The Sykes-Picot agreement back in 1916 was absolutely intended to cause war. There were literally no set borders in the Arabian peninsula before it.
Divide and conquer was the game plan of western powers from the start
“A Line in the Sand” by James Barr is a good book on the topic, it goes into how the rivalry between Britain and France wound up with them attempting to carvr up the middle east between them after the fall of the ottoman empire.
War and destabilisation of the Arabian population was the outcome, but I think it is highly reductive to say it was the intent, for one that would imply some level of cooperation beteen the colonial powers against the native populations when they regarded each other as bitter enemies and didn’t really regard the people of the middle east at all.
Every step taken by Britain and France was with the aim increase or secure their territory while undermining the other. A lot of these steps were training arming and funding of local military/gorillas/terrorists opposed to the other country, but usually these were inflaming and exploiting existing religious/ethnic/tribal tensions rather than manufacturing them from nothing or drafting into an officially military force, which has the unpleasant property that even after the colonial powers have departed, the trainings traditions and blood feuds continue.
You’re right about the war statement not being clear. What I should have said is that they regarded us as a “tool of war” that can be used to meet their end goal.
And you’re definitely right about their dividing of the people through focusing on differences, but some additional differences did stem solely from these border divisions.
As an example, many Lebanese & North African Arabic colloquial words for something are just the French word for it. I’m not saying that those are the kind of differences that could rip a nation apart, but that the differences instilled by British & French colonialism still remain to this day
I blame Alexander the “Great”
I blame the separation into Sunni, Shia and the other one that kinda fizzled out.
Nah. It’s clearly Hammurabi and his invention of state power and heirarchy.
Inaccuracies
Hammurabi did not invent these things himself, obviously
I put the blame on the TRUE culprit.
So why do internet pundits think the US president can fix it with a wave of his hand?
Because the positions of internet pundits tend to be either:
“America is Jesus 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏and infinitely powerful”
or
“America is Satan 👿👿👿👿👿and infinitely powerful”
It may also be related to the fact that additional tension in the middle east was CAUSED by America’s “war on terror”
I mean, yes, but causing something and fixing it are two entirely different powers, neither of which are entirely in the hands of the executive alone.
It’s easy to destroy a building; hard to build the same.
That’s true, but if you destroy someone’s house and then just leave the scene without offering any form of aid in at least attempting to repair it then you shouldn’t be surprised when that person sees you as an enemy for life.
We can’t expect them to differentiate between the branches of government and say “oh I hate the US army, but I don’t hate USAID since they at least try to help”.
If the US government can’t tell which one deserves the funding, don’t expect a homeless orphan being offered what they see as “an opportunity for revenge” to see the difference.
I don’t necessarily disagree, my point is only that in political discussion, treating the issue as solely the purview of the presidency is unhelpful and incorrect.
EDIT: and that fixing things and breaking them are two entirely different processes, and that breaking is often much easier to do unilaterally than fixing. It’s easy to do something ghoulish like breaking a man’s arm, but it’s much harder, even for that same person, to set and heal it.
Ah, on that you’re right. It’s more of a systematic issue than an issue that a president can solve on their own
Lol, Americans throwing shade at France in 2025.
Good effort pal.
Thanks, the Ancient Traditions™ keep me going despite the chaos and despair
To be fair, you’re not wrong.
It’s an international treaty that says if things are going to shit we should comment on the french.
In case of emergency,
invade polandshit-talk the FrenchOk, this needs to be a T-shirt
