Balkan Alliance, Baghdad Pact, and the Syrian Crisis: Turkey at the Heart of Cold War Diplomacy

In this new section, we will transition along that strategic line stretching from the Balkans to the Middle East. We will focus on regional developments that affected our country's security and foreign policy, such as the Balkan Alliance, the Baghdad Pact, and the Syrian Crisis. After closing this important file, we will set sail for brand-new topics.

Balkan Alliance

The first critical step in this new phase stretching from the Balkans to the Middle East is the Balkan Alliance, or the Balkan Pact, dated August 9, 1954. This alliance was formed when Yugoslavia, the only communist state outside of Soviet control, came together with Türkiye and Greece, whose entries into NATO were already guaranteed. The main goal was to prevent the USSR from expanding into the Balkans and the Mediterranean.

Member Countries of the Balkan Alliance

The rapprochement among the three countries, which began towards the end of 1951, became official with the “Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation” signed in Ankara on February 28, 1953. Under this agreement, the parties decided to consult each other on matters of common interest and to hold meetings at the foreign minister level at least once a year. As a result of these ongoing meetings, the Bled Agreement was signed on August 9, 1954, transforming the alliance fully into a military pact.

In fact, any attack directed at one of them would be considered an attack against all, and all necessary measures, including military force, would be taken. However, things did not go as smoothly as they appeared on paper. From the very first days, disagreements between Turkey and Yugoslavia emerged, and Yugoslavia's interest in the pact began to wane as it mended its relations with the Soviets after 1955. On top of that, when the Cyprus Issue erupted between Turkey and Greece, the positive atmosphere created by the pact completely faded away. Managing to exist on paper until 1960, the pact officially came to an end and became history in June 1960.

Member Countries of the Baghdad Pact

Another major development that fundamentally shook the balance in the Middle East was the Baghdad Pact, established on February 24, 1955. Seeing the decline of French and British influence in the region, a new alliance idea emerged to prevent Soviet Russia from infiltrating the Middle East. Although this idea originally came from the US, it was Türkiye that put it into action, and the pact was initially signed between Türkiye and Iraq. The pact quickly expanded with the participation of the UK, Pakistan, and Iran, but unfortunately, it failed to create the expected unifying effect in the Arab world.

On the contrary, Arab countries other than Iraq strongly opposed the pact, and the Middle East was literally split into three camps: those who joined, those who strongly opposed it (led by Egypt), and those who remained neutral. Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, who did not want to lose the leadership of the Middle East to Türkiye and dreamed of uniting the Arab world under his own roof, reacted strongly to this situation. Nasser’s increasing anti-Western sentiment and his rapprochement with the Soviets directly paved the way for the Suez Crisis and ironically made the USSR's job in the region much easier. The real blow that changed the fate of the pact came from Iraq, where the monarchy was overthrown in 1958; the new administration officially announced its withdrawal from the pact on March 24, 1959.

With Iraq’s departure, the headquarters of the organization was immediately moved to Ankara, and its name was changed to CENTO (Central Treaty Organization) on August 18, 1959. In fact, CENTO’s first meeting was held in Washington in October 1959. Although initially established as a military defence alliance, the organization gradually shifted its focus to economic, cultural, and technical cooperation among its members. However, this unity reached the point of collapse when Pakistan and Iran left on March 12, 1979. The very next day, with Türkiye announcing that it respected these withdrawal decisions and that CENTO had effectively lost its function in the region, this alliance, which had marked an era, came to a de facto, if not legal, end.

Syrian scouts on the parade at the year of the crisis

Another major flashpoint in the Middle East was the Syrian Crisis that erupted in 1957. Syria, which had gained its independence from France prior to World War II, was heavily shaken by successive government coups in the 1950s. Amidst this political instability, Syria’s rapprochement with the Soviet Union, driven by Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, disturbed its neighbours. Particularly, when Syria signed an aid agreement with the USSR in 1956, it was met with fierce backlash from Türkiye, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon. These countries had come to firmly believe that Syria was turning into a mere “Moscow Satellite.” 

The situation grew so tense that US President Eisenhower sent a message to Turkish Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, guaranteeing immediate American weapons aid if Türkiye, Iraq, and Jordan were forced to launch a military operation in response to a potential Syrian attack. Following this assurance, Türkiye’s decision to mass troops on the Syrian border and conduct military exercises brought relations between the two countries to the breaking point.

While the USSR escalated its counter-pressure during this critical period, the region ultimately stepped back from the brink of war. The crisis was gradually resolved thanks to the unwavering support of the US for Türkiye, Saudi Arabia’s mediation between the two nations, and Jordan’s King Hussein softening his stance toward Syria. Another crucial factor in ending the crisis was the historic agreement signed between Syria and Egypt on September 14, 1957. 

