*Hasan T. Arslan, PhD (Western Connecticut State University)
*Leyla Guclu
Introduction
The term Middle East is frequently used as if it refers to a socially, culturally, politically, and religiously homogeneous region. In reality, the region includes diverse ethnic communities, religious traditions, political systems, linguistic groups, and historical experiences. The concept itself emerged from a Eurocentric geopolitical vocabulary. Alfred Thayer Mahan helped popularize the term in 1902 when he used it in The National Review to describe the strategic significance of the Persian Gulf region between Arabia and India; however, later scholarship indicates that the term had appeared earlier, including in the writings of British officer Sir Thomas Edward Gordon in 1900 (Koppes, 1976; Mahan, 1902). Thus, the phrase Middle East should be understood not as a neutral geographic label but as a historically constructed term rooted in imperial strategy, military geography, and Western geopolitical imagination.
The Romans did not use the modern term “Middle East.” Instead, they referred to their eastern territories as Oriens (“the East”), though the meaning of Oriens varied by historical and administrative context. Roman control of the region was organized through provinces that included Syria, Judaea, Arabia Petraea, Mesopotamia, and Aegyptus, with the configuration of these provinces changing over time (Bowersock, 1983; Millar, 1993). Classical Muslim geographers did not describe the region through the modern Eurocentric label “Middle East.” Instead, they organized the Islamic world through regional names such as Bilad al-Sham, al-Jazira, al-Iraq, al-Hijaz, Yemen, Misr, al-Maghrib, and al-Mashriq. These names were not invented by one author, but they were documented and systematized in major works of Islamic geography, especially al-Yaʿqūbī’s Kitāb al-Buldān in the 9th century (al-Yaʿqūbī, 1861) and al-Muqaddasī’s Aḥsan al-taqāsīm fī maʿrifat al-aqālīm in the 10th century ((Al-Muqaddasī, ca. 985/1906); Bosworth, 1984). Although the societies now grouped under the label “Middle East” were historically known through a variety of local, imperial, religious, and geographic names, the modern term “Middle East” emerged from early twentieth-century European and Anglo-American strategic discourse rather than from an indigenous regional vocabulary (Koppes, 1976; Mahan, 1902).
Historically, the region has occupied a central place in the development of human civilization. From ancient Mesopotamia and the Levant to Egypt, Anatolia, and Persia, the broader Middle Eastern region was home to early agricultural systems, urban settlements, legal codes, empires, trade networks, and religious traditions (Kuhrt, 1995). It was also a crossroads connecting the Mediterranean, North Africa, Central Asia, Arabia, India, and, through maritime and overland networks, East Asia. Its geographic position made it strategically significant long before the discovery of oil. Ancient, medieval, and early modern empires—including the Assyrian, Persian, Roman, Byzantine, Arab-Islamic, Seljuk, Mamluk, Safavid, and Ottoman polities—competed over the region because control of its routes and cities meant influence over trade, military mobility, taxation, religious authority, and imperial legitimacy (Kennedy, 2023; Kuhrt, 1995; Sidebotham, 2011).
By the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Western interest in the Middle East intensified. Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Egypt in 1798 represented one of the earliest modern European attempts to project military and scientific power into the region while also threatening British interests in India (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016). In the decades that followed, European powers increasingly viewed the Middle East through the combined lenses of imperial rivalry, commercial access, missionary activity, transportation routes, and later petroleum resources. Edward Said’s (1978) critique of Orientalism remains important for understanding how Western discourse often represented Middle Eastern societies as politically backward, culturally static, or in need of external guidance. Such representations frequently served as intellectual justifications for intervention, administration, and domination.
This article examines the historical trajectory of the Middle East from 1900 to 2025, with particular emphasis on Western interests in the region. It argues that contemporary Middle Eastern politics cannot be understood through a single factor such as religion, oil, terrorism, or colonialism. Rather, modern regional developments emerged from the interaction of religious significance, post-Ottoman state formation, European imperialism, petroleum politics, Cold War containment, Arab nationalism, U.S. military intervention, and post-9/11 security strategies. This work does not attempt to provide a comprehensive history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Arabian Peninsula, or all dimensions of North African and Saharan history. Rather, it selectively examines those cases most relevant to the article’s central themes: colonial legacies, state formation, nationalism, oil politics, Western intervention, and security politics.
