I want you to try and imagine a highly specific
scenario for a moment. Just picture a quiet heavily
guarded room right like a back room somewhere
yeah exactly and on a large table there's this
enormous map of the world spread out illuminated
by whatever sparse light is filtering through
the windows and you pick up a literal blue and
red pencil a literal pencil a literal pencil
and in complete secrecy you just begin redrawing
the map you sketch a rigid line across a desert
here or you carve out a fertile river valley
there completely ignoring the complex tapestry
of people, tribes, and ancient communities who
actually live on that ground. Just slicing right
through them. Exactly. Now imagine that those
somewhat arbitrary pencil lines you casually
sketched go on to spark massive, entrenched geopolitical
conflicts that completely dominate the daily
news you read well over a century later. Welcome
to today's deep dive. We are really thrilled
to have you with us. It's great to be here. And,
you know, it sounds suspiciously like the premise
of a sprawling political thriller, but it is
a very tangible, heavily documented piece of
our history. It really is. Today, our deep dive
is anchored on an incredibly comprehensive Wikipedia
article detailing the 1916 Sykes -Picot agreement.
Our core mission here is to take this dense multi
-layered historical subject and extract the absolute
best aha moments for you. Yeah, the real turning
points. Right. The goal is to give you a clear
shortcut to being well informed about how the
modern Middle East was literally sketched out
on a map by two diplomats acting behind closed
doors. And to truly process the magnitude of
this agreement, we really have to look at the
immediate context. We are operating squarely
in the middle of World War I. Right. The whole
world is at war. Exactly. And the Ottoman Empire,
which has maintained control over the vast majority
of the Middle East for centuries, is actively
crumbling under the weight of this global conflict.
It's just falling apart. Yeah, and anticipating
a total collapse, the Triple Entente, that's
Britain, France and Russia, are already operating
on the assumption of ultimate victory. With the
Ottoman Empire on the brink, these allied powers
decide to preemptively divide up the spoils of
war. Understanding the mechanics of this specific
agreement really gives you the ultimate lens
through which to view modern geopolitics. Okay,
let's unpack this. The core negotiations formulating
this new map took place over a period stretching
from November 1915 to January 1916. The two primary
architects sitting at that table are Mark Sykes,
representing British diplomatic interests, and
Francois Georges Picot. Acting on behalf of France.
Right. They are looking at this massive expanse
of the Middle East, and they essentially decide
to slice it directly across the middle, allocating
massive spheres of influence. And the specific
geographical breakdown they agreed upon is crucial
to visualize here. France secured the northern
territories. Their blue pencil lines guaranteed
them control over southeastern Turkey, the Kurdistan
region, Syria, and Lebanon. Meanwhile... The
United Kingdom claimed the southern section.
Their red pencil line secured what is today southern
Israel and Palestine, Jordan and southern Iraq.
But they didn't stop at just drawing massive
territorial blocks. No, they didn't. The British
meticulously carved out a very specific strategic
enclave for themselves, encompassing the crucial
ports of Haifa an acre, which is huge. It's massive.
That wasn't just a land grab. You know, that
was a highly calculated move to ensure the British
Empire had direct. unimpeded access to the Mediterranean
Sea. If we connect this to the bigger picture,
Britain and France were operating within a much
larger, incredibly fragile alliance. They weren't
the only empires demanding a piece of the Ottoman
territories. Far from it. Right. To finalize
their own Middle Eastern borders, they had to
satisfy the territorial ambitions of their other
allies. Russia, for instance, had already staked
its claims earlier in the 1915 Sazanov -Paleolog
agreement. Quite a mouthful. It is. And through
that prior arrangement, Russia was promised Western
Armenia, Constantinople, and the highly strategic
Turkish Straits. And the diplomatic scrambling
didn't stop there. Later on, through the 1917
agreement of Saint -Jean de Maureen, Italy was
officially promised control over southern Anatolia.
So everyone wants a piece. Basically, yeah. You
essentially have a scenario where every major
power is attempting to grab whatever strategic
foothold they can manage. But amidst all of these
solid blocks of red and blue and green, there
was one specific anomaly on the Sykes -Ticot
map. It was designated simply as the Brown Zone.
Right, the Brown Zone. Yeah. That was an area
encompassing Palestine, though it is worth noting
this was a somewhat smaller geographic footprint
than the later borders of mandatory Palestine.
Good distinction to make. Yeah. And the reason
it received this unique designation was due to
the sheer concentration of competing interests.
The territory was considered far too contentious
to be handed over to a single imperial power.