The two states decided to form a union under the name of the “United Arab Republic” starting from February 1, 1958. However, this political marriage, which made a massive impact in the Arab world, did not last long; their ties weakened over time, and the union officially ended with a government coup staged by conservative military officers in Syria in 1961.

We are finally putting aside the political maps, the never-ending border conflicts, the secret treaties, and the threats of nuclear war. As we close our Cold War file, we turn our course to perhaps the most fascinating, transformative, and impactful front of this era on our daily lives: Socio-cultural and scientific developments.

The End of Empires: Indian Independence, Vietnam, and the African Awakening

In a new section, we will look at the Indian independence movement and the Pakistan issue, which perhaps we are all somewhat familiar with. Muhammad Ali Jinnah's role in this process is highly important; he is the founder and the first Governor-General of independent Pakistan. With Britain's withdrawal from the region in 1947, the subcontinent was divided into two separate states: India and Pakistan.

Next, we move on to Vietnam. After France withdrew in 1954, Vietnam was divided into two. The US military intervention to support the South sparked a long and exhausting war. Following years of conflict, the US was forced to withdraw from the region, and Vietnam was ultimately unified.

Finally, we will briefly explain the events in Africa and conclude our article. After World War II, colonies in Africa rapidly began to gain their independence. To increase solidarity among themselves and act jointly against foreign interventions, these newly independent African states established the Organization of African Unity in 1963.

Gandhi leading his followers on the Salt March to abolish the British salt laws

Mahatma Gandhi, the leader of the Indian Independence Movement, initially adopted a peaceful philosophy of independence and resistance for the civil rights of the Indian community in South Africa. After returning to India from Africa, he organized poor farmers and labourers to protest against oppressive taxation policies and widespread discrimination. By assuming the leadership of the Indian National Congress, he led nationwide campaigns aimed at reducing poverty, liberating women, fostering brotherhood among different religious and ethnic groups, ending caste and untouchability discrimination, achieving economic self-sufficiency, and most importantly, attaining “Swaraj”, the liberation of India from foreign domination. Gandhi spearheaded his country's rebellion against Britain with his famous 400-kilometer “Gandhi Salt March” in 1930 against the British Salt Tax, and in 1942, he openly called on the British to leave India. Ultimately, having emerged quite exhausted from World War II, Britain could no longer resist the developments in the region and was forced to recognize India’s independence on August 14, 1947.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi

The name “Pakistan” was actually first proposed in 1940 by Muslim students studying in England, and until 1940, the Muslim population of the subcontinent shared the same independence struggle as India. The turning point came at the Lahore Congress, where Jinnah led the decision to establish a separate Muslim state. However, the turning point occurred on March 23, 1940, at the Muslim League Congress held in Lahore under the leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. At this congress, the decision was made to partition India between Muslims and non-Muslims and to establish a completely separate State of Pakistan. The chief architect of this process and the leader of the Muslim Nationalist Movement, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, became the founder and the first governor-general (head of state) of Pakistan when the country gained its independence on August 14, 1947. Even after independence, Jinnah fought tirelessly for Pakistan's rights against India, particularly during the Kashmir Dispute, until he passed away on September 11, 1948.

American Huey helicopters inserting South Vietnamese ARVN troops, 1970

Let’s move on to Vietnam, the unhealing wound of Asia. In Vietnam, which became a French colony in the 19th century, France’s severe economic exploitation and political oppression naturally sparked a strong national resistance movement. The communists, who formed the strongest wing of this resistance, gained momentum in the 1930s and established the Vietnam Independence League, known as the Viet Minh, in 1941. When Japan, which had occupied the country during World War II, surrendered in 1945, Viet Minh forces seized power in Hanoi, and their leader Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam’s independence. However, France, unwilling to let go of its colony, managed to suppress this national movement in the south but attempted to re-establish its colonial regime in the north. This sparked the bloody Indochina Wars that lasted from 1946 to 1954. The war ultimately ended when France suffered a crushing defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Finally, under the decisions of the Geneva Accords signed on July 21, 1954, the country was temporarily divided into two separate states along the 17th Parallel: the communist-controlled Democratic Republic of Vietnam in the north and the Republic of Vietnam in the south.

Troops of the King's African Rifles on watch for Mau Mau rebels

Finally, we turn our attention to Africa. The devastating impacts of World War II shook colonial powers like Germany, Belgium, Portugal, and the Netherlands, alongside Britain and France. Meanwhile, rising economic strength and the strengthening of nationalism in African states began to bring an end to colonialism on the continent. The first bold step on this path was taken by Ghana, which gained its independence from Britain in 1957, and was quickly followed by Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Gambia, Uganda, and Tanganyika.

