What do you think?
Rate this book
Lords of the Desert: Britain's Struggle with America to Dominate the Middle East
An authoritative history of how the U.S. supplanted Great Britain as the preeminent power in the Middle East
We usually assume that Arab nationalism brought about the end of the British Empire in the Middle East-that Gamal Abdel Nasser and other Arab leaders led popular uprisings against colonial rule that forced the overstretched British from the region.
In Lords of the Desert, historian James Barr draws on newly declassified archives to argue instead that the United States was the driving force behind the British exit. Though the two nations were allies, they found themselves at odds over just about every question, from who owned Saudi Arabia's oil to who should control the Suez Canal. Encouraging and exploiting widespread opposition to the British, the U.S. intrigued its way to power-ultimately becoming as resented as the British had been. As Barr shows, it is impossible to understand the region today without first grappling with this little-known prehistory.
We usually assume that Arab nationalism brought about the end of the British Empire in the Middle East-that Gamal Abdel Nasser and other Arab leaders led popular uprisings against colonial rule that forced the overstretched British from the region.
In Lords of the Desert, historian James Barr draws on newly declassified archives to argue instead that the United States was the driving force behind the British exit. Though the two nations were allies, they found themselves at odds over just about every question, from who owned Saudi Arabia's oil to who should control the Suez Canal. Encouraging and exploiting widespread opposition to the British, the U.S. intrigued its way to power-ultimately becoming as resented as the British had been. As Barr shows, it is impossible to understand the region today without first grappling with this little-known prehistory.
416 pages, Hardcover
First published August 1, 2018
254 people are currently reading
3055 people want to read
About the author
James Barr
3 books222 followersI read Modern History at Oxford University. Since then I've worked in Westminster in politics, as a leader-writer for the Daily Telegraph, in the City and most recently in Paris. Now, I'm back in London.
My book on Lawrence of Arabia and the Arab Revolt, Setting the Desert on Fire, was first published in 2006.
Something that struck me while I was working on that book was the degree of rivalry between Britain and France for dominance in the Middle East. A Line in the Sand - my latest book - picks up this theme, and describes how this little-known struggle transformed the Middle East, from the destruction of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War to the violent birth of the state of Israel in 1948.
I have started work on my next book.
My book on Lawrence of Arabia and the Arab Revolt, Setting the Desert on Fire, was first published in 2006.
Something that struck me while I was working on that book was the degree of rivalry between Britain and France for dominance in the Middle East. A Line in the Sand - my latest book - picks up this theme, and describes how this little-known struggle transformed the Middle East, from the destruction of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War to the violent birth of the state of Israel in 1948.
I have started work on my next book.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 117 reviews
May 1, 2019
For anyone questioning why Britain and USA are blamed for the current state of anarchy in the Middle East, please read on. We have a saying in Urdu which roughly translates to, the ant will always suffer when caught between two elephants fighting. The Americans and the British have vested interests in the oil of the region, and they are willing to retain this valuable resource at any price. So supporting dictators, autocrats, mad kings and nationalists is all considered as long as they are willing to work with one or the other. The Saudi Royal family has been an old partner of the Americans which is at the moment the biggest sponsor of Islamic terrorism. Do we really expect the Americans to dethrone the Saudis as long as they are exploiting their oil?
July 9, 2020
The US and the UK are bosom friends in everything from culture and commerce to international policy. What pervades this all-weather friendship is the unquestioned dominance of the US in every sphere of activity you can think of. But this was not always like this. There was a time when Britain enjoyed its metropolis status over the destiny of a vast empire in which the sun never set and ruled the waves of all oceans on the planet. The US never had a colonialist hinterland though the nation itself was almost a continent on its own size. The Second World War changed the imperialist status quo. Though Britain and her Allies prevailed over their Axis enemies, the victory was a Pyrrhic one. The economic backbone of the empire was broken and its compulsion to cede independence to the colonies severely curtailed British prospects of ruling the world again. The US stepped in as a replacement to Britain, and turned out to be much more powerful in a different role. During the transition period, the British and the Americans struggled for supremacy in the Middle East, which contained the most promising commodity of the twentieth century – oil. From 1942, until Britain’s exit from the Gulf was completed in 1971, the two countries were invariably competitors in the Middle East and often outright rivals. The two issues of oil and Israel always stood ominously behind the violence in the region. This book is the story of how the Americans rose to prominence while Britain’s star was gradually eclipsed. James Barr is a British author of a number of historical works on the Middle East and is currently a visiting fellow at King’s College London.
Barr examines the economic perspective which pitted both countries against each other. The war effort absorbed sixty per cent of the industrial output in the US. After the World War, the demand would fall away leading to mass unemployment. Increase in exports was the only solution to tide over the crisis but this would place the Americans on a collision course with the British because a successful American export drive in the Middle East would be detrimental to British interests, which in the meanwhile had flooded the markets with British products under the guise of war-time shipping restrictions. Britain almost went bankrupt at the end of the war, resorting to food-rationing to feed its population. Liberal economic aid poured out of the US, but each incoming dollar constrained Britain’s independent maneuverability against conflicting American interests.
Israel was a turning point in Middle East history. Right after the defeat of Turkey in World War I, Zionists had identified Palestine as the place to house the Jewish diaspora. With Nazi persecution of Jews, inward migration reached such a pitch as to alarm the Arabs. Understandably, the Arabs opposed further migration, but their opposition had only a religious basis engendered by notions of jihad. Jews exerted an organized and carefully calculated influence in US politics. Under fire from the Zionists for failing to do more for Jewish refugees, Roosevelt tried to court the Jewish vote during the presidential campaign of 1944. He promised to bring about the establishment of a free and democratic Jewish commonwealth in Palestine. This opened the floodgates of illegal migration to Palestine. Some Jewish organisations even engaged in terrorism, targeting British troops and officials who oversaw the Mandate there. Fundraising continued unabated in the US and the Administration was reluctant to clamp down on them, fearing Jewish backlash in the ballot box. Britain left Palestine on 14 May 1948 and Arab-Israeli war broke out the next day. A Jewish state was declared and Truman promptly recognized it. The book depicts Britain as a staunch opponent of the Jews who in turn directed their physical violence against it. People often accuse the US for aligning their foreign policy in line with their business interests. But in the case of Israel, supporting them cost the US dear in terms of Arab goodwill, but still they continue to steadfastly support them against all odds.
