OCR Specification focus:
‘Britain and France pursued mandates, alliances and interventions to Suez, 1956.’
Britain and France sought to protect their imperial and strategic interests in the Middle East through mandates, alliances, and interventions, culminating in the Suez Crisis of 1956.
Britain and France in the Middle East: Aims, Policies and Methods to 1956
Strategic Aims and Motivations
From the early 20th century to the Suez Crisis, Britain and France were the dominant European powers in the Middle East, seeking to preserve their global status and influence. Their overarching aims were driven by a mix of strategic, economic, and imperial considerations:
Imperial Prestige and Control: Maintaining colonial influence and global power projection.
Strategic Routes: Securing key passages like the Suez Canal, vital for imperial communication and trade, especially with British India.
Oil and Resources: Gaining access to and control over Middle Eastern oil reserves, which became increasingly essential for military and industrial power.
Containment of Rivals: Preventing expansion of rival powers such as Germany, the USSR, and later the USA into the region.
Protection of Allies: Safeguarding monarchies and regimes favourable to Western interests.
Mandates and Imperial Administration after World War I
Post-Ottoman Settlement and the Mandate System
Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, Britain and France shaped the new political order under the guise of international legitimacy.
Mandate: A legal commission granted by the League of Nations allowing a country to administer a former Ottoman or German territory until deemed ready for independence.
The Sykes–Picot Agreement (1916) had secretly divided Ottoman Arab lands into British and French zones.
Sykes–Picot Agreement zones, 1916. The map shows proposed French and British zones (“A” and “B”) and areas of direct or international control envisaged during the war. It visually sets up the mandate boundaries Britain and France later formalised under the League of Nations. Source
This agreement was later formalised through the League of Nations mandates (1920):
Britain: Palestine, Transjordan, and Iraq
France: Syria and Lebanon
Under the mandate system, both powers claimed to be guiding territories towards independence but instead entrenched imperial control. They:
Established compliant administrations and political elites.
Built military bases to project power regionally.
Exploited economic resources, particularly oil and trade routes.
Britain’s control over Iraq was pivotal for oil concessions through companies such as the Iraq Petroleum Company, while the port of Haifa and the Suez Canal strengthened imperial communications.
Alliances and Treaties as Instruments of Influence
Britain’s Strategic Partnerships
Britain developed alliances with local monarchies and elites to sustain its influence without overt colonial rule. These included:
Anglo-Iraqi Treaty (1930): Secured British bases and influence in exchange for Iraq’s nominal independence.
Treaty of London (1946): Maintained British presence in Transjordan, transforming it into the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan under British guidance.
Anglo-Egyptian Treaty (1936): Allowed British troops to remain in the Suez Canal Zone while recognising Egyptian sovereignty.
Britain cultivated pro-British regimes, often monarchies, to act as buffers against rival ideologies, notably Soviet communism and Arab nationalism.
France’s Levant Strategy
France adopted a more direct and interventionist approach in Syria and Lebanon. It:
Created sectarian-based political structures to divide and manage local populations.
Used military force to suppress uprisings, such as the Great Syrian Revolt (1925–1927).
Retained influence through cultural and educational institutions even after formal independence (Syria and Lebanon became independent in the 1940s).
Interventions and Coups: Maintaining Control in a Changing Region
Interwar Period Interventions
Both powers frequently resorted to military intervention to suppress nationalist movements challenging their rule:
British troops quelled revolts in Iraq (1920) and Palestine (1936–1939).
France’s army was deployed repeatedly to suppress dissent in Syria and Lebanon.
These interventions reflected a broader pattern of imperial policing designed to maintain order and safeguard strategic interests.
World War II and the Shift in Influence
World War II marked a turning point in regional dynamics. Britain and Free French forces ousted Vichy French control from Syria and Lebanon in Operation Exporter (1941), reasserting Allied influence. However, the war also weakened both powers economically and militarily, setting the stage for rising American and Soviet involvement in Middle Eastern affairs.
Post-War Challenges and Declining Influence
Rise of Nationalism and U.S.–Soviet Rivalry
The post-war period saw a surge in Arab nationalism and a challenge to European imperialism:
The Egyptian Revolution of 1952, led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, overthrew King Farouk and signalled a rejection of Western dominance.
Britain’s attempts to form alliances like the Baghdad Pact (1955) to counter Soviet influence met with limited success and local resistance.
Meanwhile, the United States increasingly supplanted European powers as the dominant Western influence, promoting anti-communist regimes and offering economic aid under initiatives such as the Eisenhower Doctrine (1957).
The Suez Crisis, 1956: Culmination of Imperial Ambitions
Nationalisation of the Suez Canal and Western Response
The Suez Canal, a critical maritime route linking Europe with Asia, symbolised Britain’s imperial lifeline.
Route of the Suez Canal. The map labels the canal from Port Said to Port Ibrahim/Suez, showing adjacent rail and freshwater links that made the corridor strategically indispensable. As a 1919 teaching map, it includes some period transport details beyond the syllabus. Source
When Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal Company in July 1956, Britain and France viewed it as a direct challenge to their strategic and economic interests.
Britain feared losing access to its imperial trade routes.
France, facing anti-colonial struggles in Algeria, sought to weaken Nasser, whom it blamed for supporting Algerian nationalists.