In Kenya, things were a bit harsher; the rebellion launched by the “Mau Mau” secret society against Britain in 1952 culminated in independence in 1963. Moving on to the French front, the largest and bloodiest independence struggle occurred in Algeria. France had used Algeria as a resistance base during World War II in 1942, but when the war ended, they responded to the Algerians’ demands for independence or equal rights in return for their sacrifices with severe backlash and massacres. Even though France declared it “French territory” rather than a colony in 1948 to the outside world, they continued to rule it as a colony and denied the Algerian people equal rights.

Consequently, a massive armed struggle began in 1954 as the public organized under the leadership of the National Liberation Front and the Algerian National Movement. Although France recognized the independence of Morocco and Tunisia in 1956 just to hold onto Algeria, these two newly freed countries provided support to the Algerian resistance. Ultimately, the struggle succeeded, and independence was achieved with the signing of the Evian Accords in 1962, establishing the Democratic People's Republic of Algeria. While all this was happening in the north, foreign rule in Libya, which had been under Italian control since 1911, ended in 1951 with the help of the Allied powers. The Kingdom of Libya was formed, and it quickly joined the Arab League in 1953 and the UN in 1955.

OAU during its foundation

Organization of African Unity

The countries that gained their independence in Africa chose not to take part in any bloc in the polarized world of the Cold War. Instead, to collectively ensure economic development, they established the Organization of African Unity (OAU) on May 25, 1963, with its headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The primary goals of this organization, which had 32 founding members, were to support the independence of African countries, to ensure unity and solidarity by preventing conflicts on the continent, and to improve international relations. Thus, the Africa file was closed with a sense of continental awakening and solidarity.

Thus, we have completed the great awakening, division, and independence processes in Asia and Africa under the shadow of the Cold War. As we conclude these historical events that rewrote the destinies of continents here, we are already starting our preparations for the next chapter. In our next article, we will turn our course back to our immediate geography and discuss those critical developments that occurred right around our borders and directly affected our history: the Balkan Alliance, the Syrian Crisis, and the Saadabad Pact. 

Magazine: the Past & Cultural Heritage

 

The Korean War, the Fall of Indochina, and the Birth of SEATO: Cold War in the Far East

While tensions between the Eastern and Western blocs were shaping Europe, the ripple effects of the Cold War were reaching the Far East as well. Two things deeply concerned both the Soviet Union and China, who were highly influential in the region: the presence of the United States in South Korea, and the continued presence of France in Southeast Asia, in Indochina with active American support. For these reasons, the two defining conflicts in the Far East between 1950 and 1954 were the Korean War and the Indochina War.

Korean War (1950-1953)

Our story actually begins with a dangerous signature placed during the final days of World War II, at the Potsdam Conference in July 1945. When Soviet Russia decided to enter the war in the Far East, to facilitate military operations, the territory of Korea was divided in two right along the 38th parallel, as if drawn with a ruler on a map. The north of this invisible line was recognized as the Soviet military operations zone, while the south was designated for the US.

However, when the war ended, that temporary border turned into a permanent wall. Neither US-Soviet negotiations nor the diplomatic efforts of the United Nations were sufficient to reunite these two regions. As the polarization became definitive, the US organized elections in its controlled south on May 10, 1948, leading to the establishment of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) under the presidency of Syngman Rhee. In response, the Soviets wasted no time in holding elections tailored to their own system in North Korea, establishing the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on September 9, 1948.

The real explosion occurred when the giant of Asia, China, fell under communist rule in 1949. Seizing this massive shift in power, and backed by the Soviets and China, North Korea unexpectedly declared war and crossed the border into South Korea on June 25, 1950, with the aim of completely expelling the US from Asia.

As events reached this breaking point, the UN Security Council convened urgently and took a historic decision: there would be a military intervention in South Korea. An international UN Force, comprising troops from various nations but primarily shouldered and commanded by the US (under General Douglas MacArthur), was formed and deployed to Korea.

Where Turkey Earned Its NATO Ticket: The Epic of Korea

This is exactly where the significance of this war begins for our history. To prove its loyalty to the Western Bloc and secure entry under the NATO umbrella against the Soviet threat, Turkey dispatched a fully equipped military brigade to Korea to serve under this UN Force. This decision marks the very first time in the history of the Turkish Republic that troops were sent abroad, let alone to the other side of the world. The legendary heroism displayed by the Turkish brigade in the Korean mountains resonated tremendously throughout the Western world, throwing the doors of NATO wide open in 1952 for Turkey, whose application had previously been rejected.