The author accurately analyses the efforts to control the flow of oil to its western markets. Iran and Iraq were traditionally under the control of Britain while Saudi Arabian oil was managed by the US. No effort, howsoever unsavory, was spared to ensure the flow of oil. Bribes were used universally across the region. Aramco laid an oil pipeline from Saudi Arabia to Lebanon’s Mediterranean coast at great peril. It freely bribed Syria’s politicians for transit rights. When that proved insufficient, they organized a military coup to bring down a non-pliable civilian government. When Iranian premier Mossadegh nationalized the British-owned oil company, he too was brought down. Taking his cue, Egypt’s Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956. Britain attacked Egypt but had to withdraw ignominiously when the US opposed the move in a surprising turn of events. During this time, they dramatically increased Saudi oil production and provided its king vast wealth. The windfall from oil often astonished the British as well. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company’s concession in Iran was termed by Churchill as a ‘prize from fairy land far beyond our brightest hopes’. They massaged the profit figures of the enterprise to cut down on the dividends payable to the Arabs.
A noted aspect of American foreign policy is its stated desire to spread the idea of democracy around the world. Usually, this turned out to be nothing more than rhetoric and an attempt to make the right noises to please its clients at home and abroad. The US persuaded Britain to grant more autonomy and freedom to India but didn’t follow through with coercive measures when it became evident that they had no immediate plans to do so during the war. In the 1950s, this policy underwent a subtle shift in the Middle East. Abandoning their quest for democracy, they actively hunted for competent leaders who were somewhat favourably disposed to the West. With it went the hopes of democracy transforming the Arab states.
The Middle East is dominated by the Arabic language which is spoken in an unbroken chain from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east. Apart from faint spattering of Christians, the people are overwhelmingly Muslim. In the face of these obvious uniting factors, the readers of this book would be astonished at the total absence of cohesion among the people and the very high levels of mutual distrust and suspicion. The monarchs are jealous of each other’s ambitions while demagogues orchestrate to uproot other elected leaders and also monarchs. Arab nationalism appears to be so fractured and fragile that it never rises above tribal aspirations and prejudices. The Hashemites cashed in on the rout of Ottomans while the Saudis displaced them from Arabia proper. The Hashemites further subdivided into Jordanian and Iraqi branches and then tried to outwit the other. Gamal Abdel Nasser rose up as a promising leader who could unify the Middle East. But he was not above resorting to underhand deals and military interventions in other countries. Anyhow, with Egypt’s miserable defeat at the hands of Israelis in the 1967 war sealed his fate. The Arab world continues to be divided even now.
The book is very informative and pleasingly readable. The narrative is witty with lots of side comments that freshen up the reader. In these 340 pages, Barr condenses the entire story of the Middle East for a quarter century. Obviously, he has used much declassified documents which present some shocking details. King Hussein of Jordan is claimed to have received considerable sums of money from the CIA every month as part of their effort to keep the local rulers in good humour.
The book is strongly recommended.
Barr examines the economic perspective which pitted both countries against each other. The war effort absorbed sixty per cent of the industrial output in the US. After the World War, the demand would fall away leading to mass unemployment. Increase in exports was the only solution to tide over the crisis but this would place the Americans on a collision course with the British because a successful American export drive in the Middle East would be detrimental to British interests, which in the meanwhile had flooded the markets with British products under the guise of war-time shipping restrictions. Britain almost went bankrupt at the end of the war, resorting to food-rationing to feed its population. Liberal economic aid poured out of the US, but each incoming dollar constrained Britain’s independent maneuverability against conflicting American interests.
Israel was a turning point in Middle East history. Right after the defeat of Turkey in World War I, Zionists had identified Palestine as the place to house the Jewish diaspora. With Nazi persecution of Jews, inward migration reached such a pitch as to alarm the Arabs. Understandably, the Arabs opposed further migration, but their opposition had only a religious basis engendered by notions of jihad. Jews exerted an organized and carefully calculated influence in US politics. Under fire from the Zionists for failing to do more for Jewish refugees, Roosevelt tried to court the Jewish vote during the presidential campaign of 1944. He promised to bring about the establishment of a free and democratic Jewish commonwealth in Palestine. This opened the floodgates of illegal migration to Palestine. Some Jewish organisations even engaged in terrorism, targeting British troops and officials who oversaw the Mandate there. Fundraising continued unabated in the US and the Administration was reluctant to clamp down on them, fearing Jewish backlash in the ballot box. Britain left Palestine on 14 May 1948 and Arab-Israeli war broke out the next day. A Jewish state was declared and Truman promptly recognized it. The book depicts Britain as a staunch opponent of the Jews who in turn directed their physical violence against it. People often accuse the US for aligning their foreign policy in line with their business interests. But in the case of Israel, supporting them cost the US dear in terms of Arab goodwill, but still they continue to steadfastly support them against all odds.
The author accurately analyses the efforts to control the flow of oil to its western markets. Iran and Iraq were traditionally under the control of Britain while Saudi Arabian oil was managed by the US. No effort, howsoever unsavory, was spared to ensure the flow of oil. Bribes were used universally across the region. Aramco laid an oil pipeline from Saudi Arabia to Lebanon’s Mediterranean coast at great peril. It freely bribed Syria’s politicians for transit rights. When that proved insufficient, they organized a military coup to bring down a non-pliable civilian government. When Iranian premier Mossadegh nationalized the British-owned oil company, he too was brought down. Taking his cue, Egypt’s Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956. Britain attacked Egypt but had to withdraw ignominiously when the US opposed the move in a surprising turn of events. During this time, they dramatically increased Saudi oil production and provided its king vast wealth. The windfall from oil often astonished the British as well. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company’s concession in Iran was termed by Churchill as a ‘prize from fairy land far beyond our brightest hopes’. They massaged the profit figures of the enterprise to cut down on the dividends payable to the Arabs.