The Tripartite Invasion
In October 1956, Britain, France, and Israel launched a coordinated attack:
Operational map of the 1956 Sinai campaign. It traces Israeli thrusts across Sinai and situates the Anglo-French intervention tied to protection of the canal. The base map is produced by the U.S. Military Academy and is clear and minimally annotated for teaching. Source
Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula.
Britain and France issued an ultimatum and then bombed Egyptian targets under the pretext of separating the combatants.
This plan, known as the Sèvres Protocol, was intended to topple Nasser and restore Western control over the canal.
Consequences and Decline
However, the invasion backfired:
The United States and the USSR condemned the intervention, forcing Britain and France into a humiliating withdrawal under U.S. pressure.
The crisis exposed the decline of British and French imperial power and marked the end of their dominance in Middle Eastern affairs.
Nasser emerged as a hero of Arab nationalism, and the Suez Crisis became a symbol of post-war decolonisation.
Methods of Influence: A Summary
Throughout 1908–1956, Britain and France used a range of methods to shape the Middle East:
Mandates: Legalised imperial rule under League of Nations authority.
Alliances and Treaties: Secured bases, oil, and influence through agreements with local rulers.
Interventions and Coups: Suppressed revolts and replaced unfriendly regimes.
Military Bases: Maintained strategic presence in key locations like Suez, Haifa, and Cyprus.
Client States: Cultivated loyal monarchies and regimes as instruments of foreign policy.
These policies reflected continuity in imperial ambition but were increasingly undermined by nationalist movements and superpower rivalry, culminating in their diminished influence after Suez 1956.
FAQ
Although Britain and France were often rivals in global imperialism, in the Middle East they balanced competition with cooperation.
The Sykes–Picot Agreement (1916) demonstrated their willingness to divide Ottoman territories to avoid conflict.
They coordinated through the League of Nations mandate system, legitimising their control.
However, differences emerged: France favoured direct rule in Syria and Lebanon, while Britain relied more on alliances and indirect influence.
This dynamic shaped borders, governance structures, and power balances that still affect the region today.
Britain first intervened militarily in 1882 to suppress nationalist revolts and protect the Suez Canal, maintaining effective control despite nominal Ottoman sovereignty.
Egypt was declared a British protectorate in 1914, and although independence followed in 1922, British troops remained, especially around the canal.
The Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 formalised continued British military presence. Growing Egyptian nationalism after World War II, particularly under Gamal Abdel Nasser, increasingly challenged this, setting the stage for the Suez Crisis of 1956.
France’s colonial struggle in Algeria (1954–1962) was central to its hostility. Nasser supported the Front de Libération Nationale (FLN) by providing arms, training, and political backing, linking Arab nationalism to anti-French resistance.
Nasser’s rhetoric and policies threatened French influence not just in North Africa but also in the Levant, where France had historic ties.
Thus, the Suez intervention aimed not only to regain control of the canal but also to weaken Nasser’s wider influence on colonial uprisings.
Both superpowers opposed the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion, albeit for different reasons.
The United States, under President Eisenhower, feared the crisis would push Arab states towards Soviet influence and damage Western alliances. It applied financial and diplomatic pressure, even threatening to destabilise the British pound.
The Soviet Union condemned the invasion and threatened military action, portraying itself as a defender of anti-imperialism.
This joint pressure forced Britain and France to withdraw, highlighting their declining power and the new Cold War dynamics in the Middle East.
Oil became increasingly central to imperial strategy after World War I. Britain secured concessions through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later BP) and the Iraq Petroleum Company, integrating oil into imperial defence and trade networks.
Control over oil-rich regions, particularly Iraq and Iran, reinforced Britain’s naval and military strength.
France, though less dominant in oil, pursued stakes through companies like Compagnie Française des Pétroles (later Total) and valued access to Iraqi and Syrian resources.
The Suez Canal was vital for transporting oil from the Persian Gulf to Europe, linking energy security directly to imperial policy and making Nasser’s nationalisation deeply threatening.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
Name two aims of British and French policy in the Middle East before the Suez Crisis of 1956.
Mark scheme:
1 mark for each correct aim, up to 2 marks.
Accept any two of the following (or similar phrasing):To maintain imperial prestige and global influence.
To secure strategic routes, especially the Suez Canal.
To control access to vital oil resources.
To contain rival powers such as Germany, the USSR, or the USA.
To support and protect friendly regimes and monarchies.
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain how Britain and France used mandates and interventions to secure their interests in the Middle East between 1918 and 1956.
Mark scheme:
Award 1–2 marks for a basic description with limited detail or general statements.
Award 3–4 marks for a more developed explanation with some specific examples and historical context.
Award 5–6 marks for a detailed and well-explained answer that uses specific evidence and shows clear understanding of how mandates and interventions furthered British and French aims.
Indicative content may include:
Use of League of Nations mandates to formalise control over former Ottoman territories (e.g. Britain in Palestine, Transjordan, Iraq; France in Syria and Lebanon).
Establishment of compliant administrations and exploitation of local resources.
Suppression of nationalist revolts through military interventions (e.g. British actions in Iraq 1920 and Palestine 1936–1939; French suppression of the Great Syrian Revolt 1925–1927).
Maintenance of strategic positions such as bases and routes, especially around the Suez Canal.
Continued interventions post-Second World War, culminating in the Suez Crisis of 1956, when Britain and France used military force in an attempt to regain control of the canal and topple Nasser.