This bloody war, which began in 1950 and caused the deaths of millions of civilians and soldiers, ended after three years with neither side able to achieve decisive superiority over the other. With the Panmunjom Armistice signed in July 1953, the guns fell silent, and the border was re-established exactly where the war had started: the 38th parallel. In other words, all that blood failed to shift the borders even a millimeter.

General Walton Walker, Commander of the United Nations Forces, presenting the ‘Silver Star’ medal to Brigadier General Tahsin Yazıcı, Commander of the Turkish Brigade

The Collapse of Colonialism and the Indochina War (1954)

While the waters were calming in Korea, a brand-new storm was brewing in another corner of Asia: Indochina. Emerging from the devastation of World War II, France stubbornly attempted to maintain its colonial rule in this region, which encompassed Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos hoping to return to its former days of glory. However, Asia had awakened; France’s colonial persistence triggered total wars of independence among the regional populations.

France’s inability to crush this resistance and its subsequent entrapment in a quagmire elevated the issue from a local rebellion to a massive Cold War crisis between the Eastern and Western blocs by 1954. As events spiralled out of control, heavyweights such as the US, France, Britain, the USSR, and the People's Republic of China were forced to convene a historic peace conference in Geneva in 1954.

The outcomes of the Geneva Conference were an absolute earthquake in the history of colonialism: suffering a severe defeat, France was forced to withdraw completely from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, and these nations gained their independence. However, the most critical clause of the agreement, and the one that would most significantly impact the future, concerned Vietnam: Just like in Korea, Vietnam was partitioned into two, a (Communist) North and a (pro-Western) South, with the 17th Parallel designated as the border. This division would very soon pave the way to one of the greatest traumas in American history: the Hell of Vietnam.

Indochine physique, 1930

The Establishment of SEATO (Manila Pact) (September 8, 1954)

The crisis in Vietnam, which escalated after the Korean War, pushed the US to reinforce its defence measures in Asia with much firmer and more forceful steps. This war laid bare the danger facing Southeast Asia; the strategic importance of the region had become undeniable. Why was it so significant? If this region were to fall under communist control, Soviet Russia and China could gain dominance over global trade chokepoints like Singapore and the Strait of Malacca, which would create a nightmare scenario for the defence of the Pacific Ocean.

The US Two-Step Strategy

To protect this massive region, the US activated a two-phase plan:

The first step: Directly increasing military and economic aid to countries that had recently gained full independence, such as Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam.

The second step: Establishing a collective defence system to shield the region.

SEATO (Manila Pact) and the Ring of Alliances

The tangible result of the second step was the SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization), or the Manila Pact, signed on September 8, 1954. This collective defence organization was founded with the participation of global powers like the US, UK, and France, alongside Far Eastern nations: New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Pakistan. In doing so, the US created a massive "ring of alliances" surrounding Soviet Russia and its ally, China.

The US did not limit its containment strategy to this alone. To balance the scales in Asia against Communist China, it signed an alliance treaty with the Nationalist Chinese (Formosa/Taiwan) Government on December 2, 1955. Like the SEATO treaty, this alliance had no expiration date; America was determined to transform its borders in Asia into permanent military strongholds.

The Eisenhower Doctrine and the Lebanon Crisis: America's New Role in the Middle East

The Suez Crisis had drastically shifted the pieces on the Middle Eastern chessboard. Following this crisis, the US realized that the image of traditional Western colonial powers like Britain and France in the Arab world was completely shattered, and Soviet Russia (USSR) was rapidly filling this void, increasing its prestige.

America’s Middle East Shield: The Eisenhower Doctrine (1957)

To halt this trend, US President Eisenhower sent a historic message to the US Congress on January 5, 1957. In this message, Eisenhower stated that after the Suez Crisis, the USSR was close to dominating the Suez Canal and the Middle Eastern oil resources, the lifeblood of the West, thereby bringing the region under political control and dealing a fatal blow to the Western Bloc.

With this move, which would go down in history as the Eisenhower Doctrine, the President requested authorization to provide direct economic and military aid to Middle Eastern countries, to use US armed forces directly if these countries faced an attack from communist nations, and to spend $200 million annually for this purpose.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

How did it differ from the Truman Doctrine? Although the US first showed its interest in the Middle Eastern borders with the Truman Doctrine, that was a narrowly framed plan limited only to Türkiye and Greece, primarily envisioning “military aid.” In contrast, the Eisenhower Doctrine encompassed the entire Middle Eastern region and, most importantly, guaranteed that these countries would be defended against communism personally by the US, under the condition of “the actual use of American troops when necessary.” 