Historical and Religious Foundations: The Fertile Crescent and Sacred Geography
The Middle East has long been associated with the origins of agriculture, urban civilization, writing, law, empire, and monotheistic religion. James Henry Breasted (1916) famously described the Fertile Crescent as a crescent-shaped region extending through parts of Mesopotamia, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine/Israel, Jordan, and adjacent territories. Although the precise geographic boundaries of the Fertile Crescent vary among scholars, the term generally refers to the zone in which some of the earliest known agricultural communities and urban societies developed. For this reason, the region has often been described as one of the “cradles of civilization” (Breasted, 1916; Kuhrt, 1995).
The region’s religious importance is equally profound. In Jewish tradition, the Hebrew Bible links the land of Canaan with divine promise, covenant, exile, and return (New International Version-NIV, 2011, Genesis 12:1–3; Genesis 15:18). Jerusalem and the Temple Mount—known in Hebrew as Har ha-Bayit—occupy a central place in Jewish historical memory because the First and Second Temples stood there. It would be inaccurate, however, to claim that Jews regard the Temple Mount as the site where Moses communicated with God. In Jewish and biblical tradition, Moses’ encounter with God and the receiving of the Torah are associated with Mount Sinai, not the Temple Mount (NIV, 2011, Exodus 19–20). The Temple Mount is instead significant as the holiest site in Judaism because of its association with the ancient temples, priestly worship, divine presence, and messianic expectations.
Christianity also developed within this sacred geography. The Gospels situate Jesus’ ministry, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection within Roman-ruled Judea, making Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Galilee, and surrounding areas central to Christian sacred history (NIV, 2011, Matthew 27:32–28:10; Mark 15:21–16:8; Luke 23:26–24:12; John 19:16–20:18). For Christians, the region is not merely a historical backdrop, but a theological landscape tied to incarnation, redemption, resurrection, pilgrimage, and eschatological hope (Armstrong, 1993; Matthews, 1996).
Islamic tradition likewise attaches deep religious significance to the region. Mecca and Medina in present-day Saudi Arabia are the holiest cities in Islam, while Jerusalem is associated with the Prophet Muhammad’s Night Journey and Ascension (Isra and Mi‘raj). The compound known to Muslims as Al-Haram al-Sharif contains the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque and remains one of Islam’s most revered sacred spaces (Esposito, 2003).
The religious significance of the Middle East extends beyond Jerusalem. Mount Sinai in Egypt is associated with Moses and the covenantal tradition. Antioch, in present-day Hatay Province, Turkey, was an early center of Christian organization and missionary activity. Iraq contains sites associated with ancient Mesopotamian civilization and Islamic scholarship, while Iran, Turkiye, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Egypt, and the Arabian Peninsula all contain religiously significant locations for multiple communities (Armstrong, 1993; Esposito, 2003; Kennedy, 2023).
Because the region is sacred to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, political conflicts in the Middle East frequently acquire religious meaning even when their immediate causes are territorial, nationalist, economic, or strategic. The Crusades, Ottoman-Safavid conflicts, European imperial interventions, the Arab Israeli conflict, and contemporary struggles involving Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and other actors all demonstrate how religious identity can interact with nationalism, sovereignty, occupation, resistance, and state power. In the contemporary period, groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah have used religious language to frame political and military struggles, while religious-nationalist movements within Israel have also influenced debates over land, settlement, security, and military objectives (Council on Foreign Relations [CFR], 2026; Wilson Center, 2023).
The Post-Ottoman Order and Western Imperial Design
Before World War I, the Ottoman Empire governed much of the Middle East, though its authority varied across provinces and was often mediated through local elites, tribal leaders, religious authorities, and administrative reforms. The empire was not static; it underwent major reforms during the nineteenth century, particularly under the Tanzimat (“Reorganization”) era, a pivotal period of modernizing, Western-style administrative, legal, and political reforms in the Ottoman Empire that lasted from 1839 to 1876. During this period, Ottoman leaders attempted to centralize administration, modernize the military, and respond to European pressure (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016; Rogan, 2017). Nevertheless, by the early twentieth century, European powers increasingly viewed Ottoman territories as vulnerable spaces for strategic expansion (McMeekin, 2015).
World War I fundamentally transformed the political geography of the Middle East. The Ottoman Empire’s alliance with the Central Powers (the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Kingdom of Bulgaria) and its subsequent defeat created an opportunity for Britain and France to reshape the empire’s Arab provinces. The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, negotiated secretly by Britain and France with Russian assent, proposed spheres of British and French influence across former Ottoman territories (Fromkin, 1989; Kedourie, 2000; McMeekin, 2015). Although later political arrangements did not reproduce the agreement exactly, Sykes-Picot became a powerful symbol of external partition and disregard for local political aspirations.
