The Middle East 1949 - 1973
The 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli War had significant repercussions on the internal politics of Arab countries:
Israel now covered about 80% of the old Palestine, the west bank was occupied by the new country of Jordan and Egypt occupied Gaza. The Palestinians were now stateless with an estimated 400,000 Arabs seeking refuge in neighboring countries. This influx of refugees put pressure on the receiving nations' resources and politics.
The war exposed the lack of unity and cooperation among Arab League members. Different Arab governments pursued their own objectives, revealing divisions within the alliance.
The Arab defeat led to domestic instability in several nations. It delegitimized existing leadership, resulting in revolutions, military coups, and political turmoil. The Arab nationalist sentiments in many countries were strengthened, as it was seen as a struggle against Western influence and Zionism.
In Syria, the defeat was considered a "great tragedy" and a "national calamity," which had profound effects on the country's political landscape.
1. Egypt after 1949
In Egypt after the 1949 defeat, within the army and wider Egyptian society, there was resentment, shock and dismay in response to defeat by Israel. There were scandals over the inferior equipment issued to the military, the king and government were blamed for treacherously abandoning the army.
An Egyptian commander who served in the war was Gamal Abdul Nasser, he commanded an army unit in Palestine and was wounded in the chest. Nasser was dismayed by the inefficiency and lack of preparation of the army. He felt betrayed by the Egyptian Royal family and the government.
He and other army officers staged a coup in 1952 and formed a nationalist Egyptian government that achieved (amongst other useful things) the following:
Ended the constitutional monarchy
Ended the British occupation
Ushered in a period of revolutionary politics in the Arab world
Background briefing: The Suez Crisis
On July 26, 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser announced the nationalisation of the Suez Canal Company in response to months of mounting political tensions between Egypt, Britain, and France, including the cancellation of loans for the construction of the Aswan Dam.
Fun fact:
The Suez Canal allows trade between the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean to avoid the lengthy and often dangerous voyage around the bottom of Africa (Cape Horn).
The joint British-French enterprise that owned and operated the Suez Canal was outraged. Although Nasser offered full economic compensation for the Company, the British and French Governments, long suspicious of Nasser’s opposition to the continuation of their political influence in the region, made plans for a military intervention.
Nasser resented what he saw as European efforts to perpetuate their colonial domination.
On 29 October 1956, Israeli forces took the Sinai Peninsula, a strategic area for the protection of the Jewish State on its South Western border.
One week later, Anglo-French troops disembarked in Port Said. The operation was entirely successful — the Egyptian army was defeated in a few days, even though Nasser had ordered the sinking of some forty ships in order to block the Suez Canal completely.
However their successes would be short lived, the USA and the USSR had other plans and a new agenda for the Middle East.
To do: Nasser in 4 sources.
Use the primary and secondary sources to describe Mr Nasser's political and social impact in Egypt and the wider Middle East.
How did Nasser become leader of Egypt? (Source 1.)
Outline Nasser’s policies / philosophy using examples. (Source 2.)
Which actions led to Nasser nationalising the canal and what did this act lead to? (Source 3.)
Why do some historians consider this event the end of European influence in the Middle East? (Source 4.)
The Suez Canal
2. Syria after 1949
The defeat of Arab forces by Israel in 1949 led to political upheaval in all of the countries that had originally attacked Israel.
The 1949 Syrian coup
The March 1949 Syrian coup d'état was the first military coup in Syrian history. The military overthrew the country's democratically elected Quwati government. The president was accused of purchasing inferior arms for the Syrian Army and poor leadership. He was briefly imprisoned, but then released into exile in Egypt.
Fun fact: Syria experienced 16 military coups - 9 of them successful.
Did the CIA topple the Syrian government in 1949?
The Mar. 30, 1949, coup by Syrian Army Chief of Staff Col. Husni al-Zaim was “one of the first covert actions that the CIA pulled off’, according to Douglas Little, professor of history at Clark University. In the wake of the defeat by Israel, Quwatli made a decision to block the passage of the Trans-Arabian Pipe Line (TAPLINE) from Saudi Arabia to the Mediterranean through Syrian land. Ziam assured the CIA that, if the U.S. recognized his government when he took power, he would fulfill America’s agenda on oil and the Arab-Israeli conflict. According to Joshua Landis, Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma., the U.S. appears to have agreed to support the coup.