Through this doctrine, the US completely filled the power vacuum left by Britain and France (following the Suez fiasco) and stepped up against the USSR as the new protector of the Middle East. However, the doctrine split the Arab world in two: while Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq, Türkiye, Greece, Afghanistan, Libya, Tunisia, and Morocco supported the plan; Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, swept by nationalist winds, reacted strongly against it.

The Doctrine’s First Test: The Lebanon Crisis (1958) The first major crisis where the Eisenhower Doctrine was put to the test erupted shortly after. During the 1957 general elections in Lebanon, pro-Western President Camille Chamoun rigged the elections to install a parliament that would extend his term for another 4 years, and on top of that, he accepted the Eisenhower Doctrine. This created a massive political crisis in the country. With the country on the brink of civil war, President Chamoun immediately appealed to the US, Britain, and France, claiming that everything happening was the result of “foreign intervention” (specifically by neighbouring Syria, and indirectly the USSR/Egypt alliance), and requested urgent military aid for Lebanon. The US, initially reluctant to engage in direct military intervention, changed its mind when the balance in the region suddenly turned upside down. The bloody coup in Iraq that toppled the pro-Western monarchy and heavily damaged the Baghdad Pact, the Western shield in the Middle East, threw the US into a panic. Consequently, the US invoked the Eisenhower Doctrine and landed exactly 15,000 American troops in Lebanon. Under the show of force by the American navy and troops, coupled with diplomatic pressure, President Chamoun agreed to drop his bid to extend his term. The crisis subsided when the Chief of Staff, Fuad Chehab, who was respected by all factions, was elected as the new president by the Lebanese parliament. U.S. Marine sits in a foxhole and points a machine gun towards Beirut, Lebanon With this, we have concluded that first decade which drew the borders of the Middle East in blood: the establishment of Israel, the devastating toll of the Arab-Israeli wars, the imperialist debacle at Suez, and the Eisenhower Doctrine, which marked direct US military intervention in the region. We saw step-by-step how the unending fire between Israel and Palestine was first stoked, and how Iran, attempting to claim its own oil, was silenced by a coup. Our new series: Developments in the Far East.

Black Gold and the Suez Crisis: Oil, Nasser, and the End of British Power in the Middle East

In the previous blog, we looked at the Arab-Israeli conflicts, a struggle rooted one hundred years ago that continues to bleed the Middle East today. Now we turn to the subject that has been behind the greatest imperial interventions and coups of the 20th century: black gold. Oil.

From the early 1900s, the right to extract and process Iranian oil had been held by a massive British monopoly, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), the predecessor of the oil giant now known as BP (British Petroleum). This arrangement was renewed through a new agreement in 1933.

After the Second World War, as Britain lost much of its global empire and its power began to fade, the Iranian people were receiving almost nothing from the enormous wealth flowing out of their own land. The Iranian government initially asked for a revision of the agreement, a modest increase in the share being paid to Iran by the company.

But Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh, the visionary leader of the nationalist front in the Iranian parliament, firmly rejected these surface-level compromises. His vision was far more radical: the immediate nationalisation of Iranian oil and the complete removal of foreign monopoly control. Backed by overwhelming public support, Mosaddegh was appointed Prime Minister of Iran on 28 April 1951, and his very first act was to announce to the world the official nationalisation of Iranian oil. For Britain, this was nothing less than the cutting of its economic lifeline in the Middle East.

25 July 1952 issue of the Tehran Mosavvar: "Iran has won", featuring Mosaddegh and Churchill.

The Suez Crisis

Before we get into the Suez Crisis, I want to share a small personal note. During my undergraduate studies, I read a play about the British Empire and its then Prime Minister Anthony Eden. The Suez Canal crisis and Gamal Abdel Nasser both appeared in that text. At the time, I only had a surface-level understanding of the events. Now, we are about to see the full picture.

On 23 July 1952, a military coup carried out by the Free Officers Movement brought Lieutenant Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser to power in Egypt. Once in office, Nasser worked toward two ambitious goals: the creation of a collective security pact among Arab states, an Arab Union, and the building of a broader solidarity under the umbrella of Islam.

But Nasser’s larger vision went even further. He wanted to form a Third Bloc a new power block positioned between the Eastern and Western blocs of the Cold War. However, the establishment of the Baghdad Pact disrupted his plans entirely.

Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev at the foundation ceremony of the Aswan High Dam.

When the US and the World Bank refused to fund the Aswan Dam project, Nasser responded by nationalising the Suez Canal. In 1956, Nasser announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal, which was under British-French joint ownership. Following this, America, Britain, and France made numerous attempts to remove Suez from Egyptian control but were unsuccessful.

