Hello all,
A friend of mine (who is a teacher) recently posted a link to the Sykes-Picot agreement, with the comment: "The West is to blame for all the chaos in the Middle East, here's more proof". As an amateur historian, I know that conflicts are almost never this black and white, but I don't feel confident enough in my grasp of Middle Eastern history to answer this myself. Perhaps I am completely wrong, but I feel that the conflicts in question are much more complicated than this.
Just to clarify, I'm asking about the modern day consequences of actions taken by Western powers from the colonial era to the end of decolonization (around the time that most Middle Eastern states achieved independence). Thank you in advance!
Which conflict in the Middle East are you referring to? Israel/Palestine? The Syrian Civil War? The Arab Spring and its aftermath? Daesh? Other Islamist groups? The Kurdish nationalist movement? Sunni-Shi'ite tensions? Insurgencies in Iraq, Yemen, or the Sinai?
Boiling down the entire region to just one big conflict seems essentialist and over-simplified.
When exactly did the colonial era in the Mid East end? ;)
Seriously though, your question is really too vague to give a coherent answer. First it would be nice to know what conflict you're talking about. "chaos in the Middle East" isn't a very helpful way a looking at any number of ongoing/unresolved conflicts in the region; in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Jordan.
Broadly speaking, the Sykes-Picot agreement was an Anglo-French agreement on the division of territory and influence over the non-Anatolian territories of the Ottoman Empire, assuming an Ottoman defeat in WW1. The aftermath of WW1 would mean direct French and British administration of many of these captured territories, in would also mean indirect American involvement, after American objections to being excluded from an Anglo-French oil cartel in the region. So, I suppose as the Sykes-Picot agreement represented the first strategic planning for direct British, French (and eventually American) direct involvement in the region. If you're more specific in your question I can try and give a better answer as to the relevance of (Western) colonial policy to a particular set of political circumstances.
(This next part may or may not be relevant).
Its possible that the this friend who posted this link was simply making a primordialist argument about ethnic conflict. That is to say, that often there is a inclination for people to buy into an ethnic "people x hate people y, always have always will, and if you try to build a multi-ethnic state with both people x and y you'll always get conflict." Obviously, I think this narrative is ridiculous and ignorant as it is dangerous. No, conflict is not made inevitable by having Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, or Muslims and Jews as part of the same political unit; even if the borders of those political units were a product of Anglo-French negotiation. Conflict is always political, with a specific political context, motivation and aim.