To delicately balance Russian, French, and various
Islamic interests regarding the holy places,
this zone was designated to fall under an international
administration. Basically a compromise. Exactly.
The diplomats effectively decided that since
no single power could comfortably claim it without
causing a diplomatic crisis, it would just be
managed by a vague international consensus. The
underlying motives driving all of these intricate
pencil lines were deeply rooted in logistics,
economics, and imperial survival. I mean, the
lines weren't drawn out of a desire for mere
territorial expansion. There was a real strategy
there. Absolutely. Before Sykes and Pico even
finalized their agreement, the British government
had established the De Bunsen Committee in 1915
to explicitly define their objectives in the
event of the Ottoman Empire's collapse. And the
De Bunsen Committee's findings laid bare the
actual priorities of the British Empire. Their
foremost objective was the protection of the
western flank of India. which was widely considered
the crown jewel of their imperial holdings. Exactly.
Beyond sheer defense, they were heavily focused
on securing vital commercial routes. They needed
uninterrupted land bridges and railway networks
connecting the Mediterranean directly to the
Persian Gulf to facilitate global trade. And
layered on top of those commercial and defensive
strategies was the emerging realization of a
new, game -changing resource. Oil. There were
already early persistent whispers of massive
oil reserves located in the Mosul Vilayet, which
was an Ottoman administrative province situated
in modern -day northern Iraq. So it wasn't just
random lines in the sand? Not at all. The borders
engineered by Sykes and Pico were meticulously
designed to encapsulate trade routes, railway
corridors, strategic buffer zones, and vastly
lucrative oil fields. This intense focus on securing
resources and trade routes brings us to a massive
parallel storyline unfolding at the exact same
time. While Mark Sykes and Francois Georges Pico
are secluded in back rooms quietly sketching
lines and trading cities, the British government
is simultaneously making entirely different wildly
contradictory promises to the Arab populations
actually living in those territories. The historical
record points to a staggering level of diplomatic
duplicity here. This peril timeline revolves
around the McMahon -Hussein correspondence. Between
July 1915 and March 1916, there is a highly sensitive
exchange of 10 specific letters. These communications
are flying between Sir Henry McMahon, serving
as the British High Commissioner to Egypt, and
Hussein bin Ali, the Sharif of Mecca. And the
British lay out a very Right. They agreed to
formally recognize and support a fully independent,
unified Arab state after the war. But the condition
for this British support was significant. In
exchange for the promise of a unified Arab homeland,
Hussein was required to launch a massive armed
insurrection against the Ottoman Empire from
within. Effectively opening up a brutal new front
in the war. So Hussein accepts the terms of the
correspondence. In June 1916, Hussein, fighting
alongside his sons Ali and Faisal, officially
triggers the Arab revolt. They begin waging a
grueling military campaign against the Ottoman
forces. And the British government heavily backs
this insurrection. Heavily. material, the British
inject 50 ,000 pounds in gold into the revolt,
alongside continuous shipments of weapons, ammunition,
and food to sustain the Arab fighters. What's
fascinating here is the sheer audacity of the
diplomatic contradiction. You have Arab forces
out in the desert actively fighting, bleeding,
and dying under the foam belief that their sacrifices
are paving the way for an independent unified
homeland. Because they were told exactly that.
Right. They are heavily relying on the explicit
promises detailed in those 10 letters from the
British High Commissioner. All while remaining
entirely oblivious to the fact that months earlier,
Sykes and Picot had already methodically carved
up that exact same territory into colonial spheres
of influence. Yeah, the British and French governments
had zero intention of allowing a unified Arab
state to emerge. Zero. They had already drafted
the blueprints to install their own direct direct
administrations and their own colonial advisors
over Damascus, Baghdad, Lebanon, and Palestine.
The intricate web of secret treaties and contradictory
promises was bound to fracture eventually. We
can't keep that quiet forever. Here's where it
gets really interesting, because an imperial
secret of this magnitude simply cannot stay buried
forever. The ultimate leak of the Sykes -Picot
agreement happens, and it originates from a wildly
unexpected source. Out of nowhere, really? Yeah.
Fast forward to November 1917, World War I is
still tearing Europe apart, but the Russian Empire
is simultaneously undergoing a chaotic, violent
revolution. The Bolsheviks manage to seize power
and And as they take control of the sprawling
government ministries, they begin digging through
the archives. Just looking for leverage. Right.
And they literally uncover the imperial receipts.
They find the fully documented secret Sykes to
Co. treaties hidden away in the diplomatic files.