Upon Nasser's rejection of the proposal to leave the canal under international control, Britain, France, and Israel came together and prepared a plan to seize the canal. (This is the event that was the subject of the theatrical play I mentioned earlier; the play drew its reference from here.) According to this plan, Israel would attack Egypt; Britain and France would then deploy troops to the region under the pretext of ending the war, and subsequently take over the canal. In accordance with this plan, Israel launched an attack against Egypt on October 29, 1956.

Following their ultimatum to the parties to “end the conflict,” Britain and France began deploying troops to the region via the Mediterranean. USSR Premier Nikolai Bulganin sent a message to US President Eisenhower, requesting that the US and the USSR send a joint force to Egypt to stop the war, stating that otherwise, this could lead to World War III. However, the US strongly opposed the joint force proposal and declared that it would take the necessary measures if the Soviets sent troops to Egypt.

The US Government and public did not accept this attack initiated by Britain and France. Indeed, the US reaction was harsh; it issued a stern warning to Britain, France, and Israel, demanding their withdrawal from Egyptian territory. These states were forced to withdraw from Egypt. The Suez Canal was subsequently cleared and reopened to global maritime traffic in March 1957. The most important consequence of the 1956 Suez Crisis was that while the aim was to eliminate Soviet Russia's prestige and influence in the Middle East, it actually increased them even further.

The Birth of Israel and the First Arab-Israeli War: A History of Palestine

To understand the roots of the tragic events unfolding in Palestine today, events that have reached the scale of a genocide, we need to turn the pages of history back almost one hundred years. This is a vast and heavy subject. To make sense of the modern face of the Middle East and its deepest breaking points, we will examine it in three main sections:

Part 1: The Establishment of Israel and the 1948–1949 Arab-Israeli War

Part 2: The Britain-Iran Oil Dispute and the Suez Crisis

Part 3: The Eisenhower Doctrine and the Lebanon Crisis

I pray for all those who have lost their lives in this ongoing tragedy. My only wish is for the wars to stop. Peace at home, peace in the world.

Herzl (seated in the middle) with members of the Zionist Organization in Vienna, 1896

The movement for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, known ideologically as Zionism, took shape in the 1880s, largely as a response to the violent persecution of Jewish communities in Russia, known as pogroms. Facing extreme pressure and violence, large numbers of Russian Jews were forced to migrate to Palestine, marking the first practical steps of this movement. Zionism gained significant political momentum in 1896, when a Budapest-born Jewish journalist, Dr. Theodor Herzl, published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), a work that effectively became the manifesto of the Zionist movement.

Before turning to the international stage, Herzl made a direct approach to Sultan Abdülhamid II of the Ottoman Empire. He visited Istanbul and requested land in Palestine for the establishment of a Jewish state, offering to help manage Ottoman debts in return. The Sultan firmly rejected this proposal. However, the Ottoman side indicated that if Herzl could successfully negotiate with European powers to, reduce the interest on Ottoman debts, they might permit Jewish settlement, but only in what is today northern Iraq, and exclusively for Jewish communities. Herzl was unable to fulfil this condition and left Istanbul without an agreement.

Turning his efforts elsewhere, Herzl founded the World Zionist Organization in 1897, shifting the movement’s strategy toward seeking direct diplomatic recognition for a Jewish state in Palestine. A key turning point came when US President Woodrow Wilson was brought on side with the Zionist cause, a development that pushed Britain to adopt an increasingly sympathetic and supportive stance toward the movement as well.

 

The Balfour Declaration

The most important diplomatic step on the road to the establishment of Israel was taken on 2 November 1917, with the Balfour Declaration. British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur Balfour sent an official letter to Lord Rothschild, one of the leaders of the international Zionist movement, formally committing the British Government to supporting the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

But why did Britain agree to this? In the darkest days of the First World War, Britain had two clear goals. First, it wanted to bring the support of the global Jewish diaspora, particularly powerful figures in the United States and Russia, into the war effort. Second, it aimed to create a loyal and strategically placed buffer zone in the heart of the Middle East, one that would help secure the Suez Canal.

Conflicts Under the British Mandate and the UN Process

After the Second World War, British forces in Palestine struggled to stop the large waves of illegal Jewish immigration organised by the underground network known as Haganah. This situation led to violent clashes between British forces and Irgun, a radical Zionist armed group. Having completely lost control of the region, Britain handed the matter over to the United Nations on 2 April 1947.

The UN General Assembly established the UN Palestine Commission to find a solution. After examining the situation on the ground, the commission unanimously agreed on the principle of independence, but was divided on what form it should take:

UN Majority Plan (supported by Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, and others): Palestine should be partitioned into two separate independent states for Arabs and Jews, with Jerusalem placed under full international status.