A noted aspect of American foreign policy is its stated desire to spread the idea of democracy around the world. Usually, this turned out to be nothing more than rhetoric and an attempt to make the right noises to please its clients at home and abroad. The US persuaded Britain to grant more autonomy and freedom to India but didn’t follow through with coercive measures when it became evident that they had no immediate plans to do so during the war. In the 1950s, this policy underwent a subtle shift in the Middle East. Abandoning their quest for democracy, they actively hunted for competent leaders who were somewhat favourably disposed to the West. With it went the hopes of democracy transforming the Arab states.
The Middle East is dominated by the Arabic language which is spoken in an unbroken chain from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east. Apart from faint spattering of Christians, the people are overwhelmingly Muslim. In the face of these obvious uniting factors, the readers of this book would be astonished at the total absence of cohesion among the people and the very high levels of mutual distrust and suspicion. The monarchs are jealous of each other’s ambitions while demagogues orchestrate to uproot other elected leaders and also monarchs. Arab nationalism appears to be so fractured and fragile that it never rises above tribal aspirations and prejudices. The Hashemites cashed in on the rout of Ottomans while the Saudis displaced them from Arabia proper. The Hashemites further subdivided into Jordanian and Iraqi branches and then tried to outwit the other. Gamal Abdel Nasser rose up as a promising leader who could unify the Middle East. But he was not above resorting to underhand deals and military interventions in other countries. Anyhow, with Egypt’s miserable defeat at the hands of Israelis in the 1967 war sealed his fate. The Arab world continues to be divided even now.
The book is very informative and pleasingly readable. The narrative is witty with lots of side comments that freshen up the reader. In these 340 pages, Barr condenses the entire story of the Middle East for a quarter century. Obviously, he has used much declassified documents which present some shocking details. King Hussein of Jordan is claimed to have received considerable sums of money from the CIA every month as part of their effort to keep the local rulers in good humour.
The book is strongly recommended.
June 3, 2021
I got this book when I read it as a book recommendation, on Twitter, by an author whom I admire. And in the backdrop of the recent Israel-Gaza conflict, I couldn't have picked a better time to read it. The book is premised on the behind-the-scene troubled relationship of the USA and the UK to dominate the Middle East in the post-World War II reality.
Much has been made out of the relationship of these two super powers, which was built and strengthened during the later part of the second world war. But, James Barr gives a detailed account of what was really happening when they were out to dominate the Middle East and exploit its oil reserves.
A deeply researched book, using a lot of information, brought into light by declassified files. The book reads like a political thriller with espionage, palace coup, political assassination, arms deal, bribes and what not.
There are few events which marks the history deeply and mostly everywhen has heard of, like Israel Independence, the Suez crisis, etc. Barr, however, starts his story with how Israel got its independence in 1948, and goes on tracing the history spanning over decades, till finally the UK exited Middle East in 1970.
While I was reading this book, I felt I should have first read A Line In The Sand, by the same author, first.
Much has been made out of the relationship of these two super powers, which was built and strengthened during the later part of the second world war. But, James Barr gives a detailed account of what was really happening when they were out to dominate the Middle East and exploit its oil reserves.
A deeply researched book, using a lot of information, brought into light by declassified files. The book reads like a political thriller with espionage, palace coup, political assassination, arms deal, bribes and what not.
There are few events which marks the history deeply and mostly everywhen has heard of, like Israel Independence, the Suez crisis, etc. Barr, however, starts his story with how Israel got its independence in 1948, and goes on tracing the history spanning over decades, till finally the UK exited Middle East in 1970.
While I was reading this book, I felt I should have first read A Line In The Sand, by the same author, first.
July 14, 2019
This is one of the most important books I have read on the history of this region. In it I realized the following;
1. The detail at which events were discussed behind closed doors in the UK or the US regarding their interest in our area
2. There is no such thing as friendship between nations; its always the strategic benefits that presides
3. The gulf states are rocks of salt, this has not changed. The west protects monarchies in return for liquidity (in the form of cheap oil and arms deals and political rubber stamping)
4. History as we know it, is not the history in-the-making, which made our understanding of events very artificial
Our nations should wake up and realize the amount of sabotage on their resources, and not expect the discourse of integrity and justice from the west to change things to the better. The depletion of our resources and our energy as nations will continue till we take control by uniting and coming up with a political model that will stop all this.
1. The detail at which events were discussed behind closed doors in the UK or the US regarding their interest in our area
2. There is no such thing as friendship between nations; its always the strategic benefits that presides
3. The gulf states are rocks of salt, this has not changed. The west protects monarchies in return for liquidity (in the form of cheap oil and arms deals and political rubber stamping)
4. History as we know it, is not the history in-the-making, which made our understanding of events very artificial
Our nations should wake up and realize the amount of sabotage on their resources, and not expect the discourse of integrity and justice from the west to change things to the better. The depletion of our resources and our energy as nations will continue till we take control by uniting and coming up with a political model that will stop all this.
April 14, 2019
A sequel of sorts to "A Line in the Sand", Barr's earlier book about the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Franco-British rivalry in the middle east, this book carries the subtitle "Britain's struggle with America to dominate the Middle East". That subtitle is a bit misleading. I don't know whether it was born out of desire for continuity with the earlier book, or perhaps a publisher's bright idea, but it does some injustice to the story that is being told here.