The U.S. Intervened in Syria in 1949 - TIME Magazine
Syrian coups
1961 Coup: Uprising by disgruntled Syrian Army officers that led to the break-up of the United Arab Republic and the restoration of an independent Syrian Republic.
1963 Coup: The new regime was fragile and chaotic as internal army struggles influenced government policy. The traditionalist conservative politicians were replaced by the radical left.
1966 Coup: A faction of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party in Syria ousted the previous leadership.
1970 Coup (the Corrective Revolution) Followed the defeat by Israel in 1968. It was led by General Hafez Assad, who proclaimed a new doctrine of improving the "nationalist socialist line", defeating Israel, developing Syrian military with the support of Soviet Union and centralising all power with the Ba'ath party. Assad ruled until 2000, when he was succeeded by his son Bashar Assad who led Syria until 2024.
To do:
Use two sources to discuss the evidence for the involvement of the CIA in Syria’s coups.
Syria was originally part of the pro western Bagdad pact, which two events led to increasing Soviet influence in Syria?
Describe, using examples the role of the Soviet Union in Syria after 1957.
3. Iraq after 1949
Iraq after 1949 - Sources
Iraq Coup Timeline
1958 - The monarchy is overthrown in a left-wing military coup led by Abd-al-Karim Qasim. Iraq leaves the pro-British Baghdad Pact.
1963 - Prime Minister Qasim is ousted in a coup led by the pan-Arab Baath Party
1963 - The Baathist government led by al-Bakr is overthrown by a military coup.
1968 - A Baathist led-coup puts al-Bakr back in power.
1972 - Iraq nationalises the Iraq Petroleum Company.
1974 - Iraq grants limited autonomy to Kurdish region.
1979 - Saddam Hussein takes over from President Al-Bakr.
Sources Analysis Answer Guide
Don’t forget: Quote often and begin your response with name of the author, not the Source number. Put the source number in brackets at the end of the quote/paraphrasing.
For example:
This is supported by Jones who states that 'History students would be more popular at parties if they used this method.' (Source 3)
SACE Sources advice
More successful responses:
were well-structured
contained relevant evidence from sources when required.
Less successful responses
provided responses without reference to any evidence from the source
stated that sources are limited without reasoning
did not address the nature of sources clearly
did not explain how the nature and origin of the sources were a strength or limitation
did not include of the source in the response.
Source 1. Increasing Soviet influence in the Middle East. THE MEI Institute.
‘Soviet gains in the Middle East were particularly threatening. Moscow’s arms deals with Nasser’s Egypt had led to rapidly expanding influence across the region at a time when Middle East petroleum resources were increasingly critical to the West. The Suez Crisis and the massive influx of Soviet arms and advisors into the region led to President Dwight Eisenhower’s commitment to defend the Middle East from Soviet aggression, the so-called “Eisenhower Doctrine. However the Suez and its aftermath created a strong sense that the region would succumb to Soviet-backed radical secular nationalism and that Egypt’s Nasser was “the wave of the future.” It was in this environment that the pro-Western government in Iraq collapsed in 1958. Iraq was now governed by radical, nationalist, leftist army officers whose primary organised support came from the powerful Iraqi Communist Party (CPI). Iraq transformed itself from a British colonial creation, client, and almost exclusive foreign policy issue to a fundamental American problem.
Questions
Use evidence from the source to explain the factors behind rising Soviet influence in the ME. (2)
What was the “Eisenhower Doctrine,” ? (2)
Why was the 1958 coup in Iraq a ‘fundamental American problem’? (2)
Source 2. The Kurds and the 1958 coup. globalsecurity.org
‘Kurds inhabit a mountainous region on the borders of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran and Armenia, they are the second largest ethnic group in Iraq. Kurds had strongly supported the 1958 coup, Qasim had stipulated that the Kurds and the Arabs would be equal partners in the new state. Exiled Kurdish leaders, were allowed to return. Mutual suspicions, however, soon soured the relationship; by 1961, full-scale fighting broke out between Kurdish guerrillas and the Iraqi army. The army did not fare well against the seasoned Kurdish guerrillas, many of whom had deserted from the army. By the spring of 1962, Qasim's inability to contain the Kurdish insurrection had further eroded his base of power. The growing opposition was now in a position to plot his overthrow.