UN Minority Plan (supported by India, Yugoslavia, and Iran): Palestine should become a single federal state, made up of both Jewish and Arab entities.

On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted the Majority Plan, the Partition Plan. However, since the plan proposed giving a disproportionate share of the land to the Jewish minority, it was met with widespread outrage across the Arab world. At a meeting in Cairo on 17 December 1947, Arab states made the decision to go to war to prevent the partition from taking place.

Egyptian forces crossing the Suez Canal on 7 October 1973

The Declaration of the State and the First Arab-Israeli War (1948-1949)

Exactly one day before the British withdrawal was finalized, the establishment of the State of Israel was declared on May 14, 1948. The very next day, Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq), rejecting the partition plan and Israel's creation, declared war on Israel.

The war rapidly evolved into a multi-front struggle for survival: Egypt in the south, Jordan and Iraq in the east, and Syria and Lebanon in the north. Although Arab armies (particularly Jordan's Arab Legion) made initial advances around Jerusalem in the early weeks, deep mistrust, command crises, and a lack of coordination among the Arab states crippled their progress. Conversely, Israel utilized the UN-brokered ceasefires much more strategically; during these pauses, Israel rapidly modernized and expanded its military with massive Western arms shipments (notably smuggled via Czechoslovakia). Launching fierce, synchronized counter-offensives after the truces, Israel routed the Arab armies, concluding the war with a decisive military victory and expanding its borders through UN armistice agreements (Rhodes, Rasen Nakura, Manahayim).

The Nakba (The Catastrophe)

During and after the war, driven by the violence, systematic terror, and massacres (such as the Deir Yassin massacre) perpetrated by Israeli paramilitary groups, over 700,000 Palestinians were forced to flee their homes, villages, and homeland, becoming refugees. This massive ethnic cleansing, during which hundreds of Palestinian villages were wiped off the map and people were uprooted at gunpoint, is seared into Palestinian memory as the “Nakba” (The Catastrophe). While Israel expanded its territory to 75%, this very Nakba remains the crucible of the endless refugee crisis and the genocidal massacres witnessed in Gaza and the West Bank today.

The Consequences of the 1948–1949 Arab-Israeli War

The war left deep and lasting marks on the entire Middle East. Its consequences shaped the political landscape of the region for decades to come. Egypt, widely believed to have the strongest army among the Arab states, suffered one of the heaviest defeats in the war. This humiliation weakened the monarchy of King Farouk and created the conditions for its eventual collapse.

The defeat of five Arab armies at the hands of a small Israeli force had a powerful effect across the Arab world. It strengthened feelings of nationalism and gave significant momentum to a growing Arab Nationalist movement. The absence of a formal peace treaty at the end of the war left the conflict unresolved and laid the groundwork for future Arab-Israeli wars.

The weakening of King Farouk's regime following the war eventually led to the fall of the Egyptian monarchy and the rise of Gamal Abdel Nasser to power. Once in office, Nasser sought to position himself as the leader of Arab nationalism across the region.

Finally, on 25 May 1950, the United States, Britain, and France issued a joint declaration stating that they would sell weapons to Arab states and Israel only in quantities necessary for internal security, and only on the condition that those weapons would not be used against another state.

Without slowing down, we move straight into Part 2, and into the subject that lies at the heart of so much of what we see in the Middle East today: oil.

Part 2: The Britain-Iran Oil Dispute

Building the Western Bloc: Truman Doctrine, Marshall Plan, NATO, and the Birth of the EU

In the devastated aftermath of World War II, as Soviet Russia pursued its steadily advancing expansionist policies, the United States emerged on the historical stage as the greatest superpower representing the Western Bloc.

In this section, we will quickly recap the historic moves the US put into play to break the Soviet influence in Europe and rebuild the continent under its wings; starting with the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, the Western European Union, and undoubtedly the strongest military shield of all, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Subsequently, we will cover the critical integration steps that laid the foundations of modern Europe, such as the Council of Europe, the European Coal and Steel Community (Schuman Plan), and the European Economic Community (EEC).

The Truman Doctrine (1947)

The first major step in the construction of the Western Bloc, the Truman Doctrine, was shaped around a historic memorandum presented by Great Britain. When Britain announced that it could no longer afford to support its allies in the Mediterranean, an urgent plan was drafted in 1947 by US President Harry S. Truman to counter the threat of Soviet Russia.

The primary goal of this doctrine was to enable America to provide direct financial and military aid to states under the “threat of communism.” However, this plan held a much greater significance in political history: with this move, the US was permanently abandoning the famous Monroe Doctrine of isolationism it had maintained since 1823. The first and most crucial testing ground for this plan was Greece (and, of course, Turkey). A massive aid package, $300 million for Greece, which was grappling with a civil war and the risk of falling to communists, and $100 million for Turkey, which was feeling the breath of Soviet pressure over the Straits, was provided to build a military and economic barricade against Soviet expansionism.