Because, with occasional exception, this is not so much the story of a "struggle" as that of two parallel diplomacies, occasionally in harmony, sometimes in conflict, and most frequently of all badly misaligned. Told from the British perspective, the USA appears in turn as a rival, an ally, or a source of money and support, in a complex diplomatic dance that often made little sense. Americans and British both wanted a large share of the oil of the region, but they also had strategic reasons to keep each other locked in. Nevertheless, on several occasions, British governments told blatant and detectable lies to their American allies, which did the relationship little good.
Primarily this is the story of how the British dealt with a heavy colonial legacy in the post-WWII world. Once upon a time, British economic strength and maritime power had allowed it to gradually acquire a huge colonial empire. In the 1950s the logic was sharply reversed as Britain now sought to retain its colonies for as long as possible as the only way to maintain its great-power status, until governments in the 1960s finally accepted that Britain no longer had the money to hang on to its colonial outposts. Imperial policy had degraded into short-term decay management, in the hope of staying on until the oil had been pumped up, or perhaps until the Vietnam war had ended, or just to keep the Soviets out a little longer. Barr casts an unforgiving light on the motivations of successive British governments.
In these circumstances, the UK and USA both indulged in conspiracies to bring down governments, funding coups and fomenting rebellions. Always uneasily hovering in the background, to be sure, were the essential insights that such a policy would inevitably be resented by people seeking to determine their own fate, that breeding instability was hardly a sound strategy for foreign investors, and that backing corrupt and reactionary rulers would do long term harm to British interests. But these Cassandras were rarely listened to. Instead, according to this book, there was a heavy penchant for cloak-and-dagger politics, secret service improvisation and military freebooting: A lot of adventure was involved, but precious little wisdom. Plainly, the vestiges of the colonial feeling of superiority allowed for the kind of incautious meddling in Arab politics that exploded in the face of its enactors again and again and again. It is a sorry tale but a useful lesson for today.
That is particularly true for the chapters of this work that describe events in the desert Empty Quarter of Arabia, in Muscat and Oman, Yemen and Aden: A bizarre but hugely entertaining story of secret agents and mercenaries, of decisions taken over a glass of brandy, of weapons smuggled and tribesmen manipulated. The story of these events was entirely new to me. It is told in considerable detail, which gives the book a rather unbalanced feel, but it is more than worth it.
Because, with occasional exception, this is not so much the story of a "struggle" as that of two parallel diplomacies, occasionally in harmony, sometimes in conflict, and most frequently of all badly misaligned. Told from the British perspective, the USA appears in turn as a rival, an ally, or a source of money and support, in a complex diplomatic dance that often made little sense. Americans and British both wanted a large share of the oil of the region, but they also had strategic reasons to keep each other locked in. Nevertheless, on several occasions, British governments told blatant and detectable lies to their American allies, which did the relationship little good.
Primarily this is the story of how the British dealt with a heavy colonial legacy in the post-WWII world. Once upon a time, British economic strength and maritime power had allowed it to gradually acquire a huge colonial empire. In the 1950s the logic was sharply reversed as Britain now sought to retain its colonies for as long as possible as the only way to maintain its great-power status, until governments in the 1960s finally accepted that Britain no longer had the money to hang on to its colonial outposts. Imperial policy had degraded into short-term decay management, in the hope of staying on until the oil had been pumped up, or perhaps until the Vietnam war had ended, or just to keep the Soviets out a little longer. Barr casts an unforgiving light on the motivations of successive British governments.
In these circumstances, the UK and USA both indulged in conspiracies to bring down governments, funding coups and fomenting rebellions. Always uneasily hovering in the background, to be sure, were the essential insights that such a policy would inevitably be resented by people seeking to determine their own fate, that breeding instability was hardly a sound strategy for foreign investors, and that backing corrupt and reactionary rulers would do long term harm to British interests. But these Cassandras were rarely listened to. Instead, according to this book, there was a heavy penchant for cloak-and-dagger politics, secret service improvisation and military freebooting: A lot of adventure was involved, but precious little wisdom. Plainly, the vestiges of the colonial feeling of superiority allowed for the kind of incautious meddling in Arab politics that exploded in the face of its enactors again and again and again. It is a sorry tale but a useful lesson for today.
That is particularly true for the chapters of this work that describe events in the desert Empty Quarter of Arabia, in Muscat and Oman, Yemen and Aden: A bizarre but hugely entertaining story of secret agents and mercenaries, of decisions taken over a glass of brandy, of weapons smuggled and tribesmen manipulated. The story of these events was entirely new to me. It is told in considerable detail, which gives the book a rather unbalanced feel, but it is more than worth it.
March 21, 2019
"أسياد الصحراء" لجايمس بار
بعد نجاح كتاب "خط في الرمل" يعود جايمس بار (James Barr) في كتابه الجديد "أسياد الصحراء" (Lords of the Desert) إلى نفس المنهل: الوثائق سرية التي كشفت عنها المخابرات البريطانية في العقدين الأخيرين، ليتناول مرة أخرى تاريخ الشرق الأوسط في وسط القرن العشرين، بوجهة نظر القوتين الإمبرياليتين البريطانية الآفلة والأمريكية الصاعدة. وتماما كما فعل في كتابه السابق، يكشف بار هنا أيضا أن القوتين اللتان تبدوان متحالفتين بعد الحرب لديهما مصالح مختلفة ومتضاربة أحيانا في الشرق الأوسط.
يغطي الكتاب تقريبا الفترة من معركة العلمين عام 1942 إلى حدود الإنسحاب البريطاني من عدن عام 1971. فيكشف دور الإستخبارات الأمريكية في إنقلاب 1952 في مصر دون علم البريطانيين. كما يصف تخبط السلطات البريطانية في التعامل مع قضية استيطان اليهود الأوروبيين في فلسطين والريادة الأمريكية للقضية مع إدارة ترومان التي سعت لكسب دعم التصويت اليهودي. يصف الكتاب محاولات الإنقلابات المتاتلية في سوريا بدعم تارة بريطاني وتارة أمريكي وتارة سعودي حسب تقلب القوى السياسية في البلد ونهاية المطاف بقيام الجمهورية العربية المتحدة. وينتهي الكتاب بالحرب الأهلية في اليمن ومحاولة بريطانيا دعم الموالين للمملكة المتوكلية سرا بالسلاح والتدريب، ثم قرارها التخلي عن عدن ضد رغبة الأمريكيين.
