The future of developments that have kicked
off with the interference of Western countries in the region is not yet
clear. But the question is that the arrogance had used to form the
borders in olden times have once more been put to use, so much so that
many dissident groups have turned into a powerful tool for colonial
Today the global colonialism has on agenda to disintegrate the Middle East countries. The long-term instability strategy adopted by these powers has found representation in terrorist groups in different places in the Middle East, including Yemen, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Turkey, etc. In the meantime, there are some who think that the theory is one offered by those who have a phobia of foreign scheme, a tool for politicians of the developing countries to reach their political goals.
is while the Western approach has throughout history found many
manifestations. By looking back in history, it is clear that the world
powers have had this on agenda since olden times, which in many
occasions has led them to success in overthrowing powers and founding
new governments based on their own preferences.
This year was the 99th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France, with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916. The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916.
The agreement effectively divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British and French control or influence. An "international administration" was proposed for Palestine. The terms were negotiated by the French diplomat François Georges-Picot and Briton Sir Mark Sykes. The Russian Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes–Picot agreement, and when, following the Russian Revolution of October 1917, the Bolsheviks exposed the agreement, "the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted."
The interesting thigs is that with years passed since, nothing has changed in the British policy toward the region. The other interesting point is that the same policy is being closely followed by the US, so much so that US officials blatantly speak of the dissection of Iraq and Syria as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has taken large swaths of the countries.
This is why the US and UK see the existence of a powerful country such as Iran in the area as a big obstacle against the realization of their schemes.
The powers have shown to define their national interests in opposition to the powerful country in the region.
This explains why they have always been supporting dissident inclinations by the Druze in Lebanon, the Baluch, Kurd, etc. in Iran, the Alawite in Syria, the Christians in Ethiopia, religious sects in Sudan, nomads in different Arab countries, Kurds in Turkey and so on.
Their aim is to dissect the Middle East into small countries who are utterly week and constantly at war with each other. In this regard, Iran has special importance. Any change of border around the country can easily lead to instability in Iraq, Turkey, and Pakistan and help Zionists Balkanize the Islamic world.
A look at the disintegration of Iran through history shows that in the past 200 years the country has constantly been dissecting. This was first followed by the Tsar Russia and then by the United Kingdom where it cut Afghanistan and Baluchestan.
Even the empowerment of a regime such as the second Pahlavi which was powerful in terms of oil revenues and the Army but was utterly dependent on the West could not stop such a trend, so much so that Bahrain which used to be considered as Iran’s fourth province up to the Iranian year 1339, was recognized as an independent country ten years later in return for giving back the triple Iranian Islands.
This trend makes Iranian strategists realize that regardless of the quality of the government in Iran, the ultimate goal of world powers in any era has been to dissect the country into smaller units, the same way that the policy was followed about the Ottoman Empire.
A view of the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire will reveal precious points about the current developments of Iraq and Syria. One clear testimony about the colonial nature of the existing borders is the Treaty of Sevres (one of a series of treaties that the nations that constituted the Central Powers were made to sign subsequent to their defeat that marked the end of World War I) which was formed to punish the Ottoman government.
According to that agreement, the Ottoman Empire lost not only its Arab, African, and European territories, but to the east of the country an independent Armenian government (situated at the northeast of today’s Turkey) and a self-ruled Kurdish government (to the southeast of Turkey) would be formed with a prospect of independence.
The Turk nationalists who were directed by a group of young officers led by Mustafa Kamal had formed a national government of themselves in Ankara. They did not accept the Sevres treaty and continued to resist against the armies of Greece, Britain, and French which had taken parts of today’s western Turkey. The war between the Turk forces and the winners of WWI ended after three years with the victory of the Turk and a new agreement in Lausanne in June 1924, where the global community recognized the borders of the Turkey that exists today. After that victory, things did not develop as the Treaty of Sevres had depicted.source: irdc.ir