Joseph Stalin, Harry S. Truman, and Winston Churchill in Potsdam, July 1945

The Marshall Plan (1948)

We have now come to that famous term we all frequently encounter on the internet, in documentaries, or history books, but often do not fully understand the details of: The Marshall Plan.

Prepared by then-US Secretary of State George C. Marshall following World War II, this massive program aimed to provide financial aid to European countries to help them get back on their feet. Enacted in 1948, this plan essentially had two complementary main objectives:

To repair the ruined economies of European nations and ensure their development through external aid.

To build a definitive barrier against the spread of communism in Western Europe, which fed on poverty and despair.

Under the Marshall aid spanning a four-year period, a massive fund totalling $11.4 billion was transferred to 16 European countries, including Türkiye. The countries taking the biggest share of this pie were Britain, France, West Germany, and Italy, proportional to the size of their economies. Furthermore, the US did not just hand out the money and step aside; it required European countries to cooperate and manage these funds jointly. To this end, the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) was established, planting the very first seeds of economic integration for what is today the European Union.

The Continent’s First Military Shield: The Western European Union (1948)

Economic development was vital, but an unarmed Europe could never be safe from Soviet tanks. Realizing this reality, Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg came together on March 17, 1948, to establish the Western European Union. This alliance went down in history as the first military precaution taken on the European continent by their own initiative against the Soviet threat, serving as a direct precursor to the soon-to-be-established NATO.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (NATO 1949)

Now we come to the most important part, that massive military alliance which remains at the very centre of almost every global political crisis and debate even today: NATO

During the founding phase, the US had to overcome a legal hurdle to join a military alliance in Europe during peacetime. This is where the historic resolution drafted by Senator Arthur Vandenberg came into play. Once the US Senate authorized participation in “regional partnerships” concerning America’s security and based on mutual aid, the threshold was crossed, and on April 4, 1949, NATO was officially established among 12 Western countries. The Western world was now united under a single military umbrella against the Soviets.

Türkiye’s NATO Journey: An Epic Written in Korea

For Turkey, the process of joining NATO began rather painfully. Feeling the heat of the Soviet threat, Türkiye’s initial membership applications in 1950 and 1951 were unfortunately rejected by Western allies. However, Türkiye’s fate changed with the Korean War that broke out on the other side of the world. The legendary heroism and military success demonstrated by the Turkish brigade in Korea practically smashed open the doors to NATO membership. As a result, Türkiye was officially admitted to NATO in 1952.

Today, the very Türkiye whose application was once rejected possesses the second-largest army in NATO and stands as one of the alliance's most critical and unshakeable forces. And just as we mentioned at the beginning, much like in the Cold War years, NATO continues to be the greatest focal point of global politics and security debates today.

Political and Economic Integration: The Birth of Modern Europe

Having secured its military defence with NATO, Europe also had to unite economically and politically to ensure it would never again be dragged into devastating internal wars and to build a strong shield of prosperity against communism. The building blocks of the long road to today’s European Union were laid precisely during this era:

Council of Europe May 5, 1949

Founded with the participation of 10 nations: Belgium, the UK, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Ireland, Sweden, Italy, Luxembourg, and Norway. The primary objective was to protect the shared democratic values of member states and foster much tighter cooperation for their economic development. Operating across a wide range of fields from human rights and media to local democracies and health, one of the council’s most revolutionary steps was the establishment of the European Court of Human Rights, which continues to operate in Strasbourg today.

European Coal and Steel Community (Schuman Plan) April 18, 1951

In line with the historic plan announced by French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman on May 9, 1950, this community was established at the Paris Conference by West Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Italy. Placing the production of coal and steel, the primary raw materials of war, under the control of a single supranational body was the most concrete guarantee of peace. With French diplomat and economist Jean Monnet serving as its first president, this community, alongside the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) established in 1957, gave immense momentum to the European integration process.

European Economic Community (EEC) March 25, 1957

Brought to life by the historic Treaty of Rome among the 6 founding members (Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Italy). The goal was not merely to create a Customs Union eliminating tariffs to allow the free movement of goods, but to build an economic and monetary union by developing common policies in various fields such as agriculture, transport, competition, and foreign policy. This historic step forms the very heart of today’s European Union.

With the institutional construction of the Western Bloc covered, we are concluding this first and tensest Europe-centric era of the Cold War. Now, we turn our course to another boiling cauldron of the global chessboard, a region that will set the stage for brand-new crises and wars: developments in the Middle East.