditional monarchies of the area. King Hussein also found himself getting dragged
into the Cold War. In 1955, the Baghdad Pact saw neighbouring
Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan join Britain in an alliance that was intended to serve
as a bulwark to Soviet influence, under the implicit sponsorship of the United States
of America. Jordan was pressured by its former imperial
overlord Britain to join as well. The proposal triggered huge discontent inside
the country, as many rightfully recognised the alliance to also be anti-Nasserist in
nature. Nasser’s socialist pan-Arabist ideas were
sweeping the Arab world at the time; his fiery rhetoric and reassuring confidence gave hope
to millions in a region that was downtrodden by decades of imperialism. King Hussein reacted decisively; quelling
unrest by promising to not enter the Baghdad Pact. But more importantly he sought to reduce his
country’s reliance on Britain. The close relations with the British gave
Hussein’s rivals in the region plenty of ammunition to use against him, especially
Nasser. I imagine it would be very difficult for most
people today to properly understand just how much popularity and momentum Nasser had in
the 1950s and 1960s. The Egyptian leader had devoted followers
in every country at every level of society. Nasserist-inclined Army officers emerged in
various countries such as Iraq and Syria seeking to usher in a wave of revolutionary politics. So to prevent this, King Hussein Arabised
the Jordanian Army’s Command structure. Glubb Pasha and all other senior British officers
were replaced with Jordanians and the Arab Legion was renamed the Jordanian Armed Forces. Later that year, Jordan held a general election
which resulted in the country’s only democratically elected government. Jordan’s “liberal experiment”, as Hussein
referred to it, was a disaster however. Suleiman Nabulsi became Prime Minister and
led a leftist government that frequently clashed with the King. In April 1957, Nabulsi’s government was
forced to resign. A few days later, violent confrontations broke
out between royalist and nationalist army units. Syria sent troops to the border to support
the anti-Hussein nationalists. But once again the king acted decisively;
making his way to the army barracks at Zarqa where the army units had clashed. Hussein was embraced by his army, thus bringing
an end to an alleged coup attempt that has been shrouded in mystery ever since. To this day we’re not sure if this really
was an abortive coup by Nasserist army officers or a staged counter-coup by the royal family. Whatever the case may be, King Hussein imposed
martial law and even banned political parties, which would last until 1989. The threat from Syria and Egypt reached its
apogee when the two countries joined to form the United Arab Republic in 1958. Just two weeks later, Hussein and his cousin
Faisal of Iraq announced the union of their kingdoms under the Arab Federation. This would be short-lived though, as the Hashemite
Royal family of Iraq were overthrown in July that year by pro-Nasserist military officers. Hussein had to watch in horror the news coming
from Baghdad that showed his cousin brutally executed. In this period, there were several attempted
assassinations of Hussein as well. But the king survived them all, and he even
survived the UAR, which disbanded in 1961. Despite trying his best to maintain amicable
relations with his Jewish neighbours, King Hussein was once again dragged into Arab-Israeli
conflict in 1967. Many in the Arab world already criticised
Hussein for the lack of antagonism in his dealings with Israel. Back-channel lines of communication had existed
between Jordan and Israel from the onset of the conflict. So he felt compelled to join Egypt and Syria
in signing a defence pact in May of that year. Even though he believed the Arab armies were
unprepared, Hussein gave command of its military to the Egyptian officer Abdul Munim Riad. On the 5th of June, the Jordanian king’s
fears were vindicated when Israel launched a stunning surprise attack on Egypt, wiping
out its air force. The conflict is now known as the Six Day War
because in the space of less than a week, Israel routed the combined forces of Jordan,
Syria and Egypt; in the process occupying the West Bank, including all of Jerusalem,
the Golan Heights, Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula. For Jordan, losing the West Bank was disastrous
- it had now lost a huge chunk of its population and a vital economic centre. Subsequently, 300,000 Palestinian refugees
flooded major Jordanian cities. King Hussein also now had the added headache
of becoming host to the PLO, the Palestinian resistance movement. This was a headache for him because the PLO
would launch attacks into Israel from their headquarters in Jordan; as a result inviting
Israeli reprisal attacks on Jordanian soil. The most remarkable example of this took place
in March 1968, when Israeli troops marched on the town of Karameh to destroy the PLO’s
base, which they carried out. But what they didn’t expect was the stiff
resistance put up by the Jordanian forces. The battle restored Jordan’s pride as it
inflicted considerable damage onto the Israeli army. It came as a shock to Israel, but was met