After World War I, the League of Nations mandate system placed Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine under British administration, while Syria and Lebanon came under French administration. These mandates were formally justified as temporary arrangements designed to prepare societies for self-government, but in practice they functioned as imperial structures through which Britain and France maintained strategic, political, and economic influence (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016; Hourani, 1991; Rogan, 2017). The post-Ottoman settlement therefore created new borders, state institutions, elites, and forms of dependency. It also contributed to unresolved conflicts over identity, sovereignty, minority rights, and legitimacy.
The consequences were particularly significant in Palestine, where British commitments to both Arab political expectations and Zionist aspirations generated competing claims. The 1917 Balfour Declaration expressed British support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine while also stating that the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities should not be prejudiced (Schneer, 2012). This dual commitment became increasingly difficult to reconcile as Jewish immigration, Palestinian Arab opposition, British administrative policies, and regional nationalism intensified during the mandate period (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016; Rogan, 2017). The emergence of modern Middle Eastern states after World War I therefore cannot be understood simply as a natural transition from empire to nation-state. Imperial negotiations, colonial administration, local resistance, nationalist movements, minority politics, and strategic calculations shaped it. This post-Ottoman order became a central foundation of modern Middle Eastern instability.
Arab Nationalism, Decolonization, and State Formation
Following World War I, anti-colonial movements expanded across the Middle East and North Africa. Across North Africa and the Arab East, decolonization was not merely a transfer of authority from European officials to local governments; it transformed political legitimacy, national identity, military organization, and state-building (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016; Rogan, 2017). Arab nationalism, advocating Arab unity and self-determination, became influential in the mid-twentieth century, especially under Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser (Dawisha, 2016; Podeh & Winckler, 2004). Western governments, mainly Britain and France, saw this movement as a threat to their interests in the Middle East and North Africa, particularly regarding trade, energy, military alliances, and Soviet influence. The 1956 Suez Crisis highlighted shifting power dynamics, undermining European imperial influence and strengthening Arab nationalist legitimacy (Khalidi et al., 1993). During the Cold War, Western powers generally supported conservative and pro-Western regimes to counter Arab nationalism.
In Syria, resistance to French rule emerged through a variety of nationalist movements that rejected mandate authority and demanded self-determination. The French Mandate (1920-1946) faced persistent opposition, most notably during the Great Syrian Revolt of 1925-1927, which united diverse social groups in a broad anti-colonial struggle and became a defining symbol of Syrian nationalism (Khoury, 1987; Cleveland & Bunton, 2016). Following independence in 1946, Syria occupied a strategically important position at the crossroads of the Middle East. During the early Cold War, the United States and the United Kingdom viewed Syria as a critical component of regional security because of its geographic location, its role in oil transportation networks linking the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, and its proximity to the Soviet sphere of influence. Western policymakers also regarded political developments in Syria as central to the balance of power in the eastern Mediterranean and the evolving Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly after the Arab-Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967 (Little, 1990; Lesch, 1992; Dostal, 2015). Beginning in 2011, the Syrian civil war transformed Western priorities in Syria. Concerns increasingly centered on counterterrorism, the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS), regional instability, humanitarian crises, refugee flows, Iranian influence, and later Russian military intervention in support of the Assad government. Despite shifts in policy over time, Western interest in Syria has consistently reflected the country’s strategic geographic position, regional influence, and significance within broader Middle Eastern security dynamics (Phillips, 2016; Hinnebusch & Zintl, 2015).
Sectarian tensions in Lebanon existed before colonial rule, but the 1860 conflict between Maronite Christians and Druze led to international intervention and the establishment of the Mount Lebanon Mutessarifat, which formalized sectarian governance. Intensified by Ottoman administrative pressures, European involvement, and local social conflict, the violence spread to Damascus and resulted in large-scale Christian casualties (Fawaz, 1995). Building on this legacy, Lebanon followed a distinct postcolonial trajectory shaped by the French Mandate (1920-1943), which institutionalized a confessional political system that distributed political power among religious communities. Although this arrangement was intended to preserve stability in a religiously diverse society, it largely relied on demographic assumptions from the 1932 census and became increasingly contested as Lebanon’s population changed over time. By the 1970s, many Muslim communities viewed the political system as disproportionately favoring Maronite Christians, while many Christians feared that political reforms would diminish their influence. Scholars argue that the rigidity of this confessional structure, combined with state weakness, regional pressures, the influx of Palestinian refugees, and the growing presence of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), contributed to the outbreak of the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990). The war subsequently transformed Lebanon’s political landscape and created the conditions that facilitated the emergence of Hezbollah in the early 1980s (Salibi, 1990; Traboulsi, 2012; Fawaz, 1995).
