The “New Middle East”: A Century of Division and Western Manipulation

By Mohamad Hammoud

For over a century, Western powers have treated the Middle East as a geopolitical chessboard, dividing its lands and propping up authoritarian regimes to serve their strategic interests. A pivotal moment in this exploitation was the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, a secret pact between Britain and France that carved the Ottoman Empire into artificial states designed to prioritize colonial ambitions.

This legacy of interference has resulted in Arab nations that are politically fractured, economically stunted, and vulnerable to external manipulation. In particular, the United States has consistently aligned its strategies with “Israel’s” regional objectives, further perpetuating a cycle of chaos and control.

Consequently, the concept of the “New Middle East” emerges as the latest chapter in this long history of Western intervention.

The Origins of Division

The modern Middle East was shaped by the colonial ambitions of Britain and France in the early 20th century. The borders drawn in the Sykes-Picot Agreement ignored ethnic, religious, and tribal realities, focusing instead on strategic resources like oil and key ports such as Haifa. As noted in Orient XXI’s analysis, the agreement promised Arab independence in name only, allowing France and Britain to maintain control through “advisers” and “local loans.” This fractured the region into weak, dependent states, setting the stage for sectarian tensions and autocratic rule.

The arbitrary borders created nations like Iraq and Syria, grouping diverse populations—Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, and Christian—under centralized, often minority-led regimes. These states lacked organic cohesion and relied on Western-backed strongmen to maintain control. For instance, Britain installed the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq while France supported Maronite Christian elites in Lebanon. This artificial order suppressed democratic movements and entrenched divisions, ensuring the region remained pliable to external interests.

As a result, the Middle East became a region of constant instability, suffering from internal divisions and external interventions. The strategy of "divide and rule" was repeatedly applied to prevent regional unity and economic independence. Historian James Barr, in A Line in the Sand, argues that the Sykes-Picot Agreement betrayed Arab aspirations and laid the groundwork for ongoing conflict.

Western Interference and Undemocratic Governance

The ongoing interference of Western powers has kept Arab nations from developing into stable and democratic states. Whenever a leader emerges who does not align with Western or “Israeli” interests, these powers resort to covert operations, economic pressure, or direct military intervention to destabilize them. This pattern is evident in numerous cases, from the overthrow of Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Declassified CIA documents confirm that Mossadegh was removed to protect British and American oil interests, demonstrating how Western powers have historically prioritized economic gains over democratic principles.

One of the most striking examples of this interference was during the tenure of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. His refusal to fully cooperate with US policies led to sudden instability in Iraq. Soon after, Daesh [The Arabic Acronym for the terrorist ISIS/ISIL] group emerged as a powerful terrorist organization, causing widespread destruction and forcing Iraq to seek military assistance. Investigations by journalists and scholars, such as Nafeez Ahmed in Insurge Intelligence, have suggested that US intelligence had prior knowledge of Daesh’s rise and may have indirectly facilitated its growth by supporting extremist factions in Syria.

The “New Middle East” and “Israeli” Hegemony

In recent decades, the term "New Middle East" has surfaced as a justification for ongoing Western intervention and the redrawing of regional boundaries. Promoted by the US and “Israel,” this concept aims to reshape the region based on sectarian divisions, weakening Arab nations by fragmenting them into smaller, more manageable entities. Former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice publicly referenced the "New Middle East" during the 2006 Lebanon War, signaling a long-term strategy to align the region with Western interests.

For “Israel,” a fragmented Middle East ensures its security and dominance. By keeping neighbors embroiled in internal conflicts, “Israel” positions itself as the only stable power in the region. The destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, along with efforts to destabilize Iran and Lebanon, aligns with this strategy. The Yinon Plan, an “Israeli” strategic document from the 1980s, explicitly outlines a vision for a divided and weakened Arab world to ensure “Israeli” supremacy.

The 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya serves as another example of this broader strategy. Despite Muammar Gaddafi's authoritarian rule, he had maintained Libya as a relatively stable and prosperous country. However, once he was removed, Libya descended into chaos, allowing extremist groups to gain power. US.and European powers justified their intervention under the pretext of promoting democracy and human rights; yet, the outcome was a failed state that became a hub for human trafficking and terrorism.

Conclusion

The legacy of the Sykes-Picot Agreement laid the foundation for ongoing instability in the Middle East. Driven by their own interests and aligned with “Israel,” Western powers have consistently used covert operations, economic coercion, and military force to maintain dominance. The concept of the "New Middle East" is merely a continuation of this strategy, designed to weaken Arab nations and ensure “Israeli” hegemony.

Evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Western nations prioritize their strategic interests over genuine democracy, stability, and human rights in the Middle East. Until Arab and Muslim nations achieve true independence from Western influence, they will remain pawns in a larger geopolitical game prioritizing power over peace and self-interest over human rights.