OCR Specification focus:
‘Great Powers used mandates, coups, occupations, allies, bases and client states to secure interests.’
From 1908 to 2011, the Great Powers used a range of instruments—mandates, coups, occupations, military bases, alliances and client states—to secure strategic, political and economic dominance in the Middle East.
Mandates as Instruments of Control
Post-World War I Settlements
Following the First World War, the defeat and collapse of the Ottoman Empire created a power vacuum in the Middle East. The victorious Britain and France sought to fill this vacuum by restructuring territories through mandates under the League of Nations, formalised by the Sykes–Picot Agreement (1916) and the subsequent peace settlements.
Mandate: A legal status for certain territories transferred from the control of one country to another following World War I, supervised by the League of Nations.
Britain gained mandates over Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq, ensuring control of vital oil routes and the Suez Canal, a crucial link to India and the Empire.
France assumed control of Syria and Lebanon, seeking to expand its colonial influence and spread French culture and economic interests.
Mandates allowed Great Powers to administer former Ottoman lands under the guise of preparing them for self-rule while embedding long-term strategic influence. In practice, these territories remained under effective imperial control, with local governance shaped by European policies and advisors.
Map of the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon showing the states created under French administration in the early 1920s. It illustrates how mandates re-drew borders and segmented authority to manage local society and security. This exceeds the syllabus only by naming sub-units, which helps clarify the administrative logic of mandates. Source
Legitimacy and Control
The mandate system cloaked imperial expansion in the language of international responsibility. Infrastructure, legal systems, and political institutions were remodelled to suit European priorities. Resistance—such as the Iraqi Revolt of 1920 and uprisings in Syria—was suppressed militarily, demonstrating that mandates were as much about control as tutelage.
Coups as Strategic Tools
Manipulating Regimes
Coups became a key instrument by which Great Powers reshaped Middle Eastern politics to serve their interests, often to counter hostile ideologies or protect economic stakes.
Iran 1953 – Operation Ajax: Orchestrated by the CIA and MI6, the coup removed Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq, who had nationalised oil previously controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was reinstated as a pro-Western ruler, ensuring continued Western access to oil and a bulwark against Soviet influence.
Iraq 1963: The United States tacitly supported the Ba'athist coup that overthrew Abd al-Karim Qasim, whose policies leaned towards the USSR. The new regime aligned more closely with Western interests.
Egypt 1952: Though initially independent, the Free Officers’ coup that brought Gamal Abdel Nasser to power was monitored closely by Britain and the US. His rise reshaped regional politics, prompting both superpowers to compete for influence.
Coups were often justified as restoring order or preventing communist infiltration during the Cold War, but they frequently entrenched authoritarian rule favourable to Great Power strategies.
Occupations and Direct Military Presence
Securing Territory and Influence
Direct military occupations were another means of asserting dominance, particularly in crises or strategic regions.
British occupation of Iraq (1917–1932): Began during World War I and continued under the mandate system, cementing British access to oil fields and a foothold in the Gulf.
Anglo-Soviet occupation of Iran (1941): During World War II, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran to secure oil supplies and supply routes to the USSR, forcing Reza Shah to abdicate.
Suez Crisis (1956): Britain, France and Israel invaded Egypt after Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal. Although the operation failed under US and Soviet pressure, it demonstrated the willingness of Great Powers to use military force to protect strategic assets.
Occupations could stabilise regions or overthrow regimes but often provoked nationalist resistance and long-term resentment, weakening Western legitimacy.
Military Bases and Strategic Geography
Projection of Power
The establishment of military bases provided a less overt but enduring mechanism for control, allowing rapid intervention and sustained influence.
Britain maintained bases in Aden, Cyprus and the Suez Canal Zone, projecting naval power across the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean.
The United States, from the 1950s onwards, established key bases in Turkey, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, securing access to oil routes and countering Soviet influence during the Cold War.
The US Fifth Fleet, headquartered in Bahrain, became central to American dominance of Gulf security and ensured Western control over vital shipping lanes.
Bases served not only military functions but also symbolised political alliances, often underpinning client-state relationships.
Client States and Allied Regimes
Building Dependent Partnerships
Client states were nations that, while nominally independent, relied heavily on Great Powers for security, economic aid, or political support.
Client State: A country that is economically, politically, or militarily subordinate to a more powerful state, often aligning policies with the patron’s interests.
Saudi Arabia emerged as a key American client state after the 1933 oil concession to Standard Oil of California, cementing a strategic oil-for-security partnership.
Jordan, under the Hashemite monarchy, depended heavily on British military and financial support, particularly during the Arab–Israeli conflicts.
Israel, following its creation in 1948, became a crucial US ally, receiving extensive military aid and diplomatic backing as part of America’s Cold War strategy.
Egypt shifted from Soviet to American patronage after the Camp David Accords (1978), demonstrating how alliances could be realigned to serve Great Power aims.