Situated at the northwestern tip of Africa, Morocco occupies a strategically important position along the southern shore of the Strait of Gibraltar, the critical maritime corridor connecting the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Morocco became a focal point of European imperial competition. France viewed Morocco as the final component necessary to consolidate its North African empire alongside Algeria and Tunisia, while Spain sought to preserve its longstanding interests in the region based on geographic proximity and historical claims. Germany also entered the contest for influence, challenging French expansion during the First Moroccan Crisis (1905) and the Second Moroccan Crisis (1911) in an effort to test the Anglo-French Entente and advance its own global ambitions (Pennell, 2000; Miller, 2013). These rivalries culminated in the Treaty of Fez (1912), which established Morocco as a French protectorate while granting Spain control over northern and southern zones of the country. Although Morocco achieved independence in 1956, French influence remained deeply embedded within its political, economic, and administrative institutions. During the Cold War, the Moroccan monarchy maintained close relations with France and other Western powers, receiving military, economic, and diplomatic support while pursuing a pro-Western foreign policy that aligned with broader French interests in Africa (Miller, 2013). France also retained significant cultural influence through its educational system, preserving the prominence of the French language in government administration, commerce, and higher education. France retained significant economic influence in Morocco through trade, investment, development assistance, and institutional ties, reflecting a broader pattern of postcolonial interdependence (Pennell, 2000; Miller, 2013).
Unlike many of France’s other colonial possessions, Algeria was progressively incorporated into the French state following the conquest that began in 1830. The initial invasion, however, was not undertaken according to a fully developed plan for permanent colonization; domestic political considerations and the political culture of the Bourbon Restoration played an important role in the decision to invade (Sessions, 2011). France subsequently consolidated its control and developed Algeria into a large-scale settler colony, particularly through policies encouraging European migration and agricultural settlement (Ageron, 1991; Sessions, 2011). European settlers included substantial populations from France, Spain, Italy, and Malta, who later became collectively known as pieds-noirs (Horne, 1977; Stora, 2001). Algeria experienced a far more violent struggle against French colonial rule, culminating in independence in 1962 after a brutal war.
Arab nationalism faced major challenges. Defeat in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War weakened the credibility of secular nationalist regimes. Authoritarian rule, economic inequality, military defeat, regime repression, and ideological fragmentation contributed to the decline of pan-Arabism. By the late twentieth century, Islamism, state nationalism, sectarian politics, and Gulf-centered economic power increasingly competed with Arab nationalist frameworks (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016; Rogan, 2017).
Oil, “Liquid Gold,” and the Transformation of Western Interest
Although religion and geography had long made the Middle East strategically significant, the discovery and commercialization of petroleum transformed the region into a central arena of global economic and military interest. The discovery of oil in Persia in 1908, following the concession granted to William Knox D’Arcy, marked a major turning point in Western involvement in the region (Yergin, 1991). The Anglo-Persian Oil Company, later associated with British Petroleum, became deeply connected to British strategic interests, especially as the British navy shifted from coal to oil-powered vessels in the early twentieth century.
Oil was not simply another commodity. It became a foundation of industrial production, transportation, naval power, aviation, mechanized warfare, and economic growth. Marsh (2010) described petroleum as the “lifeblood of economies, industries, governments—and militaries,” emphasizing how modern military and industrial systems depend on reliable energy supplies. As Britain, the United States, France, and other powers expanded their industrial and military capabilities, access to petroleum became inseparable from national security planning.
Middle Eastern oil gained even greater importance after World War II. Industrial recovery, automobile expansion, military modernization, and global economic growth increased demand for petroleum. The Persian Gulf became increasingly central to global energy markets because of its vast reserves, relatively low extraction costs, and proximity to maritime export routes. The Strait of Hormuz, located between Iran and Oman, became especially important because it connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that in 2022, oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz averaged approximately 21 million barrels per day, equivalent to about 21% of global petroleum liquids consumption (U.S. Energy Information Administration [EIA], 2023).