And the Bolsheviks were operating on an ideology
fundamentally opposed to this brand of imperial
land grabbing and secret diplomacy. Completely
against it. So upon discovering the documents,
they made the immediate calculated decision to
expose the entire arrangement to the world. They
published the full text of the secret treaties
prominently in their state -run newspapers, is
Vestia and Pravda. The fallout was instantaneous.
Within days, the revelation crossed borders.
The Manchester Guardian secured the texts and
printed the secret treaties in English on November
26, 1917. So it's out in the English -speaking
world now, too. The secret was officially out
in the open. Our source material features a fantastic
quote that perfectly encapsulates the sheer global
whiplash of this moment. It notes that in the
wake of the publication, quote, the British were
embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed, and the Turks
delighted. Which makes perfect sense. The Ottoman
Turks utilized the leak as a massive propaganda
victory, pointing to the published texts as definitive
proof to the Arab troops that their British allies
were openly lying to them. A huge blow to morale.
Absolutely. And this revelation also triggered
a severe ideological crisis with the United States.
Because the timing of the leak clashed violently
with the public messaging of U .S. President
Woodrow Wilson. At this stage of the conflict,
Wilson is loudly championing a completely different
vision for the postwar global order. He's talking
about a new way of doing things. Right. He is
actively promoting concepts like open diplomacy
and the self -determination of populations. These
principles were the very foundation of his famous
14 points. Suddenly, courtesy of the Bolshevik
archives, the British and French allies are caught
red -handed. The published treaties expose them
engaging in the exact type of cynical backroom
imperial horse trading that they were publicly
claiming to be fighting against on the global
stage. It shattered the moral high ground the
Allies were attempting to maintain. Completely.
Yet despite the staggering diplomatic scandal,
the war continues until the Ottomans finally
sign an armistice in late 1918. The active military
engagements largely halt, but the scrambling
to enforce and manipulate the borders on the
map kicks into a frenzied high gear. Because
transitioning from secret pencil lines to enforceable
borders proved to be an incredibly messy reality.
The raw mechanics of how these borders were finalized
is stunning to read about. In December 1918,
just after the war's end, an entirely undocumented
Sunday meeting takes place at the French Embassy
in London. British Prime Minister David Lloyd
George and French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau
sit down privately to haggle over the remnants
of the Middle East. Just two men in a room. Exactly.
And in that single undocumented conversation,
Clemenceau makes a massive concession. he officially
surrenders French rights to both the Mosul region
and to Palestine. Which is huge. Right, because
those were territories that France was explicitly
guaranteed under the original 1916 Sykes -Picot
map. But Clemenceau doesn't just hand over those
territories out of goodwill. He executes a highly
calculated trade. In exchange for relinquishing
control of the land, Clemenceau secures a guaranteed
share of the oil that is expected to flow out
of the Mosel Villiers. The oil again. Always
the oil. Additionally, he extracts a firm promise
of British support regarding French territorial
claims on the rural region back in Europe. While
the prime ministers are trading regions like
commodities in London. The situation on the ground
in the Middle East is reaching a boiling point.
Faisal, the son of Hussein who had actively led
the Arab revolt alongside British forces, enters
Damascus in late 1918. And he's expecting them
to make good on their promise. Right. Operating
on the promises made in the McMahon -Hussein
correspondence, he officially declares a fully
independent Arab constitutional government. Faisal
genuinely believes he has secured the independent
homeland his forces bled for, but the allied
powers respond by shifting the legal framework
of the post -war world to legitimize their original
pencil lines. In April 1920, they convened the
San Remo Conference. And the San Remo Conference
effectively launders the Sykes -Picot Agreement
through international law. They achieved this
by utilizing mandates. Which was a new concept
at the time. Yeah, mandates were essentially
a newly invented legal framework established
by the League of Nations. It provided the imperial
powers with international cover to govern these
territories, supposedly until the local populations
were deemed ready for self -rule. Armed with
this new international mandate, the French government
moves swiftly against Faisal's newly declared
state. France issues a strict ultimatum to the
Arab government in Damascus. Submit or else?
Basically, when the Arab forces refuse to submit
to French authority, the French military marches
in. At the Battle of Mezalun in 1920, French
forces violently crush the independent government
and forcibly depose King Faisal. The initial
promise of Arab independence outlined in the
10 British letters is entirely dismantled. Entirely.
And France assumes direct mandate control over
Syria. The brutal enforcement of these borders
left awake of fractured communities. The profound
tragedy of the Sykes -Picot legacy extends deeply
to populations who were entirely marginalized
by the diplomats' pencil lines. Most notably
the Kurds and the Assyrians. The original blue
and red lines, sketched in 1916, sliced arbitrarily
through the historical region of Kurdistan. In
the immediate aftermath of the war, there was
a brief window of potential recognition. The
Treaty of Sevres, signed in 1920, actually contained
provisions that hinted at the creation of an
autonomous or potentially independent Kurdish
territory. But that fleeting diplomatic promise
was quickly erased by shifting geopolitical realities.
