Western strategist: Sykes-Picot was not enough division, more required

Dr. Eric R. Mandel, in an opinion piece outlining potential US-Israeli strategy in the Middle East, emphasized that the artificial borders drawn by the Western colonial powers under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which ignored ethnic and religious realities, have led to persistent conflict. He argues that reconsidering these borders along ethnic and religious lines may be necessary to address the region’s long-standing issues.

Ignoring Western interests and exploitation of major resources and geopolitical positions, Mandel, founder and director of MEPIN (Middle East Political Information Network), contends that the chaos in the region is primarily the result of religious and sectarian clashes.

Who is Eric R. Mandel?

According to the Jewish Federation of Greater MetroWest NJ, MEPIN is not just another private Middle East research analysis “network”. Members of Congress have widely read it, alongside their foreign policy advisors, members of the Israeli occupation’s Knesset, top journalists, think tanks, and organizational leaders.

Additionally, Mandel regularly briefs US lawmakers and their staffs on the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. He also meets with leading Israeli thinkers and has covered “Israel’s” last five wars over the past 15 years. Mandel serves as the senior security editor for The Jerusalem Report and contributes to The Hill, The Jerusalem Post, i24, Jewish News Syndicate,  Israel Hayom, Thinc., and Defense News among others.

Let’s contextualize what was said, what was purposefully omitted

That being said, Mandel’s perspective does not stray from Western foreign policy interests, yet his approach to the subject did not tackle these very interests.

His narrative focuses on sowing social discord and sectarian divide, and notably, his piece fails to acknowledge any collective Arab identity or Arab history. Instead, it contrasts a so-called Jewish identity in “Israel” as a model for a new, more fragmented, Middle East.

This framing presents Judaism as a national identity, rather than a religious sect that has followers across the globe, and overlooks the historical progression in the region, where Judaism preceded Christianity and Islam, with some Semitic peoples transitioning from one faith to another while others maintained their original beliefs.

Mandel’s approach contradicts historical facts by portraying the people, and social fabric, from which Abrahamic religions emerged as not one people. He aimed to portray them as different groups of people, not connected by blood and social ties, that happened to find themselves in one geographic location, showing them as incapable of coexistence under the umbrella of one Arab national identity.

He specifically claims that “Israel” brought together people with a “shared history, tradition, indigeneity, and religion,” as if Jewish people from Ethiopia and Russia share one identity rather than one faith. He also fails to acknowledge that those brought together in the land of occupied Palestine are settlers and occupiers, who forced the indigenous people into exile.

Mandel essentially argues that the Middle East is not divided enough, a claim that stands in stark contrast to the evident rise of the Axis of Resistance united around an Arab and Islamic identity with the goal of freeing Palestine. Over the past few years, this Axis has demonstrated capabilities that symmetrically match those of the imperialist powers in the region, thereby threatening their grip and interests.

In other words, this movement seeks to liberate the region from what it views as the most advanced US proxy base, an external entity that aims to preserve the current Sykes-Picot entities and perpetuate a cycle of violence and forced underdevelopment.

Faced with the new challenges posed by the united fronts of the Axis of Resistance, the US and “Israel”, as depicted in Mandel’s writing, appear to be working to prevent the emergence of a unified Arab identity that could potentially force the US and NATO countries out of the region and establish a self-sustaining Arab identity through control of local resources and strategic positions.

One thing Mandel was honest about concerns the Sykes-Picot Agreement, as he said that indeed the correct so-called Middle East is “an artificial construct created by British and French diplomats (Sykes and Picot) after World War I to advance their empires’ economic and political interests.”

Much like today, the Resistance that fought against the British and French powers also aimed to establish a liberated Arab nation made up of the multitude of ethnic and religious groups that exist in the region and have integrated to become an integral part of its social fabric.

Summary of Mandel’s argument in The Hill

According to Mandel’s opinion piece, the Middle East, as it exists today, is largely the result of colonial agreements like the Sykes-Picot Agreement and decisions made at the San Remo Conference after World War I, which ignored ethnic, religious, and cultural realities.

The region’s boundaries were redrawn by British and French diplomats to serve their political and economic interests, often disregarding local dynamics. Countries like Syria and Iraq, created in this manner, have struggled with internal divisions and conflict as a result.

In Syria, Mandel noted, the Assad regime’s Alawite minority has long oppressed the Sunni majority, and the current conflict is driven by Sunni extremists backed by Turkiye and Qatar, aiming for political Islamism.

Addressing the most pressing issue in the region, the chaos in Damascus, Mandel foreshadowed events, “Logic says Syria could be divided into an autonomous America-aligned Kurdish region, a small Alawite region on the Mediterranean Coast, and, unfortunately, a Turkish-dominated Sunni jihadist entity in the rest of the rump nation. Most of the Christian population has been chased away and exiled out of fear of persecution. Syrian Druze may prefer to join their families on the Israeli side of the Golan.”

Similarly, Iraq’s creation by colonial powers also led to ethnic and sectarian tensions, worsened by Saddam Hussein’s rule and the US invasion, which failed to address the need for a division into separate Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni states, according to Mandel.

In contrast, Mandel drove his pro-“Israel” point, saying that “countries” like “Israel” have managed to establish stability with a shared identity, other artificial states in the region, such as Lebanon and Jordan, continue to face issues due to foreign imposition. The suggestion is that the Middle East might need to reconsider its borders based on ethnic and religious lines to address centuries of strife, though such changes are complicated by international interests and historical perspectives.