The politics of oil became especially visible in Iran during the early 1950s. Mohammad Mosaddeq, leader of the National Front, became prime minister in 1951 amid widespread Iranian resentment toward British control of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Many Iranians believed that Britain profited disproportionately from Iranian oil while Iran received insufficient revenues and limited control over its own resources (Abrahamian, 2013; Kinzer, 2008). Mosaddeq’s government nationalized the oil industry, transforming oil into a symbol of sovereignty, anti-imperialism, and national dignity. Britain responded with economic pressure and an international campaign against Mosaddeq’s government. In 1953, the CIA and MI6 supported a coup that removed Mosaddeq, strengthened Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and opened the way for a new oil consortium that restored Western access to Iranian petroleum while limiting the practical effects of nationalization (Abrahamian, 2013; Gasiorowski, 1987).
Across the region, oil nationalization became part of a broader pattern of postcolonial assertion. Governments sought to renegotiate concessions, increase revenues, build state capacity, and reduce foreign control. The creation of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1960 further demonstrated oil-producing states’ desire to coordinate policy and challenge the dominance of Western oil companies. By the 1970s, oil-producing states had gained greater leverage, particularly after the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the oil embargo, which revealed the vulnerability of industrialized economies to Middle Eastern energy politics (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016; Yergin, 1991).
Iraq experienced similar tensions over oil sovereignty. The Iraq Petroleum Company, a consortium involving British, French, American, and Dutch interests, dominated Iraqi oil production for much of the twentieth century. Although oil revenues strengthened state finances, foreign control over production and distribution remained politically controversial. By the conclusion of the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), Iraq faced a severe financial crisis, having accumulated substantial external debt, including an estimated $14 billion owed to Kuwait. Saddam Hussein argued that Iraq had effectively served as the Arab world’s frontline defense against the spread of Iran’s revolutionary influence and therefore expected Gulf states, particularly Kuwait, to forgive these wartime loans. Kuwait, however, rejected Iraq’s demands for debt cancellation, contributing to escalating tensions between the two states prior to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 (Freedman & Karsh, 1993; Marr & Marashi, 2018). Iraqi nationalism, like Iranian nationalism, increasingly linked control over petroleum to independence, dignity, and resistance to external domination (Rogan, 2017; Yergin, 1991).
Oil altered both regional politics and international relations. It strengthened the fiscal capacity of some Gulf monarchies, encouraged foreign investment and concessionary arrangements, and created new forms of dependency between oil-producing states and industrial consumer economies. It also contributed to external intervention when Western powers perceived nationalization, revolution, or regional instability as threats to energy security. Thus, oil did not merely enrich states; it reshaped sovereignty, nationalism, military strategy, foreign policy, and international political economy.
Cold War Containment and Regional Security Politics
During the Cold War, the Middle East became an arena of competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Western policymakers viewed the region through the framework of containment, energy security, access to strategic waterways, and alliance formation. The United States and Britain supported certain monarchies and conservative regimes, while the Soviet Union developed relations with republican or nationalist governments in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, South Yemen, and elsewhere at different moments (Gaddis, 2005; Cleveland & Bunton, 2016).
Containment policy was not applied uniformly. In some cases, Western governments supported military alliances, arms transfers, intelligence cooperation, and economic aid. In other cases, they supported covert action or intervention when local political changes appeared to threaten Western access or influence. The 1953 Iran coup represented one such example. Later U.S. support for regional partners during the Cold War reflected concerns not only about communism but also about oil, Israel’s security, Arab nationalism, and the balance of power in the Persian Gulf (Abrahamian, 2013; Gaddis, 2005).
The Arab-Israeli conflict also became connected to Cold War politics. The United States emerged as Israel’s principal external supporter, particularly after the 1967 war, while the Soviet Union supported several Arab states at different points. At the same time, regional actors were not simply passive instruments of superpower rivalry. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other states pursued their own interests and often manipulated superpower competition to obtain weapons, aid, diplomatic support, or strategic advantage (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016; Rogan, 2017). For example, the 1957 Syrian Crisis was a major Cold War standoff triggered by a failed CIA-led coup against Syria’s government. After Syria exposed Operation Wappen in August 1957, it expelled three leading U.S. diplomats (Little, 1990).