الفكرة الأساسية للكتاب هي أن بريطانيا أنهت الحرب العالمية الثانية مفلسة لذلك حاولت تسليم السيادة في الشرق الأوسط لحكام موالين لها مقابل الإبقاء على أكبر ما يمكن من الدول في منطقة نفوذ الجنيه الإسترليني. في هذا الإطار ييبين الكاتب تعاون الدولتين في إيران لتثبيت حكم الشاه وإقصاء رئيس الوزراء مصدق. يتعرض الكتاب لتنافس استخبارات الدولتين في حرب الرشاوي والضغوط الديبلوماسية بين شركة النفط الأنجلو-إيرانية و آرامكو للسيطرة على نفط السعودية. ثم يبرز إزدراء الملك عبد العزيز للملوك الهاشميين و سعيه لإسقاطهم بنفوذه على الدولة السورية الفتية كاشفا عن دور الأمريكيين والبريطانيين في دعم كل طرف. يفسر الكاتب أيضا تعقيدات مفاوضات الجلاء من السويس مع بريطانيا وتمويل السد العالي مع أمريكا، وأثر قرار تأميم القناة على الدعم الذي كان يحضى به عبد الناصر وعلى التخطيط للعدوان الثلاثي بين الفرنسيين والإسرائيليين. يتطرق الكتاب أيضا إلى دور الاستخبارات البريطانية في منع سيطرة آل سعود على واحة البريمي التي تنازعت عليها مع عمان وأبوظبي وفي تشجيع السلطان قابوس على الإنقلاب على والده.
مرة أخرى ينجح جايمس بار في رواية التاريخ من زاوية جديدة وبأسلوب يشد القارئ ويثير فضوله. فالكتاب يتعدى السرد التاريخي للأحداث ويتميز بدراسته للمراسلات الشخصية التي تعكس الحالة النفسية للاعبين الرئيسيين. إنه لمثير للإهتمام مثلا كيف لعب الهوس المرضي دورا في إصرار رئيس الوزراء البريطاني إيدن على الإطاحة بعبد الناصر، أو كيف أثر الوهن الجسدي في رئيس الوزراء تشرشل في فترة حكمه الثانية وأفقده احترام الرؤساء الأمريكيين الذين توقفوا عن معاملة البريطانيين كحليف بنفس الوزن. خلافا للتوازن في السرد بين الجانب الفرنسي والبريطاني في كتابه السابق، قد يعاب على جايمس بار هذه المرة هو تقصيره في دراسة منظومة أخذ القرار في السياسة الأمريكية وتركيزه بشكل مفرط على المصادر البريطانية.
بعد نجاح كتاب "خط في الرمل" يعود جايمس بار (James Barr) في كتابه الجديد "أسياد الصحراء" (Lords of the Desert) إلى نفس المنهل: الوثائق سرية التي كشفت عنها المخابرات البريطانية في العقدين الأخيرين، ليتناول مرة أخرى تاريخ الشرق الأوسط في وسط القرن العشرين، بوجهة نظر القوتين الإمبرياليتين البريطانية الآفلة والأمريكية الصاعدة. وتماما كما فعل في كتابه السابق، يكشف بار هنا أيضا أن القوتين اللتان تبدوان متحالفتين بعد الحرب لديهما مصالح مختلفة ومتضاربة أحيانا في الشرق الأوسط.
يغطي الكتاب تقريبا الفترة من معركة العلمين عام 1942 إلى حدود الإنسحاب البريطاني من عدن عام 1971. فيكشف دور الإستخبارات الأمريكية في إنقلاب 1952 في مصر دون علم البريطانيين. كما يصف تخبط السلطات البريطانية في التعامل مع قضية استيطان اليهود الأوروبيين في فلسطين والريادة الأمريكية للقضية مع إدارة ترومان التي سعت لكسب دعم التصويت اليهودي. يصف الكتاب محاولات الإنقلابات المتاتلية في سوريا بدعم تارة بريطاني وتارة أمريكي وتارة سعودي حسب تقلب القوى السياسية في البلد ونهاية المطاف بقيام الجمهورية العربية المتحدة. وينتهي الكتاب بالحرب الأهلية في اليمن ومحاولة بريطانيا دعم الموالين للمملكة المتوكلية سرا بالسلاح والتدريب، ثم قرارها التخلي عن عدن ضد رغبة الأمريكيين.
الفكرة الأساسية للكتاب هي أن بريطانيا أنهت الحرب العالمية الثانية مفلسة لذلك حاولت تسليم السيادة في الشرق الأوسط لحكام موالين لها مقابل الإبقاء على أكبر ما يمكن من الدول في منطقة نفوذ الجنيه الإسترليني. في هذا الإطار ييبين الكاتب تعاون الدولتين في إيران لتثبيت حكم الشاه وإقصاء رئيس الوزراء مصدق. يتعرض الكتاب لتنافس استخبارات الدولتين في حرب الرشاوي والضغوط الديبلوماسية بين شركة النفط الأنجلو-إيرانية و آرامكو للسيطرة على نفط السعودية. ثم يبرز إزدراء الملك عبد العزيز للملوك الهاشميين و سعيه لإسقاطهم بنفوذه على الدولة السورية الفتية كاشفا عن دور الأمريكيين والبريطانيين في دعم كل طرف. يفسر الكاتب أيضا تعقيدات مفاوضات الجلاء من السويس مع بريطانيا وتمويل السد العالي مع أمريكا، وأثر قرار تأميم القناة على الدعم الذي كان يحضى به عبد الناصر وعلى التخطيط للعدوان الثلاثي بين الفرنسيين والإسرائيليين. يتطرق الكتاب أيضا إلى دور الاستخبارات البريطانية في منع سيطرة آل سعود على واحة البريمي التي تنازعت عليها مع عمان وأبوظبي وفي تشجيع السلطان قابوس على الإنقلاب على والده.