Overview map of British territories, mandates and protectorates in the Middle East. It highlights the geographical spread of indirect control—key to understanding client states and treaty-based influence. The image includes regions beyond the immediate case studies, but this broader view clarifies how protectorates fit a regional strategy. Source
Client states extended Great Power influence without formal empire, providing bases, intelligence cooperation, and reliable votes in international forums.
Interconnected Instruments and Strategic Objectives
Overlapping Methods of Control
The Great Powers often employed these instruments in combination:
Mandates laid the groundwork for future client states by shaping political structures and boundaries.
Coups installed regimes amenable to foreign military bases or alliances.
Occupations safeguarded oil resources and transit routes during crises.
Bases reinforced influence in client states and deterred rival powers.
Client states served as platforms for projecting power and shaping regional dynamics.
These methods were all directed towards common strategic goals:
Securing energy resources, particularly oil, which became critical to industrial economies.
Controlling trade and communication routes, notably the Suez Canal and Persian Gulf.
Containing rival ideologies, from fascism and nationalism to communism and Islamism.
Maintaining geopolitical dominance in a region central to global power balances.
The interplay of these instruments over the 20th and early 21st centuries transformed the Middle East into a theatre of sustained Great Power competition, shaping its political boundaries, state systems and conflicts well into the modern era.
FAQ
The League of Nations framed mandates as a means of guiding former Ottoman territories towards self-government under international supervision. This gave imperial powers like Britain and France a legal and moral justification for their presence.
Mandates were classified by development level:
Class A mandates (e.g., Iraq, Palestine, Syria) were considered closest to independence but still needed oversight.
Mandatory powers claimed they were building institutions, legal systems, and infrastructure, though in reality these often served imperial interests first.
During the Cold War, Great Powers often used coups to rapidly reshape Middle Eastern regimes without direct military involvement. Coups allowed them to:
Prevent perceived communist expansion or nationalist movements hostile to Western interests.
Protect economic assets such as oil concessions.
Install regimes more aligned with their strategic goals, often ensuring access to bases or favourable alliances.
Because they were often covert, coups could achieve significant political change while avoiding international condemnation associated with outright invasion.
Military bases became symbols of foreign influence, often provoking nationalist and anti-imperialist sentiment. In Egypt, for example, British bases in the Suez Canal Zone were a source of tension and resentment, contributing to the 1952 revolution.
Bases also strengthened ruling regimes by guaranteeing foreign military support. In Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, the presence of American bases bolstered monarchies and deterred regional threats, influencing internal power dynamics and limiting the success of opposition movements.
Client states acted as strategic partners in the broader contest for influence, especially during the Cold War.
The United States built alliances with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan to counter Soviet influence and secure oil supply routes.
The Soviet Union supported Egypt (before 1978), Syria, and Iraq with arms and aid to expand its regional foothold.
These relationships extended Great Power influence without the costs of direct colonial rule, creating rival blocs and fuelling proxy conflicts across the region.
Occupations shifted from overt imperial control to targeted, often temporary interventions.
Early 20th century: Britain and France occupied territories to dismantle Ottoman rule and secure imperial routes (e.g., Iraq, Palestine).
Mid-century: Occupations, like the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941, focused on wartime logistics and oil.
Late 20th–early 21st century: The US-led occupations of Iraq (1991, 2003) were framed as part of wider security strategies, including countering weapons proliferation and terrorism.
This evolution reflected changing international norms, with occupations increasingly justified by security or humanitarian concerns rather than direct colonial ambition.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
Name two instruments used by Great Powers to maintain control in the Middle East between 1908 and 2011.
Mark scheme:
1 mark for each correct instrument named (any two of the following):
Mandates
Coups
Occupations
Military bases
Client states
Alliances
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain how mandates and client states were used by Great Powers to secure their interests in the Middle East between 1908 and 2011.
Mark scheme:
Level 1 (1–2 marks):
Basic description with limited detail.
May identify one or both instruments but lacks explanation or specific examples.
Example: “Mandates were used after World War I and client states helped Great Powers.”
Level 2 (3–4 marks):
Some explanation of how mandates and client states were used, supported by relevant examples.
May explain one in more detail than the other.
Example: “Britain and France used mandates like Iraq and Syria to control the Middle East after the Ottoman Empire fell. Client states such as Jordan relied on Britain for support.”
Level 3 (5–6 marks):
Clear and developed explanation of how both mandates and client states were used to secure Great Power interests, with accurate supporting examples.
Shows understanding of strategic, political, or economic aims.
Example: “After World War I, mandates gave Britain and France control of former Ottoman territories, such as Britain’s mandate in Iraq, securing oil and trade routes. Client states like Saudi Arabia and Jordan allowed Great Powers to project influence without formal empire, for example through oil-for-security partnerships with the USA and British financial support for the Hashemite monarchy.”
