Effects of the Collapse of the Ottoman Empire on the Middle East

The collapse of the Ottoman empire had vital ramifications for the international politics of the Middle East. The Ottoman empire for several centuries constituted the primary unifying force among the Islamic world in the middle east. Turkey, under Ottoman control, was more symbolic of a centralized leadership or base of power that governed the greater Islamic world, including the Arab nations. Such leadership served as a vessel to manage relations with foreign superpowers like Britain and France, who had a strong vested interest in the middle east, especially Britain which by 1914 had the concerns of the "protection of the Suez Canal and protection of the Gulf"(Mansfield,149). These were vital due to their link to India and the Abadan region of modern day Iran, containing "key oil installations" (Mansfield, 149). The Ottomans were propped up by such foreign powers as symbolizing legitimate power for Muslims over the Islamic world, while Britain indirectly exerted power over Egypt and France maintained influence over the areas of Syria and Lebanon. With the Ottoman collapse and soon after the abolishment of the Caliphate in 1926, the sense of a single unifying force towards which the Islamic world could rally around was non existent. The resulting effect of such events was a sense of strong nationalist sentiment emerging among both post Ottoman Turkey and various Arab Nationalist movements forming the nationalist wave sweeping through the Middle East with the collapse of the Ottoman empire. Another effect resulting from Ottoman collapse, signaling the end of the last Islamic empire exerting power over the Middle East, was that foreign powers such as Britain and France could now directly exercise power over the region without working through the Ottomans. Connected with this idea however, was the coinciding nationalism in ruled states, primarily Egypt, spurred by an overly aggressive Britain, who no longer had the Ottomans to prop up as fake rulers but still needed to protect growing interests in the area.

With the collapse of the Ottoman empire surfaced a nationalist sentiment in the Middle East taking different forms. Although the Ottomans were a unifying force of Islam in the Middle East, their end by no means signified the end of Islamic influence in the middle east, rather Islam would now take on more nationalist identities and come in many forms under the veil of nationalism unique to every state. Where as Turkey fashioned a more Western style of life and politics based on the leadership of Mustafa Kemal, who indoctrinated the move towards secular ideology free from the Islamic strangle hold of the Ottomans; Egypt would utilize Islam as a vehicle of combating British occupation and influence through forming the Muslim brotherhood and the Waftists. This exhibits how the nationalist movements of different countries in the Middle East region were a product of the different forces which presided over them and how they changed after the collapse of the Ottoman empire. The Ottoman empire used Islam to control Turkey for centuries and quell nationalist secular sentiment while it simply was a puppet power in Egypt, a country ruled for 40 years by Britain and controlled in certain areas by the British even after independence in 1922. The collapse of the Ottomans spurred a nationalist sentiment among Middle Eastern nations emerging from their specific circumstances, both internally and in relations to foreign powers like Britain. This is clearly reinforced by the statement "Ataturk's success in developing a strong national state ... influenced both Arab and Persian nationalists- but their differing circumstances meant that Turkey was more an inspiration than an example" (Mansfield, 172). This statement clearly reflects how whereas the Ataturk led Turkey to secularism through forming a new alphabet and adopting Western names on the heels of centuries of Ottoman rule, Egypt was fighting an increasingly paternalist Britain who turned its attention from "Istanbul to Cairo" with the changing circumstances, in order to protect it's aforementioned interests (Mansfield, 174). No longer under the umbrella of Ottoman control, Middle Eastern nations now had to formulate their own unique identities, incumbent upon their new circumstances.

Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Middle East was more at the mercy of foreign powers than ever before. The Sykes Picoh agreement essentially divided up the Middle East territories amongst the powers of Britain and France, while giving up Constantinople and Dardanelles to Russia. While on the one hand Ottoman disposal allotted Britain and France a certain sense of invincibility, illustrated in the statement "total Ottoman collapse did give Britain and France a brief period in which they felt that they could act largely as they pleased" (Mansfield, 167), this would not come without major nationalist rebellions, largely shaped by the increasing intervention of such foreign powers in Ottoman aftermath. The collapse of the Ottoman triggered an ensuing battle between the emerging nationalist forces, embodied mainly in the Arab nations of Egypt and Syria, against emerging colonial powers of France and Britain. The Ottomans were no longer able to form that bridge between direct foreign control over the middle east among Britain and France while maintaining indirect control over key areas. "The fermenting nationalism which had merely been submerged by martial law came to the surface"(Mansfield, 175). This statement demonstrates After nationalist led anti Western uprising in Egypt led primarily by a man named Zaghoul, Britain agreed to grant independence over Egypt in 1922, however it would still have control over Suez canal Zone, appoint all foreign advisers, control communication and the Sudan. The Waftist party formation in 1919 was integral in achieving independence and rejected conditional independence, seeing no reason for British control over so many of its resources and means. Whereas Egypt endured 40 years of British rule under the veil of the Ottoman empire prior to it's collapse, it now was freed from the Ottoman veil and rose up to stake it's claim as in independent nation. The Wafts would seek to steer Egypt in a direction of reform, in terms of economy, education and politics and create a national state. In a way, Arabs were liberated from Turkish Ottoman rule, paralyzing their independent aspirations and creating a mentality among the foreign powers that they were to be appreciated over the Ottomans. Islam was utilized by Al Banna and the Muslim brotherhood to united a class divided masses under Waftist rule and rallied Egypt towards an Islamic state completely free of any remnants of colonial power. Likewise, the state of Syria, divided with Syria and to be divided further by France in 1925, revolted in 1925-26 behind nationalist led sectarian appeals against the French. The identification among Arab nations and peoples with more nationalist sentiment was more evident in the wake of increasing pressure and manipulation coming directly from foreign powers.

The effects of the collapse of the Ottoman empire in shaping Middle Eastern politics were immense and are significant even to this day. In many ways it led to the direct conflict among Arab and other middle eastern states with western powers which still dominates regional politics to this day in some form or another. We witnessed Arab Nationalism and Islam both utilized to reject Western intervention, to preserve economic interests, emerge after the unity of the Ottoman empire slowly deteriorated and collapsed. The Ottomans were the last great Islamic empire presiding over the region providing that bridge separating western rule and nationalist states and in many ways the void is still trying to be filled by modern day Iran and Saudi Arabia and Iran, attempting to gain

regional dominance the Ottomans last exerted.