مرة أخرى ينجح جايمس بار في رواية التاريخ من زاوية جديدة وبأسلوب يشد القارئ ويثير فضوله. فالكتاب يتعدى السرد التاريخي للأحداث ويتميز بدراسته للمراسلات الشخصية التي تعكس الحالة النفسية للاعبين الرئيسيين. إنه لمثير للإهتمام مثلا كيف لعب الهوس المرضي دورا في إصرار رئيس الوزراء البريطاني إيدن على الإطاحة بعبد الناصر، أو كيف أثر الوهن الجسدي في رئيس الوزراء تشرشل في فترة حكمه الثانية وأفقده احترام الرؤساء الأمريكيين الذين توقفوا عن معاملة البريطانيين كحليف بنفس الوزن. خلافا للتوازن في السرد بين الجانب الفرنسي والبريطاني في كتابه السابق، قد يعاب على جايمس بار هذه المرة هو تقصيره في دراسة منظومة أخذ القرار في السياسة الأمريكية وتركيزه بشكل مفرط على المصادر البريطانية.
September 13, 2018
If you want to understand the history of the Middle East in the context of the political and economic strategy of the superpowers - one declining and one gaining influence - this is a superb read.
The author makes everything that has happened in this region including coups, military takeovers, economic deception, the rise of puppet governments and their downfall understandable: even logical.
The author makes everything that has happened in this region including coups, military takeovers, economic deception, the rise of puppet governments and their downfall understandable: even logical.
October 24, 2023
A few years ago, i read James Barr's "A Line in the Sand", a book that shook me a bit due to my lack of knowledge of modern middle eastern history.
"Lords of the Desert" is surprising too. Quite dense, but never boring. The author is an excellent storyteller for sure.
The contents of this book are nothing you learn in your standard history class and surely a good supplement for a trip to Arabia or the Gulf.
I can also recommend the book if you want to gather deeper insights into the creation of the current geopolitical climate of the middle east.
"Lords of the Desert" is surprising too. Quite dense, but never boring. The author is an excellent storyteller for sure.
The contents of this book are nothing you learn in your standard history class and surely a good supplement for a trip to Arabia or the Gulf.
I can also recommend the book if you want to gather deeper insights into the creation of the current geopolitical climate of the middle east.
October 29, 2025
This book is a sequel to the magistral "A line in the sand", but now with a focus on the rivalry between Britain and the US rather than France. Like the previous book, it contains several facts that were completely knew to me (you'll never guess what was the trigger for the US to start providing military aid to Israel). The key difference is that I think that most ugly stories (the coup against Mossadecq, the Suez Crisis) are already well known. Still very good, but not baffling.
May 24, 2023
The efforts to condense many countries’ histories over a couple of decades made it difficult to follow. Main take away: many coups.
July 8, 2019
Generally speaking, history’s not really my thing, but I found this to be a genuinely interesting, illuminating and incredibly well-researched read. It’s strange to think that Britain and the USA haven’t always been the closest of friends, and it’s a side of history rarely touched on, but as Barr highlights, the two nations were apparently at each other’s throats and going behind each other’s backs constantly during the 20th century, and by the end of WWII, Churchill and Roosevelt couldn’t stand the sight of each other.
Most of these clashes came about over foreign policy, specifically in the Middle East. Initially, it was America’s objection to the continued existence of the British Empire that sparked these arguments, as American visitors to the Middle East had observed the miserable conditions that most of the natives of countries like Egypt lived in under colonial rule, and a lot of their foreign aid during this period was given with the explicit aim of bringing an end to Britain’s reign.
However, America soon pulled a Harvey Dent and became the very villain it sought to destroy. They made the magical discovery that there’s actually quite a lot of oil in the Middle East, and, like Britain, they too would very much like to benefit from this. Much of the book outlines the various regimes violently overthrown and ruthless despots installed across the region during the 50s/60s by Britain and the US as they battled for primary access to Saudi and Iranian oil reserves, with little to no regard for the welfare of the people.
Although a little dense and difficult to follow in places (which is forgivable given the complexity of the subject), Barr’s book is generally very insightful and well-explained, giving a broad look at the various landmark conflicts and events that have shaped the Middle East as we know it today (I finally understand what the Suez crisis was!) It’s also refreshingly neutral in its discussion of the subject, reporting on the facts without any obvious bias - so many British historians tend to fall foul to a nostalgic glamorisation of the British Empire in their work *cough*Niall Ferguson*cough*, but Barr happily (and correctly) avoids this.
You can ultimately surmise from Lords of the Desert that pretty much every single issue currently plaguing the Middle East is the direct consequence of decades of catastrophic foreign policy on the part of the US and the UK, and how their supposed efforts to bring peace have instead totally destabilised the entire region. It’s actually kinda depressing to see how little has been learned during that time and the complete lack of progress that has been made in situations like the Israel/Palestine conflict and the Saudis’ assault on Yemen. I’d definitely recommend this book to anyone looking to better understand the current situation in the Middle East, as it provides an excellent backdrop to modern day events that explains how these issues first began and how they’ve evolved over time.
Most of these clashes came about over foreign policy, specifically in the Middle East. Initially, it was America’s objection to the continued existence of the British Empire that sparked these arguments, as American visitors to the Middle East had observed the miserable conditions that most of the natives of countries like Egypt lived in under colonial rule, and a lot of their foreign aid during this period was given with the explicit aim of bringing an end to Britain’s reign.
However, America soon pulled a Harvey Dent and became the very villain it sought to destroy. They made the magical discovery that there’s actually quite a lot of oil in the Middle East, and, like Britain, they too would very much like to benefit from this. Much of the book outlines the various regimes violently overthrown and ruthless despots installed across the region during the 50s/60s by Britain and the US as they battled for primary access to Saudi and Iranian oil reserves, with little to no regard for the welfare of the people.