The 1979 Iranian Revolution marked another major turning point. The overthrow of the Shah removed a key U.S. ally, produced a new Islamic Republic explicitly opposed to U.S. influence, and transformed regional politics. The same year, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan intensified U.S. security concerns and contributed to the development of the Carter Doctrine, which declared the Persian Gulf vital to U.S. national interests. The Iran-Iraq War of 1980–1988 further militarized the region and deepened external involvement in Gulf security (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016; Gaddis, 2005).
By the end of the Cold War, the United States had become the dominant external military power in the Middle East. The 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf War reinforced the U.S. role as security guarantor for Gulf monarchies and demonstrated that access to oil, protection of allies, and maintenance of regional order remained central to Western policy.
The Global War on Terror and Contemporary Western Engagement
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, transformed the relationship between the Middle East and Western security policy. Al-Qaeda’s attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon killed nearly 3,000 people and produced a profound shift in U.S. public opinion, national security doctrine, intelligence policy, and military strategy (Pew Research Center, 2021). Although al-Qaeda was not a state, the attacks were quickly linked to broader concerns about terrorism, failed states, militant networks, authoritarian governance, religious extremism, and U.S. vulnerability.
The United States responded by launching military operations in Afghanistan in 2001 to target al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime that had hosted its leadership. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq, claiming that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a security threat. The Iraq War became one of the most consequential and controversial U.S. interventions in modern Middle Eastern history. It removed Saddam Hussein but also destabilized Iraq, weakened state institutions, intensified sectarian conflict, empowered armed militias, and contributed to the conditions from which the Islamic State later emerged (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016; Rogan, 2017).
The Global War on Terror expanded Western military, intelligence, financial, and diplomatic engagement across the Middle East. Counterterrorism partnerships were established or deepened with governments in the Gulf, North Africa, the Levant, and South Asia. Drone operations, surveillance systems, special operations forces, financial sanctions, border-security initiatives, and intelligence-sharing arrangements became central tools of post-9/11 security policy. These policies were justified as necessary responses to transnational terrorism, yet critics argued that they often reinforced authoritarian partners, weakened civil liberties, and failed to address underlying political grievances (Pew Research Center, 2021; Rogan, 2017). The rise of the Islamic State after 2014 further intensified security concerns. The group’s territorial control in Iraq and Syria, mass violence, propaganda operations, foreign fighter recruitment, and attacks abroad demonstrated that the collapse of state authority and regional war could generate transnational threats. Western states responded through air campaigns, training missions, intelligence cooperation, and support for local partners.
The October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attacks on Israel and Israel’s subsequent war in Gaza further demonstrated the continuing centrality of the Middle East to global security politics. Congressional Research Service reporting described the October 7 attacks as coordinated operations by Hamas and other Gaza-based militants against Israel (Zanotti et al., 2023). The war produced regional escalation involving Hezbollah, Iran-linked groups, the Red Sea, and wider diplomatic tensions. Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim political party and militant organization based in Lebanon, has long opposed Israel and Western influence and has received support from Iran (CFR, 2026). Hamas, a Palestinian Islamist movement, combines nationalist and religious claims in its opposition to Israel and has framed resistance through Islamic and political language (Wilson Center, 2023).
By 2025, Western engagement in the Middle East remained shaped by multiple overlapping concerns: counterterrorism, energy security, maritime chokepoints, Iranian influence, Israel’s security, arms sales, migration, human rights, authoritarian stability, and competition with Russia and China. The region’s importance therefore cannot be reduced to oil or terrorism alone. It remains strategically significant because it sits at the intersection of global energy markets, sacred geography, military basing networks, regional rivalries, and unresolved statehood conflicts.
Conclusion
The modern history of the Middle East from 1900 to 2025 illustrates the complex interaction of geography, religion, empire, natural resources, nationalism, foreign intervention, and security politics. The region’s global significance did not originate with the discovery of petroleum. For centuries, the Middle East served as a crossroads of civilizations, a center of religious traditions, a focal point of imperial competition, and a vital hub of transregional trade. Nevertheless, two developments fundamentally transformed the region’s modern trajectory: the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the discovery of vast petroleum reserves in the early twentieth century. Together, these events elevated the strategic importance of the Middle East by linking it directly to industrial development, military power projection, and the stability of the global economy.
The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire following World War I and the subsequent creation of mandate states reshaped the political map of the region. Many contemporary borders, institutions, and disputes emerged during this period and continue to influence regional politics. British and French mandate policies played a significant role in state formation while simultaneously fueling nationalist movements and resistance to foreign control. The growing importance of oil further intensified struggles over sovereignty and self-determination, particularly in countries such as Iran and Iraq, where control over petroleum resources became closely associated with national identity and political independence.
