Opinion: Opinion | Syria: Why Is The Middle East Always In Turmoil?

Few could have foreseen Bashar al-Assad’s dramatic ouster as 2024 drew to a close. For years, Syria’s battle lines had been frozen under a fragile ceasefire brokered by Russia and Turkey in 2020. Yet, Assad’s downfall—after his family’s iron grip over Syria for over five decades—has shaken the region to its core. Lina Khatib of London-based think tank, Chatham House, writing in Foreign Policy, likened it to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, calling it “an earthquake in the regional order”.

The reasons for Assad’s collapse are as much about Syria as they are about its ophthalmologist ex-president’s patrons—Russia, bogged down in Ukraine, had neither the resources nor the resolve to back Assad, and Iran’s proxies across the region were severely weakened by Israeli air strikes. Sensing the moment, rebel forces led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a group with roots in Al-Qaeda, mounted a ferocious offensive. Assad’s army, battered by years of corruption, desertions and low morale, folded in the face of the HTS’s blitz. Predictably, Western powers have swooped in to shape Syria’s political future and are now vying to influence the makeup of the next government.

From the relative calm of India or from the peaceful Western European capitals, it’s tempting to ask: why is the Arab world perpetually at war with itself? Why does it spawn so many extremist groups? Why has it been trapped in cycles of violence and instability for decades? To answer these questions, we must look beyond the modern era, all the way back to the 11th century. But for now, let’s stay within the last century to understand how history has shaped the region’s current turmoil.

The Lawrence Syndrome

Years ago, I watched Lawrence of Arabia, a sweeping tale of West Asia’s chaos around the years 1916-17. Hollywood, as we know, isn’t big on sequels. But looking at the current mess in the region, I would certainly say, no, shout, that it’s high time for a sequel to Lawrence of Arabia.

The iconic 1962 film serves as a powerful metaphor for the ongoing struggles in West Asia. The themes of betrayal, tribalism and Western manipulation in the film echo the realities of modern conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya. Set during World War I, the film offers a stark window into the forces that set the stage for the region’s instability. The movie depicts T.E. Lawrence, played by Peter O’Toole, as a British officer cobbling together a front consisting of diverse groups of Arab tribes to fight against the Ottoman Empire, which had governed much of the Arab world for centuries. The British officer on behalf of his government promised the Arabs full independence in return for their support.

However, as history shows, that promise was nothing more than deception. After the war, the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement, signed between Britain and France, carved the region into British and French colonial spheres of influence, betraying the Arabs and ignoring their aspirations for self-determination. This betrayal was not just a diplomatic slight—it planted the seeds of mistrust that continue to shape Arab-Western relations to this day.

The arbitrary borders drawn by colonial powers, with no regard for the region’s ethnic, tribal or religious complexities, created fragile states that were prone to fracture. Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen are glaring examples of this legacy: nations artificially built by outsiders, now disintegrating as factions fight for power in structures never designed to hold.

Fragile Tribal Alliances

Memorable but controversial views about the Arabs uttered in Lawrence of Arabia are believed by many in the West even today: “So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people—greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are.” In the film, Lawrence struggles to unite the disparate Arab tribes against the Ottomans. This reflects the tribalism and factionalism that continue to plague the region. In Libya, for instance, the fall of Muammar Gaddafi exposed deep tribal rivalries, leading to a prolonged civil war. Similarly, in Yemen, the conflict is partly driven by tribal and sectarian divisions, exacerbated by foreign intervention.

It’s All About Oil

“There is nothing in the desert, and no man needs nothing,” said Lawrence in the film. But things dramatically changed in the region with the discovery of vast oil reserves. From “nothing”, the region’s desert became resource-rich. Oil turned deserts into global battlegrounds, amplifying foreign intervention. Another Hollywood movie, Syriana, depicts how mega Western energy companies played kingmakers in the region. Greed led to corruption and manipulation. In our times, the US and its allies have often supported local leaders or factions in ways that serve their strategic interests, only to abandon them later. For instance, the US first supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, but later overthrew him in 2003. In Syria, Western powers have backed various rebel groups, some of which later turned into destabilising forces.

