When this independence was not achieved after the First World War and these colonial powers continued to exert immense influence on the Arab world in the 1920s, 30s and 40s, the orientation of Arab policy – in North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean – shifted gradually but resolutely from the construction of liberal constitutional government systems (such as Egypt). , Syria and Iraq in the first decades of the 20th century) towards a confident nationalism whose main objective was to liberate colonial rule. and the dominant systems that have collaborated with them. Prior to the centenary of Sykes-Picot in 2016, the media and scientists generated strong interest in the long-term effects of the agreement. The agreement is often cited as “artificial” borders in the Middle East, “without regard to ethnic or sectarian characteristics, which has led to endless conflicts.”  The question of the extent to which Sykes-Picot has really marked the borders of the modern Middle East is controversial.   The agreement of Sir Mark Sykes (1879-1919) and François Georges-Picot (1870-1951), negotiated in May 1916, painted the Fertile Crescent in red tones (for the sphere of influence of the United Kingdom) and blue (French sphere). For many Arabs, “Sykes-Picot” remains today the slogan of secret diplomacy and ruthless realpolitik linked to colonial ambition. But in its original form, the map of the Fertile Crescent, provided for by “Sykes-Picot”, was distinctly different from the system of colonial states, created in St. Remo (1920) and ratified in Lausanne (1923). Mosul and Palestine (French and international in the original agreement) have now gone to Britain, whose armies, allies and colonial auxiliaries had led most of the struggle against the Ottomans and whose troops occupied Syria and Mesopotamia at the end of the war. Recent historical work asserts that it is these territorial displacements and the unintended consequences they have had for Anglo-French relations that would have the most important long-term consequences on the history of the Levant. Many sources claim that Sykes-Picot came into conflict with the Hussein-McMahon correspondence of 1915-1916 and that the publication of the agreement in November 1917 led to the resignation of Sir Henry McMahon.  There were several differences, iraq being the most obvious in the British red territory, and less obvious, the idea that British and French advisers would have control of the area designated as an Arab state.
Finally, while the correspondence did not mention Palestine, Haifa and Acre should be British and the brown territory (a reduced Palestine) should become internationalized.  The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western and Arab relations. She denied the promises made by the United Kingdom to the Arabs concerning a national Arab homeland in the region of Syria in exchange for British support for the Ottoman Empire. The agreement was made public with others on 23 November 1917 in Moscow by the Bolsheviks and repeated on 26 November 1917 in the British Guardian, so that “the British were displaced, the Arabs appalled and the Turks happy.”    The legacy of the agreement has caused too much discontent in the region, particularly among the Denarabern, but also among the Kurds, who were denied an independent state.     In the Middle East, the First World War was the culmination of a long period of instability. From 1906, Iran experienced unrest and, from 1908, foreign intervention; Between 1911 and 1913, the Ottomans fought wars in Libya and the Balkans. And 1918 until the mid-1920s was a violent and temporary period in all Western Eurasian empires.  The First World War, which separated the Baltic and Slavic regions of Germany, destroyed the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, triggered the revolution in Russia and de-established the Iranian central government, created voids filled with intergovernmental, civil, secessionist and pan-democratic political wars, and long political recalibrates.