with delight in the Arab World, for it proved that Israel was not invincible. Although the Jordanian army played a much
bigger role, much praise went to the Palestinian guerrilla fighters. They received a great deal of prestige and
funding from across the region as recruitment to the resistance movement skyrocketed. The PLO became so prominent in Jordan that
they were in essence able to form a state within a state, violating local laws, shooting
at Jordanian soldiers. King Hussein’s very authority was under
threat from the powerful Palestinian groups. By September 1970, the inevitable conflict
of interests culminated into open warfare. In the events that have since been referred
to as Black September, the PLO were routed out of the capital Amman within 2 weeks, and
by the summer of 1971, all of the PLO members were expelled from Jordan; moving their bases
to Lebanon. From this point on, Hussein would play the
role of mediator in Middle Eastern politics. Even when Egypt and Syria attacked Israel
in the 1973 war, Jordan only played a supporting role to the Syrians in the Golan Heights. The following year at an Arab League Summit,
the PLO was recognised as the sole representatives of the Palestinian people; this was a blow
to King Hussein as it forced his hand to give up on his claim of speaking on behalf of the
Palestinians. Jordan’s economy also benefitted from this
peace, especially due to the close relations King Hussein established with the Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein. In 1988, just after the First Intifada had
started, King Hussein renounced all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank
so that, as he explained, the Palestinians could establish their own independent state,
which the PLO followed up with later that year by declaring a Palestinian state consisting
of Gaza and the West Bank; thereby stripping those Palestinians living in the West Bank
of Jordanian citizenship. The following year, the country experienced
large scale protests and even riots over the increasingly worrying state of the economy. This metamorphosised into a political issue
whereby the protestors demanded widespread political reforms. King Hussein acquiesced; scheduling parliamentary
elections for later in 1989. He also introduced the National Charter, a
document which set about to outline the democratisation of Jordan. Even though King Hussein had damaged Jordan’s
international reputation due to the close relations he had developed with Saddam, the
adroit ruler would more than make up for that when he signed the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty
in 1994, ending a 46 year long official state of war between the two countries. King Hussein would pass away in 1999 and hand
over the throne to his son and current ruler, Abdullah II. Nowadays Jordan is one of the most stable
Middle Eastern countries - this serves to highlight the immense skill of King Hussein
in navigating the myriad of issues plaguing Jordan during his long 46 year long reign. SAUDI ARABIA
When King Abdul Aziz established a united Saudi state in
the 1920s, he had inherited a land that was barren and underdeveloped. But just a decade later, oil was discovered
and changed Saudi Arabia’s destiny. Supplying the demand of industrialised countries,
the Black Gold liquid transformed Saudi Arabia into a regional powerhouse that could profoundly
impact global geopolitics. - As a matter of fact, most of Saudi Arabia’s
political and economic developments in the second half of the 20th century were tied
to oil. First discovered in 1938, King Abdul Aziz
had granted concessions to American companies to drill for oil and construct oil wells;
hoping to put his country in a position where it could export it to western nations who
were hungry for it to serve their energy needs. In cooperation with the American company Aramco,
the Saudi government was able to exploit some of the largest oil reserves in the world. By the 1950s, production had exceeded an incredible
1 million barrels per day. With the Kingdom becoming almost entirely
dependent on oil money, King Abdul Aziz presciently ensured that the deal would continue to sustainably
serve his country’s needs into the future. In the original concession with Aramco, a
stipulation had been made that the American company would employ Saudi Arabs as much as
possible and it would also build schools to educate native Arabs who would later be employed
by the company. This Saudi assertiveness was best exemplified
by Abdul Aziz in 1950 when he pressured the American company to share its profits equally
50/50 with the Saudis. Thus establishing a pattern that was followed
by his successors whereby the Saudi government tried to increase its share of revenue from
the production of oil. In 1973, the government bought a 25% interest
in Aramco, increasing it to 60% in 1974; and in 1980, it concluded the outright purchase
of Aramco. - On the political front, Saudi Arabia experienced
much more turbulence. In 1953, Abdul Aziz passed away and was succeeded
by his son Saud. The new king did not enjoy the trust of his
entire family, some of whom worried about Saud’s competence. He was known to be an extravagant spender,
his went into a deficit and even relied on foreign borrowing. All the while, Saud’s powerful younger brother