Following the Turkish War of Independence, the
Treaty of Sevres was completely superseded by
the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. And the terms
changed dramatically. They did. In the finalized
text of the Treaty of Lausanne, there was absolutely
no provision made for a Kurdish state. The ultimate
result of this diplomatic whiplash is that the
Kurds, alongside their Assyrian neighbors, find
their historical homelands severely partitioned.
They are left politically marginalized, their
populations divided across the newly solidified
borders of modern -day Turkey, Iraq, Syria and
Iran. This specific fragmentation laid the groundwork
for severe systemic disenfranchisement and conflict
that continues to heavily impact the political
stability of those four nations today. So what
does this all mean? Why does a memorandum drafted
by two European diplomats in 1916 remain critically
relevant to the information you are consuming
today? The ongoing relevance stems from the fact
that historians and political analysts widely
view the Sykes -Picot agreement as the literal
blueprint for the artificial borders defining
the modern Middle East. The foundation of the
map. Right. These boundaries were engineered
almost exclusively to serve the logistical, economic
and defensive interests of the British and French
empires. They were drawn with virtually zero
regard for the complex ethnic, tribal, or sectarian
realities of the people physically inhabiting
the terrain. When we look at how this agreement
echoes today, our source points to stark, modern
examples of how these borders are viewed by various
factions operating on the ground. As a reminder
to you listening, we're just conveying the reported
facts from our source material here without endorsing
any viewpoints. For instance, looking at the
historical record of the Islamic State, or ISIL,
Their insurgency explicitly targeted the legacy
of the Sykes -Picot agreement. Erasing those
specific lines wasn't merely a byproduct of their
territorial expansion. It was a foundational
stated objective of their campaign. The source
notes a highly specific public address from July
2014, where the group's former leader, Abu Bakr
al -Baghdadi delivered a speech focusing heavily
on the 1916 map. He publicly vowed that their
military advance would not cease until they,
quote, hit the last nail in the coffin of the
Sykes -Picot conspiracy. The group even produced
a highly publicized propaganda video explicitly
titled End of Sykes -Picot. In the footage, a
fighter stands directly at the physical border
separating Iraq and Syria, declaring to the camera
that they fundamentally do not recognize the
boundary. They frame it entirely as a colonial
imposition that they are actively dismantling.
And the resonance of these borders stretches
right up to the current geopolitical landscape.
The source highlights a recent perspective from
August 2025 involving American diplomat Tom Barrick.
In that specific interview, Barak openly discusses
how the modern state of Israel views the territorial
lines drawn over a century ago. According to
the source, he stated that Israel views the Sykes
-Picot borders as meaningless. Furthermore, he
asserted that Israel possesses both the capacity
and the desire to take over Lebanon and Syria.
These events and statements spanning from insurgent
groups to modern diplomatic assessments really
illustrate just how deeply the structural foundation
laid down by Marc Sykes and Francois Georges
Bicot continues to dictate the terms of modern
conflict. It is genuinely staggering to consider
how a quiet, secretive memorandum initialed in
January 1916 to protect railway lines and secure
early oil fields managed to create a geopolitical
earthquake. The aftershocks of that single meeting
are literally still dictating the headlines of
appearing on your newsfeed this morning. They
literally used a blue and a red pencil on a static
paper map. It's almost absurd to think about
now. It is. Now consider the sheer complexity
of the tools being utilized to define our world
today. We operate with global positioning systems,
real -time satellite imagery, complex demographic
algorithms, and massive networks of data harvesting.
The infrastructure of power has moved entirely
beyond paper and pencil. Precisely. So consider
this. What invisible lines are being drawn right
now, deep inside modern corporate boardrooms,
across encrypted digital spaces, or quietly processed
within massive data centers? What new unseen
boundaries are being sketched out today that
might define the political and social conflicts
a century from now? That is an incredibly provocative
thought to end on. Thank you so much for joining
us on this deep dive. We hope we've successfully
provided you with a clear shortcut to understanding
the complex, often hidden history behind the
map of the modern Middle East. Keep questioning
the lines you see on the maps every day, and
we'll catch you next time.