Questions
Why was Kurdish support important for the original success of the 1958 coup? (2)
How did the ‘soured relationship’ lead to political instability? (2)
How useful is a report like Source 2 for an historian studying the 1958 coup? (4)
Source 3: CIA Lists Provide Basis for Iraqi Bloodbath . [Al-Ahram, 27.9.1963]
According to historians Peter and Marion Sluglett, after the coup in Iraq in 1963, the CIA provided the coup leaders with lists of communists. More than ten thousand were killed and more than a hundred thousand were arrested in the bloody weeks that followed. Evidently, the CIA helped bring Saddam Hussein's thuggish party to power and fatally weakened the prospects for Iraqi democracy. King Husain of Jordan stated 'You tell me that American Intelligence was behind the 1957 events in Jordan. Permit me to tell you that I know for a certainty that what happened in Iraq on 8 February had the support of American Intelligence. Some of those who now rule in Baghdad do not know of this thing but I am aware of the truth. Numerous meetings were held between the Ba`ath party and American Intelligence, the more important in Kuwait. Do you know that . . . on 8 February a secret radio beamed to Iraq was supplying the men who pulled the coup with the names and addresses of the Communists there so that they could be arrested an executed.’
Questions
What role did the CIA play in the 1963 coup in Iraq? (2)
How does the information in Source 1 support US intelligence actions described in Source 3? (4)
Source 4. "Oil Sovereignty, American Foreign Policy, and the 1968 Coups in Iraq". Diplomacy & Statecraft. 2017
After the 1968 coup, the Arif government signed a major oil deal with the Soviets, the new government’s rapid moves to improve relations with Moscow were not a complete shock to U.S. policymakers, but they "provided a glimpse at a strategic alliance that would soon emerge’. Iraq also attempted to open a discreet line of communication with the U.S. government through a representative of the American oil company Mobil, but this overture was rebuffed by the Johnson administration as it had come to perceive the Ba'ath Party, in both Iraq and Syria, as too closely associated with the Soviet Union. In December, Iraqi troops based in Jordan began shelling Israeli settlers in the Jordan Valley, which led to a strong response by the Israeli Air Force.
Questions
How did the new Baathist government attempt to communicate with the US government after the 1968 coup? (1)
Use (all of the) sources to charecterise superpower actions in the ME after WW2. (4)
4. Iran after 1949
On Aug. 19, 1953, elements inside Iran organised and funded by the CIA and British intelligence services carried out a coup d’état that overthrew the elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. They installed a Shah (kind of like a king) who was deeply unpopular among much of the population, the Shah relied on U.S. support to remain in power until his overthrow in 1979. Historians have suggested the following reasons US covert action in Iran.
Fears that that political instability would lead to communist rule in Iran
A desire to control Iran's oil
Growing fears of a “collapse” in Iran, as policymakers believed that Iran could not survive without an agreement that would restart the flow of oil. (Declassified documents suggest this was a primary concern).
According to historian Ervand Abrahamian, Mossadegh’s nationalisation of the oil industry in 1953, was seen as a grave risk to Western domination of global oil supplies, particularly the oil concessions held by major Western oil companies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Venezuela, and elsewhere.
The U.S. and UK pressured the Shah to sign the Consortium Agreement 1954, which gave U.S., British, and French oil companies 40 percent ownership of the nationalised oil industry for twenty five years.
Fun Fact: “Atoms for Peace”
Iran was included in the US initiative, under which developing countries receive nuclear education and technology from the US. The United States provided Iran with a reactor and weapons-grade enriched uranium fuel, lays the foundation for the country’s nuclear program.