Faisal had established himself as a skilled politician. A rivalry ensued between the two brothers,
which ultimately culminated in the deposal of Saud in favour of Faisal in 1964. All this came at a time when an Arab Cold
War was brewing; pitting the traditionalist monarchies against newly-established progressive
republic inspired by the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. Check out the video I did recently on the
Arab Cold War for more on that. The Saudi-Egyptian feud reached dangerous
levels during the 1960s North Yemen Civil War, as both countries backed opposing parties. Domestically, King Faisal’s reign oversaw
a period in which the Saudi infrastructure developed greatly, with the help of American
construction companies. Under Faisal, the Kingdom started to flex
its muscles foreign policy wise. Even before his accession, Saudi Arabia was
a founding member of OPEC, an international organisation created in 1960 and consisting
of the world’s largest oil producers. In the aftermath of the 1973 Arab-Israeli
War, the Saudi King led efforts by OPEC to proclaim an oil embargo targeting countries
that had supported Israel in the war. The subsequent rise in the price of oil sent
shockwaves around the globe and allowed the Saudi economy to grow massively. Faisal would not live long enough to witness
the fruits of this, as he was assassinated by his nephew in 1975. His half-brother Khalid succeeded him and
sped up the rate at which the country was modernising. The most noteworthy incident of Khalid’s
reign came in 1979, when Islamic extremists seized the Masjid al-Haram, the Grand Mosque
of Mecca, the holiest site in Islam. Calling for the overthrow of the Al-Saud family,
the insurgents were defeated after two weeks as the Islamic world watched in disbelief. The event did force the Saudi royal family
to slow down the pace of their social modernisation policies and instead move towards empowering
the powerful and conservative Ulema. The Last Shah of Iran
Iran’s modern history has been turbulent to say the least. Having been traumatised by its exposure to
European imperialism, the country’s leaders were gripped by the desire to become more
powerful. In their estimation, if they industrialised
and modernised they would have a greater chance of being able to defend themselves against
foreign aggression. The reign of the last Shah of Iran Mohammed
Reza Shah brings this issue to light. Using the increased revenue of their oil sales,
the Shah was able to launch a modernisation programme that saw Iran make rapid material
progress. At the same time however, the dictatorial
manner he adopted alienated many within Iranian society. - Scarred from being caught up in the 19th
century Great Game rivalry between Russia and Britain, Iran sought help from powers
such as Italy and Germany to aid its modernisation in the inter-war period. This became a huge issue once WWII began,
because even though Reza Shah proclaimed his country’s neutrality, British ownership
of Iran’s oil industry through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company meant that it would not take kindly
to the presence of German engineers and technicians remaining inside of Iran during the War. When the Shah refused to kick the Germans
out, Britain along with the Soviet Union invaded country in 1941 and forced the Shah to abdicate. His young son, Mohammad Reza Shah was installed
in his place. Iran then served as a vital conduit through
which the Allies could send supplies to the USSR, named the Persian Corridor. The capital Tehran even served as the location
of a key meeting of the Allied leadership in 1943. Once the War was over, the Allied promise
to withdraw from Iran was not upheld by the Soviets; who even went on to help establish
two puppet states in the north-west of the country. One of the earliest confrontations of the
Cold War, the Iran Crisis of 1946 was soon resolved and Soviet troops withdrew. - The dominant issue affecting Iranian politics
in the immediate post-war period was Oil. Iranians felt disgruntled by the prospect
of their most valuable resource being almost entirely in the hands of a foreign government. In 1951, Iran’s parliament the Majlis named
the patriotic Mohammad Mossadegh as the new Prime Minister. Immediately, the experienced politician nationalised
the oil industry and set up the National Iranian Oil Company. Whilst this move won him the adoration of
his people, Britain’s antagonistic response to losing a key strategic asset led to the
Abadan Crisis, in which economic sanctions were imposed on Iran and the major refineries
at Abadan were blockaded by British Warships. During this time there was even a power struggle
of sorts between the Shah and Mossadegh, the latter resigning in 1952 but being reinstated
just days later on the back of a popular uprising at his resignation. The very next year, however, Mossadegh’s
government fell to a coup d’état engineered by the CIA & MI6. The coup put the Shah back in firm control
of the country, who in turn ratified the Consortium Agreement of 1954, which split the oil revenue
50/50 between the Iranian government and a consortium of Western companies. - For the next 25 years, the Shah ruled in