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States and its allies increasingly framed their engagement with the Middle East through the lens of counterterrorism. This shift led to military interventions, expanded intelligence cooperation, and long-term security partnerships across the region. By 2025, the Middle East remained central to global affairs due to its energy resources, strategic maritime chokepoints, religious significance, unresolved territorial disputes, and role in transnational security challenges.
A comprehensive understanding of the Middle East requires moving beyond simplistic narratives and broad generalizations. The region is not a single political, cultural, or religious entity but rather a diverse and historically layered landscape shaped by both local dynamics and external influences. Its modern evolution reflects enduring tensions between sovereignty and foreign intervention, religious identity and territorial politics, resource wealth and uneven development, and security cooperation and militarization.
Recent tensions involving the United States, Israel, and Iran underscore the continuing global importance of the region. Military actions, disputes over nuclear development, retaliatory measures, and threats to critical maritime routes such as the Strait of Hormuz demonstrate how regional instability can rapidly generate worldwide consequences. Fluctuations in energy markets, disruptions to international trade, heightened cybersecurity concerns, and increased homeland security vigilance all illustrate the far-reaching effects of developments in the Middle East. These events reinforce a central lesson for students of international relations, homeland security, and global politics: stability in the Middle East remains a matter of international concern, and understanding the region’s history is essential for understanding the broader dynamics of the contemporary world.
* Dr. Hasan T. Arslan is a professor and the Incumbent Chair of the Division of Justice and Law Administration (JLA) at Western Connecticut State University (WCSU).
- * Leyla Guclu is a first-year student at Swarthmore College intending to major in Economics, with additional interests in Political Science and Sociology.
References
Abrahamian, E. (2013). The coup: 1953, the CIA, and the roots of modern U.S.-Iranian relations. The New Press.
Ageron, C.-R. (1991). Modern Algeria: A History from 1830 to the Present. Africa World Press.
Al-Muqaddasī. (1906). Aḥsan al-taqāsīm fī maʿrifat al-aqālīm [The best divisions for knowledge of the regions] (M. J. de Goeje, Ed., 2nd ed.). Brill. (Original work published c. 985)
Al-Yaʿqūbī. (1861). Kitāb al-Buldān [Book of the countries] (A. W. T. Juynboll, Ed.). Brill.
Armstrong, K. (1993). A history of God: The 4,000-year quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Ballantine Books.
Beaumont, P., & Kierszenbaum, Q. (2024, July 18). National religious recruits challenge values of IDF once dominated by secular elite. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/18/national-religious-recruits-challenge-values-of-idf-once-dominated-by-secular-elite
Bosworth, C. E. (1984). Aḥsan al-taqāsīm. In Encyclopædia Iranica. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ahsan-al-taqasim
Bowersock, G. W. (1983). Roman Arabia. Harvard University Press.
Breasted, J. H. (1916). Ancient times: A history of the early world: An introduction to the study of ancient history and the career of early man. Ginn and Company.
Cleveland, W. L., & Bunton, M. (2016). A history of the modern Middle East (6th ed.). Westview Press.
Council on Foreign Relations, (2026, April 17). What is Hezbollah? Council on Foreign Relations
Dawisha, A. (2016). Arab nationalism in the Twentieth Century: From triumph to despair. Princeton University Press.
Dostal, J. M. (2015). Syria and the Great Powers (1946-1958): How Western Power Politics Pushed the Country toward the Soviet Union. Syria Studies, 7(4), 7-52
Esposito, J. L. (Ed.). (2003). The Oxford dictionary of Islam. Oxford University Press.
Fawaz, M. A. (1995). An occasion for war: Civil conflict in Lebanon and Damascus in 1860. University of California Press.
Freedman, L., & Karsh, E. (1993). The Gulf conflict, 1990-1991: Diplomacy and war in the new world order. Princeton University Press.
Fromkin, D. (1989). A peace to end all peace: The fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the modern Middle East. Holt Paperbacks.
Gaddis, J. L. (2005). The Cold War: A new history. Penguin Press.
Gasiorowski, M. J. (1987). The 1953 coup d’état in Iran. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 19(3), 261–286.