They call that irony.
To Do: Use four sources to explore how oil shaped Iranian politics after 1949.
Summary of Iranian politics after 1949.
The strategic aims of the western bloc.
The strategic aims of the Soviet bloc.
US actions and Soviet actions
5. The Six Day War 1967
The Six Day War transformed the Middle East. Israel defeated three Arab armies, gained territory four times its original size, and became the preeminent military power in the region. The war transformed Israel from a nation that perceived itself as fighting for survival into an occupier and regional powerhouse.
The consequences for the Arab coalition were similarly transformative. The loss of vast territories and crushing humiliation. Nasser, President of Egypt and the most prominent Arab leader at the time, survived the war but his leadership never recovered. The stunning defeat initiated the demise of his brand of secular pan-Arabism that was once an assertive ideological force in the Arab world.
The 1948 Arab defeat, the ambiguous armistice agreement and the growing belief in the need for collective Arab actions characterised the conditions for the 1967 War. The war also reflected increased tensions between Israel, Egypt and Syria and internal problems within the Jewish state, evidenced by the anxiety of elites, demographic conditions and economic strains.
The key causes are still debated among historians. The war constituted another humiliating moment for Arab countries. In one day, the Israelis had destroyed the whole Egyptian air force. Five days later, they occupied the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Again, these military actions were accompanied by huge movements of refugees, which would be a source of enormous political difficulties, sowing the seeds for the violence and conflict across the Middle East in the 1970's and 80's.
To do: 6 Day War questions.
Five interesting facts about the Six Day War
An annotated map of Israel after the war.
An assessment of the outcome of the war on the main participants
Egypt, Jordan and Syria
The Palestinians
Israel
A brief outline of how the outcome of the war would lead to further conflict.
6.The Yom Kippur(October)War 1973
Fighting the last war.
After the Six Day War, the Israelis had perceived their country as invincible, the Yom Kippur War left them feeling vulnerable and despondent. The success in 1967 led to a double folly. The first was the assumption that Arab states, knowing the futility of any attempted aggression, would not launch a war they could not win. The second blunder was to presume that even if the Arabs did attack, the IDF would nonetheless be able to swiftly block any advance and quickly counterattack, automatically repeating the successes of the Six Day War.
According to the CIA, the United States and Israel failed to anticipate the Egyptian/Syrian attack in 1973 because both American and Israeli leaders misperceived many of the “signals” and signs of attack from Egypt as simply noise; they failed to recognise the significance and urgency of those signals. Having ruled out the possibility of total war, American and Israeli leaders failed to foresee a limited war that did not fit into their preconceived frameworks. When the full extent of the debacle became apparent after a few days of fighting, Israel's military leadership was shattered.
Israeli operational doctrine and fighting methods, both in the air and on the ground, proved ill-suited to the strategic and operational innovations of the Egyptian military. The Israeli armoured forces initially lacked adequate artillery cover in the face of a well armed massive Egyptian infantry advance. The Israeli air force lost its superiority and operational effectiveness against Egypt’s antiaircraft batteries and sophisticated missiles. The early Arab successes were a huge psychological blow to Israel's self image.
To do: Use the information and your own research to complete the following:
Ten (10) interesting points about the Yom Kippur War + a minimum of two quotes from articles.
An annotated map of the war.
An brief assessment of the outcome of the war on the five participants
Syria, Egypt and Jordan
The Palestinians
Israel.
Extra: Israel ultimately defeated the Arab armies but the conflict was seen as an Arab success. Why?
Resources
1973 Israels strategic failures - The Besan Institute
How the Yom Kippur War changed Israel to the core - Jerusalem Post
Sources: War and partial peace. 1973-1979
The 1973 Yom Kippur war reshaped regional dynamics, with lasting impacts on international relations and economic policies. After 1973, the Middle East saw significant geopolitical shifts. The war led to the 1978 Camp David Accords, where Egypt recognised Israel, marking a step towards peace. The oil embargo by Arab nations caused a global energy crisis, highlighting the region's economic influence. Internally, many Middle Eastern countries experienced political and social changes, with increased military spending and shifts in alliances.