an increasingly autocratic style. The increased revenue from oil production
enabled him to embark upon an ambitious programme of socio-economic reform. In 1963, he announced his White Revolution,
aimed at expediting the modernisation of his country, it focused on a wide-range of issues,
including land reforms, the right to vote for women and industrial development projects. Hoping to appeal to the peasantry, in the
long-run the Shah’s White Revolution helped to sow the seeds of his downfall as it alienated
the landed elites and the ulema. Demonstrations in 1963 helped transform Ruhollah
Khomeini into a major political and religious leader after he criticised the reforms on
the grounds that they were an attack on Islam and accused the Shah of submitting to America
and Israel. The westernizing trend favoured by the Shah
put him at odds with the conservative elements of his society. At the same time, his regime was constantly
accused of corruption whilst SAVAK, the national intelligence agency, aggressively cracked
down on political dissent. All this formulated an atmosphere in which
huge chunks of Iranian society felt discontent with the Pahlavi regime; by 1978 this culminated
in a popular revolution spearheaded by none other than Ayatollah Khomeini. Feeling his position was untenable, the Shah
went into exile in 1979 and the monarchy was abolished. Later that same year an Islamic Republic was
announced with Khomeini leading it. The Islamic Revolution sent shockwaves throughout
the world. Anti-American sentiment had been integral
to the Islamist cause against the Shah and so the new Islamic Republic’s relation with
the US proved to be contentious. Late in 1979, an Islamist student group took
over the American embassy in Tehran and held the diplomats within hostage. The ensuing diplomatic crisis resulted in
the severance of relations between Iran and the US, which is still the case to this day. For more on the Iran Hostage Crisis, check
out my collab partner Mr Beat’s video dedicated solely to that topic! The Republic established by Ataturk was an
ambitious project. In the aftermath of the great leader’s death
in 1938, a tricky road lay ahead for Turkey. It had to manage its transition to a multi-party
political system. At the same, it had to deal with the fact
that the Army viewed itself as the purveyor’s of Ataturk’s vision and thereby would get
involved in politics if they saw fit. On top of all this, Turkey had to grapple
with social instability caused by socio-political violence between left-wing and right-wing
groups. With Ataturk dying in 1938, the presidency
fell to his right hand man Ismet Inonu. A well-respected figure from the War of Independence,
the first half of Inonu’s stewardship of the country saw him maintain Turkey’s neutrality
during WWII; whilst the latter part was preoccupied with guiding the country through the tricky
terrain of the early Cold War period. Domestically, Turkey transitioned to a multi-party
political system in 1945. Hugely monumental, this development would
prove to be a traumatic one. In the 1950 general election, Inonu’s CHP
lost to the Democrat Party and marked the first time someone outside of Ataturk’s
party would lead the country. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Adnan
Menderes, the Turkish economy initially experienced rapid growth. He also relaxed some of the restrictions placed
on Islam in society, thereby winning him the adulation of a large segment of Turkish society. But a faltering economy and an increasingly
autocratic government towards the end of the 1950s saw the military engineer a coup d’etat
in 1960. Seen as the purveyors of Ataturk’s vision
for Turkey, the military would eventually return power to a civilian government the
next year, not before executing ex-PM Menderes. The rest of the 1960s was characterised by
a series of coalition-based governments that yo-yoed between Inonu’s CHP and Suleyman
Demirel’s Justice Party. By 1971, instability in Turkish society had
gotten to the point that the Army once again felt compelled to intervene in light of the
government’s failure to resolve the issues. On the back of an economic recession, social
unrest in the form of labour strikes, street demonstrations and violence between left-wing
and right-wing groups became much more common. The military were unable to bring any semblance
of stability as the political scene became even more fractured with no respite in the
economy. Unable to form a strong government, the 70s
saw what has been described by some as a low-level war in the streets of Turkish cities, as ultranationalist
groups such as the Grey Wolves clashed with communists, resulting in over 5,000 casualties. In the midst of all this internal strife,
the military junta in Greece had attempted to annex Cyprus and thereby prompted the Turkish
invasion of the contested island in 1974; leading to a de facto partition between Greek
and Turkish Cypriots that still exists today. All this volatility led to General Kenan Evren
carrying out yet another military coup in 1980. In the years ahead, the Kurdistan Workers’
Party would initiate a deadly insurgency against the Turkish state that grew out of discontent
amongst Turkey’s sizeable minority of Kurds, who had been victims to the political vision
of Ataturk and his successors.
