The end of World War I coincided with the defeat of the Ottoman empire by France and Britain, which in turn led to the empire’s dismemberment in 1920 and formal dissolution in 1922. In an interview with Spiked, Eugene Rogan—recently the author of The Fall of the Ottomans—comments on the empire’s role in the war and the errors made by the Western powers in overseeing its demise. For instance, the British, encouraged by T.E. Lawrence, decided to support the rulers of Mecca in revolting against the sultan, hoping that this would spark a region-wide Arab revolt:

Their mistake, of course, was to assume that Muslims behave in a collectively radical way. It is an assumption Westerners often make about Islam. And it is wrong. And it is part of what also drove the Ottomans’ German allies to push the sultan to call for jihad [against the Allies], because they also believed Muslims would respond in a collective way, and it explains why Britain overreacted, [fearing its Muslim subjects in India would be provoked to revolt]. The irony of course is that it left British war planners responding more actively to the call for jihad than did global Muslims. . . .

As for the carving up the Middle East by France and Britain in the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement and the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, Rogan comments:

I think the past century has made sovereign reality out of the borders imposed by the European imperial powers. And while I wouldn’t want to make them sacrosanct, I’m very suspicious of attempts by analysts in Europe or America to redraw the boundaries. I think we should be humble. The experience of Westerners drawing boundaries has not been successful. It hasn’t been a happy experience for the people of the region. They have been enduring boundaries, but they have fostered enduring conflicts.

So the way I would put it is that any changes to Middle Eastern borders should come only as exercises in self-determination. . . . And I think the real issue [is]: can overturning the post-World War I boundaries be done in such a way that it doesn’t provide the fault lines for new conflicts to wrack the Middle East? My view is that the borders more or less as they stand now will survive, but, with the emergence of a new age of statehood in a post-Arab Spring Middle East, a lot of the regionalisms will only be satisfied by a more federal system.

Yesterday, the beepers used by hundreds of Hizballah operatives were detonated. Noah Rothman puts this ingenious attack in the context of the overall war between Israel and the Iran-backed terrorist group:

[W]hile the disabling of an untold number of Hizballah operatives is remarkable, it’s also ominous. This week, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant told reporters that the hour is nearing when Israeli forces will have to confront Iran’s cat’s-paw in southern Lebanon directly, in order to return the tens of thousands of Israelis who fled their homes along Lebanon’s border under fire and have not yet been able to return. Today’s operation may be a prelude to the next phase of Israel’s defensive war, a dangerous one in which the IDF will face off against an enemy with tens of thousands of fighters and over 150,000 rockets and missiles trained on Israeli cities.

Seth Frantzman, meanwhile, focuses on the specific damage the pager bombings have likely done to Hizballah:

This will put the men in hospital for a period of time. Some of them can go back to serving Hizballah, but they will not have access to one of their hands. These will most likely be their dominant hand, meaning the hand they’d also use to hold the trigger of a rifle or push the button to launch a missile.

Hizballah has already lost around 450 fighters in its eleven-month confrontation with Israel. This is a significant loss for the group. While Hizballah can replace losses, it doesn’t have an endlessly deep [supply of recruits]. This is not only because it has to invest in training and security ahead of recruitment, but also because it draws its recruits from a narrow spectrum of Lebanese society.

The overall challenge for Hizballah is not just replacing wounded and dead fighters. The group will be challenged to . . . roll out some other way to communicate with its men. The use of pagers may seem archaic, but Hizballah apparently chose to use this system because it assumed the network could not be penetrated. . . . It will also now be concerned about the penetration of its operational security. When groups like Hizballah are in chaos, they are more vulnerable to making mistakes.