Although a little dense and difficult to follow in places (which is forgivable given the complexity of the subject), Barr’s book is generally very insightful and well-explained, giving a broad look at the various landmark conflicts and events that have shaped the Middle East as we know it today (I finally understand what the Suez crisis was!) It’s also refreshingly neutral in its discussion of the subject, reporting on the facts without any obvious bias - so many British historians tend to fall foul to a nostalgic glamorisation of the British Empire in their work *cough*Niall Ferguson*cough*, but Barr happily (and correctly) avoids this.
You can ultimately surmise from Lords of the Desert that pretty much every single issue currently plaguing the Middle East is the direct consequence of decades of catastrophic foreign policy on the part of the US and the UK, and how their supposed efforts to bring peace have instead totally destabilised the entire region. It’s actually kinda depressing to see how little has been learned during that time and the complete lack of progress that has been made in situations like the Israel/Palestine conflict and the Saudis’ assault on Yemen. I’d definitely recommend this book to anyone looking to better understand the current situation in the Middle East, as it provides an excellent backdrop to modern day events that explains how these issues first began and how they’ve evolved over time.
March 25, 2025
أقتبس من العظيم تشوان لايّ مقولته لهيكل في جنازة جمال عبد الناصر: "أيةُ جريمةٍ هذه في حق أمتكم؟ سمحتم لهذا الرجل أن يموت في الخمسين من عمره!"
September 21, 2018
*I received an electronic galley from netgalley.com in exchange for a review*
Lords of the Desert may be a hard book for a modern American audience considering that the United States and Great Britain have been fast international allies for centuries. But Lords of the Desert chronicles the thirty years of Middle Eastern relations between the United States and Great Britain from the late 1940s to the 1970s. Sometimes, the countries collaborated, sometimes they broke with each other, and occasionally they appear to have sabotaged each other. What could account for such a complicated relationship?
Great Britain was the greatest empire modern times had ever seen, but war had exhausted and bankrupted it. The United States viewed itself as the new global power following WW2 victory and sought to use that influence. It turns out that empire does not yield to rational human thought, which led to a tug of war of sorts between a Great Britain desperate to retain something of empire and their place in global affairs and the United States who had their own version of the Middle East that didn’t always square with their British “friends.”
It’s an action packed narrative that belongs in the library of any individual who wants to know how the Middle East became what it is today.
Lords of the Desert may be a hard book for a modern American audience considering that the United States and Great Britain have been fast international allies for centuries. But Lords of the Desert chronicles the thirty years of Middle Eastern relations between the United States and Great Britain from the late 1940s to the 1970s. Sometimes, the countries collaborated, sometimes they broke with each other, and occasionally they appear to have sabotaged each other. What could account for such a complicated relationship?
Great Britain was the greatest empire modern times had ever seen, but war had exhausted and bankrupted it. The United States viewed itself as the new global power following WW2 victory and sought to use that influence. It turns out that empire does not yield to rational human thought, which led to a tug of war of sorts between a Great Britain desperate to retain something of empire and their place in global affairs and the United States who had their own version of the Middle East that didn’t always square with their British “friends.”
It’s an action packed narrative that belongs in the library of any individual who wants to know how the Middle East became what it is today.
November 15, 2018
I just finished reading James Barr’s book Lords of the desert, I have to say I was both informed and entertained by the blend of research and creative storytelling that this books embraces, a lot of unknown history lays between these pages.
The secrets of Egypt’s 1952 coup d’etat that toppled the monarchy, 1953 US-British coup on Iran’s Mossadegh, the British’s seller’s remorse on the Balfour declaration, the 1956 nationalisation of the Suez Canal and what followed it.
The war of coups in Syria and Iraq, the war of oil between Aramco and Anglo-Iranian, the war of monarchs between the Sauds and the Hashemites. How the decision making in London was affected by wishful thinking on some occasions, misinformation on another.
There are much to discuss about the book, which I’ll leave for a review I’m planning to write soon. Now, there’s a problem with some terminologies, for example describing Egypt’s Nasser and Iraq’s Abdulkarim Qassem as prime ministers of their countries.
I thought i was going to know more on the disputes between the Gulf states and Iran, especially the three islands and Bahrain, given the British connection to this issue.
The secrets of Egypt’s 1952 coup d’etat that toppled the monarchy, 1953 US-British coup on Iran’s Mossadegh, the British’s seller’s remorse on the Balfour declaration, the 1956 nationalisation of the Suez Canal and what followed it.
The war of coups in Syria and Iraq, the war of oil between Aramco and Anglo-Iranian, the war of monarchs between the Sauds and the Hashemites. How the decision making in London was affected by wishful thinking on some occasions, misinformation on another.
There are much to discuss about the book, which I’ll leave for a review I’m planning to write soon. Now, there’s a problem with some terminologies, for example describing Egypt’s Nasser and Iraq’s Abdulkarim Qassem as prime ministers of their countries.
I thought i was going to know more on the disputes between the Gulf states and Iran, especially the three islands and Bahrain, given the British connection to this issue.
January 20, 2019
Another wonderful book from James Barr; brilliantly researched and written in a style that is best described as "gripping". If you think you have gaps in your knowledge of what went on in the Middle East between WWII and the 60s, this is the book you've been looking for!
Favourite passage (p322), in the chapter describing the British pull-out from Aden: "What terrorism the authorities had seen so far in Aden had been notable for its incompetence. One rebel had blown his own feet off when he pulled the pin from his grenade only to hurl it, and not the bomb, at his target."
Most telling passage (p329) from former British defence secretary Denis Healey writing of events in 1965: "The United States, after trying for thirty years to get Britain out of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, was now trying desperately to keep us in; during the Vietnam war it did not want to be the only country killing coloured people on the own soil."
Mr. Barr - any chance you're doing a book tour to Canada?