The Palestinian issue remained unresolved, fueling further conflicts.
Sources Analysis Answer Guide
Don’t forget: Quote often and begin your response with name of the author, not the Source number. Put the source number in brackets at the end of the quote/paraphrasing.
For example:
This is supported by Jones who states that 'History students would be more popular at parties if they used this method.' (Source 3)
SACE Sources advice
More successful responses:
were well-structured
contained relevant evidence from sources when required.
Less successful responses
provided responses without reference to any evidence from the source
stated that sources are limited without reasoning
did not address the nature of sources clearly
did not explain how the nature and origin of the sources were a strength or limitation
did not include of the source in the response.
Source 1. The Arab-Israeli Conflict, T. Rea and J. Wright, 1997.
On 6 October 1973, Egyptian forces crossed the Suez Canal and captured territory in the Sinai desert. At the same time, the Syrians attacked Israel at the Golan Heights. The two countries had made a secret plan to invade and had attacked on one of Israel's most sacred days - the religious festival of Yom Kippur. This was a national holiday for Israel and its armed forces were taken completely by surprise. The startled Israelis were unable to gain air superiority, as they had in 1967, because the Egyptians were able to use the advanced technology of the USSR with surface to air missiles (SAMs). The SAMs were based on the west side of the Suez Canal and they acted as a shield for the Egyptian land forces. There were even portable SAMs which increased the power and confidence of the Egyptians.
Questions
Using source 1, why did Egypt and Syria choose October 6 to attack Israel, and what was the result of the choice of date. (2)
Source 3. Contested Spaces: Arab / Israeli Conflict, I. Bickerton and M. Hill, 2003.
On 11 October the Soviets began a massive airlift, worth around $3.5 billion, to rearm Egypt and Syria. On 14 October the United States did the same for Israel. Israel advanced within 40 kilometres of Damascus and on 15 October an Israeli army unit led by Ariel Sharon re-crossed the Suez Canal and destroyed Soviet surface-to-air missiles. A Soviet-American brokered cease-fire was finally accepted by both parties on 24 October, with Israel the obvious victor.
Questions
From Source 3, identify two separate roles played by the superpowers (Soviets and USA) in October 1973? (2)
Source 2. Egyptian revenge
Source 2. October War 1973: The Egyptian Revenge (Documentary, 2008)
Watch the documentary from 6.30 to 7.30
Questions
How does Source 2 support Source 1? (2)
Source 4. Oil embargo 1973/74
Note: the four leaders of western powers represent, from left, Germany, France, USA, and Britain.
Questions
Comment on the usefulness and limitations of Source 4 for the study of war and partial peace, 1973 to 1979. (4)
Source 5. USA President, Jimmy Carter, recounting the Camp David negotiations. 1979
I ate some crackers and cheese as I listed the benefits of the proposed agreements to Israel. Immediately Begin began talking about the blessed settlements, but I insisted that we go through both documents in an orderly fashion ... I thought the discussion would never end. It was obviously very painful for Prime Minister Begin, who was shouting words like 'ultimatum', 'excessive demands' and 'political suicide'. However, he finally promised to submit to the Knesset within two weeks the question: 'If agreement is reached on all other Sinai issues, will the settlers be withdrawn?'
I believed the concession would be enough for Sadat. Breakthrough!
Source 6. The Camp David Accords. Martin Asser, news.bbc.com
There was a great sense of optimism back in the late 1970s and early 80s, when the then Egyptian and Israeli leaders won Nobel prizes for their role in agreeing the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab state. … For Israel it was a major breakthrough, though it meant giving up all the strategic advantage gained by seizing Sinai in 1967. For Egypt, it meant an end to a long and draining conflict, but it also brought hostility and years of being ostracised by Arab allies for allowing itself - the most potent Arab military power - to drop out of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Questions
How does the information in Source 5 support the information in Source 6? (4)
The 1973 Yom Kippur war had positive outcomes for the Middle East and the global community. Discuss the proposition referring to all of the sources. (5)
Source 4. Oil Embargo 1973/74