Halfond, I. (2023). Oil is discovered in Persia. EBSCO Research Starters. EBSCO
Hinnebusch, R., & Zintl, T. (Eds.). (2015). Syria from reform to revolt: Vol. 1. Political economy and international relations. Syracuse University Press.
Horne, A. (1977). A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962. Viking Press.
Hourani, A. (1991). A history of the Arab peoples. Faber and Faber.
International Energy Agency. (2023). Middle East: Countries and regions. International Energy Agency
Kedourie, E. (2000). In the Anglo-Arab labyrinth: The McMahon-Husayn correspondence and its interpretations 1914–1939 (2nd ed.). Frank Cass.
Kennedy, H. (2023). The Prophet and the age of the caliphates: The Islamic Near East from the sixth to the eleventh century (4th ed.). Routledge.
Khalidi, R., Anderson, L., Muslih, M. Y., & Simon, R. S. (Eds.). (1993). The origins of Arab nationalism. Columbia University Press.
Khoury, P. S. (1987). Syria and the French Mandate: The politics of Arab nationalism, 1920-1945. Princeton University Press.
Kinzer, S. (2008). All the Shah’s men: An American coup and the roots of Middle East terror (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Kinzer, S. (2010, June 30). BP and Iran: The forgotten history. CBS News. Read the article
Koppes, C. R. (1976). Captain Mahan, General Gordon, and the origins of the term “Middle East.” Middle Eastern Studies, 12(1), 95–98.
Kuhrt, A. (1995). The ancient Near East, c. 3000–330 BC (Vols. 1–2). Routledge.
Lesch, D. W. (1992). Syria and the United States: Eisenhower’s Cold War in the Middle East. Westview Press
Little, D. (1990). Cold War and covert action: The United States and Syria, 1945-1958. Middle East Journal, 44(1), 51-75.
Mahan, A. T. (1902). The Persian Gulf and international relations. The National Review, 40, 27–36.
Marr, P. & Al Marashi, I. (2018). The modern history of Iraq (4th ed.). Routledge.
Marsh, D. L. (2010). Our lethal dependence on oil. Proceedings, 136(6), Article 1,288. U.S. Naval Institute
Matthews, V. H. (1996). The Bible and the ancient Near East: Collected essays. Eisenbrauns.
McMeekin, S. (2016). The Ottoman endgame: War, revolution, and the Making of the Modern Middle East, 1908–1923. Penguin Books.
Millar, F. (1993). The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.–A.D. 337. Harvard University Press.
Miller, S. G. (2013). A history of modern Morocco. Cambridge University Press.
Neusner, J. (2004). Judaism and the land of Israel in the messianic vision. Brill.
Pennell, C. R. (2000). Morocco since 1830: A history. New York University Press.
Pew Research Center. (2021, September 2). Two decades later, the enduring legacy of 9/11. Pew Research Center
Phillips, C. (2016). The battle for Syria: International rivalry in the new Middle East. Yale University Press.
Podeh, E., & Winckler, O. (Eds.). (2004). Rethinking Nasserism: Revolution and historical memory in modern Egypt. University Press of Florida.
Rogan, E. (2017). The Arabs: A history (Rev. ed.). Basic Books.
Sachedina, A. A. (2009). Islamic messianism: The idea of the Mahdi in Twelver Shi‘ism. SUNY Press.
Salibi, K. (1990). A house of many mansions: The history of Lebanon reconsidered. University of California Press.
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.
Schneer, J. (2012). The Balfour Declaration: The origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Random House.
Sefaria. (n.d.). Berakhot 34b.2. Retrieved July 27, 2026, from Sefaria
Sessions, J. E. (2011). By sword and plow: France and the conquest of Algeria. Cornell University Press.
Sidebotham, S. E. (2011). Berenike and the ancient maritime spice route. University of California Press.
Stora, B. (2001). Algeria, 1830-2000: A Short History. Cornell University Press.
Traboulsi, F. (2012). A history of Modern Lebanon. Pluto Press.
The Holy Bible, New International Version. (2011). Zondervan.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2023, November 21). The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most important oil transit chokepoint. U.S. Energy Information Administration
Wilson Center. (2023, October 20). Doctrine of Hamas. Wilson Center
Yergin, D. (1991). The prize: The epic quest for oil, money, and power. Simon & Schuster.
Zanotti, J., Sharp, J. M., & Blanchard, C. M. (2023, October 13). Israel and Hamas October 2023 conflict: Frequently asked questions. Congressional Research Service. Congressional Research Service report