Oil, the region’s most valuable resource, has been both a blessing and a curse. Oil drew intense interest from Western powers, who sought to control these resources to fuel their economies. The oil-rich Gulf states, while benefiting economically, became heavily reliant on Western security guarantees, leaving them vulnerable to foreign influence. The 1953 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-led coup in Iran, which overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalised the oil industry, is a case in point. Similarly, the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, justified on dubious grounds, dismantled state institutions and unleashed a wave of sectarian violence that continues to plague the country.

Israel and Modern Wars

The Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which Britain supported the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, added to the tensions. This commitment conflicted with promises made to Arab leaders by the colonial powers, which had assured support for an independent Arab state in exchange for their rebellion against the Ottomans. The betrayal left deep scars, fuelling resentment that persists to this day. The establishment of Israel following the Holocaust and the UN partition plan displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, leading to the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948. Subsequent wars (1956, 1967, 1973), the Palestinian refugee crisis and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian tensions continue to define the region’s volatility. For many Arab nations, Israel became a symbol of Western-backed injustice and territorial loss.

The Death Of Pan-Arabism

Despite turmoil and crises, or perhaps because of them, Pan-Arabism emerged as a movement to unite the warring Arab world under a shared identity, overcoming tribal and sectarian divisions. Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser was the movement’s most towering figure. Unfortunately for ordinary Arab people, internal rivalries, ideological differences and external meddling stymied the movement.

The United States and its allies, wary of the socialist underpinnings of Pan-Arabism, actively worked to undermine it. For instance, the CIA was reportedly involved in orchestrating coups and supporting conservative monarchies to counter Nasser’s influence. By the 1970s, Pan-Arabism had largely faded, replaced by fragmented nationalisms and chaos.

Hope, Then Disillusionment

The 2011 Arab Spring uprisings briefly raised hopes for democratic change. However, the movements’ outcomes varied widely, with some states descending into chaos. In Syria, peaceful protests against President Bashar al-Assad devolved into a brutal civil war, drawing in regional and international players. The US, Russia, Iran, Turkey and others have all backed different factions, turning Syria into a proxy battlefield. Libya, too, saw its long-time leader Gaddafi overthrown with NATO’s help, only to descend into a protracted conflict among rival factions. Meanwhile, countries like Egypt saw a return to authoritarianism, dashing hopes for meaningful reform.

Echoes Of The Crusades

The Crusades, launched between the 11th and 13th centuries, were actually military campaigns by European Christian powers to reclaim Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim control. Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, commonly known in the West as Saladin, defeated the Christian army of crusaders at the Battle of Hattin in 1187, which led to the recapture of Jerusalem. Ironically, Saladin hailed from a Kurdish family (non-Arabs in West Asia) but became a hero of the Arabs after the victory. The first sultan of both Egypt and Syria is today hero-worshipped in Muslim societies, particularly in the Arab world, for inflicting a crushing defeat on the European forces. He remains a celebrated figure of resistance, unity, and Islamic valour. His victory symbolises an ability to push back against Western incursions—a legacy still invoked today in discussions of imperialism, foreign intervention and the need for regional unity. Today, Islamist movements and Arab nationalists have, at times, likened Western intervention in the Middle East—such as the US-led invasion of Iraq or European colonial rule—to a “new crusade”, a continuation of Western aggression under different banners.

West Asia is in chaos. Visiting Libya, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq is considered unsafe. It remains a patchwork of conflict zones, authoritarian regimes and fragile states. Over six million Syrians are refugees living in neighbouring countries, and over seven million are internally displaced. Yemen’s civil war, orchestrated by Saudi-Iran rivalry, has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. On top of the crises in Iraq and Syria, their people have to grapple with the threat of ISIS. Lebanon’s economy is in free fall, exacerbating social and political tensions. Even Israel’s economy has ground to a halt due to relentless wars in the last 14 months.

The US and its Western allies remain deeply involved in the region, whether through military presence, arms sales, supporting one extremist organisation or another, or through diplomatic manoeuvres. Unfortunately apart from Turkey, no other emerging power or BRICS nations are showing any interest in shaping the region’s future, even though they know they might be eventually affected by the ongoing crisis.

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author