Favourite passage (p322), in the chapter describing the British pull-out from Aden: "What terrorism the authorities had seen so far in Aden had been notable for its incompetence. One rebel had blown his own feet off when he pulled the pin from his grenade only to hurl it, and not the bomb, at his target."
Most telling passage (p329) from former British defence secretary Denis Healey writing of events in 1965: "The United States, after trying for thirty years to get Britain out of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, was now trying desperately to keep us in; during the Vietnam war it did not want to be the only country killing coloured people on the own soil."
Mr. Barr - any chance you're doing a book tour to Canada?
November 5, 2023
'Lords of the desert' is the second book by James Barr that I've read. And while the first one, 'Line in the sand' is probably one of the best history books that I've ever read, this one was a bit dissapointing.
Mostly, in my opion, because he tries to tell to much in to little time. Either the book should have been 4 times longer, or he should have cut back on subjects. Probably a focus on Egypt, Saudi Arabia and a finish with Aden would have been more straight forward. Now you're left breathless as a reader by all the agents, kings, politicians, sheiks, imams, spies and other minor players who made up this very complex period of regional history. This makes it very hard to grasp the bigger picture.
Although you can not miss the point that a lot of the Middle East troubles (and thereby World problems) have their roots in the misguided decisions of the responsible politicians, military men and bureacrats in those days.
Mostly, in my opion, because he tries to tell to much in to little time. Either the book should have been 4 times longer, or he should have cut back on subjects. Probably a focus on Egypt, Saudi Arabia and a finish with Aden would have been more straight forward. Now you're left breathless as a reader by all the agents, kings, politicians, sheiks, imams, spies and other minor players who made up this very complex period of regional history. This makes it very hard to grasp the bigger picture.
Although you can not miss the point that a lot of the Middle East troubles (and thereby World problems) have their roots in the misguided decisions of the responsible politicians, military men and bureacrats in those days.
September 29, 2020
At times I enjoyed this book, it charted the troubled relationships in the region. However, it also read like a long list of names, places and events never quite reaching a full or interesting analysis of the US vs. British relationship in the region.
It follows a slightly great man approach to history, based around the deeds of important men rather than broader trends. We see at times the influence of Jewish voters in the US, and political scandals in the UK to name a couple of examples.
I can't help feeling this book would be better if it was done by topic rather than chronology, but it still has a lot of value. It shows the start point of a post-colonial history that was disturbed by Western (and Soviet) geo-political maneuvering. If Bush and Blair thought the Middle East was a quagmire of evil they only needed to look at their own countries histories in the region to understand how these dictators kept coming to power.
It follows a slightly great man approach to history, based around the deeds of important men rather than broader trends. We see at times the influence of Jewish voters in the US, and political scandals in the UK to name a couple of examples.
I can't help feeling this book would be better if it was done by topic rather than chronology, but it still has a lot of value. It shows the start point of a post-colonial history that was disturbed by Western (and Soviet) geo-political maneuvering. If Bush and Blair thought the Middle East was a quagmire of evil they only needed to look at their own countries histories in the region to understand how these dictators kept coming to power.
January 18, 2024
كتاب مُدهش !
لكل من يريد أن يعي و يفهم سياسة بريطانيا و الولايات المتحدة في الشرق الأوسط فليقرأ هذا الكتاب .
كل الأحداث التي مرت على شبه الجزيرة العربية كانت تُحركها و تلعب بها < إذا لم تكن هي السبب في حدوثها > بريطانيا وبدعم من الولايات المتحدة .
حقائق مثيرة أحياناً ، صادمة كثيراً ، مُخيبة للآمال في معظمها.
وسيبقى الشرق الأوسط محط الأنظار و مطمع للغرب و مسرح للصراع بين القوى الاستعمارية الناهبة للثروات و اللاهثة خلف مصالحها و مطامعها على حساب حرمان واضطهاد الشعوب .
هي حقبة صراع طويلة نخرج منها بحقيقة البقاء للأقوى ! و للأدهى!
* قرأت لنفس الكاتب: الصحراء تشتعل
و أتمنى قراءة خط في الرمال
جايمس بار ، مؤرخ و كاتب عظيم 👍🏻
لكل من يريد أن يعي و يفهم سياسة بريطانيا و الولايات المتحدة في الشرق الأوسط فليقرأ هذا الكتاب .
كل الأحداث التي مرت على شبه الجزيرة العربية كانت تُحركها و تلعب بها < إذا لم تكن هي السبب في حدوثها > بريطانيا وبدعم من الولايات المتحدة .
حقائق مثيرة أحياناً ، صادمة كثيراً ، مُخيبة للآمال في معظمها.
وسيبقى الشرق الأوسط محط الأنظار و مطمع للغرب و مسرح للصراع بين القوى الاستعمارية الناهبة للثروات و اللاهثة خلف مصالحها و مطامعها على حساب حرمان واضطهاد الشعوب .
هي حقبة صراع طويلة نخرج منها بحقيقة البقاء للأقوى ! و للأدهى!
* قرأت لنفس الكاتب: الصحراء تشتعل
و أتمنى قراءة خط في الرمال
جايمس بار ، مؤرخ و كاتب عظيم 👍🏻
May 7, 2020
Another excellent trip through (fairly) recent history where you'll find a lot of what you thought you knew turned on it's head. On the one hand, James Barr clinically illustrates why there really is no such thing as the Special Relationship with the US, and on the other he illustrates the lengths Britain went to in order to try to retain some sense of international power and influence without thought for the consequences for those with the most to lose and the least influence over it. Highly recommended
July 29, 2019
Perfect primer for anyone interested in the UK and the US’s post-war struggle for control of the Middle East. Full of double-crosses, broken promises and shady deals, no one comes out of this very well. Covering the aftermath of WWII, Suez up to the British withdrawal from Aden in 1967, you can see how much of the region’s current problems can be attributed to its treatment at the hands of one fading world power and one growing one.
September 15, 2023
This book is an object lesson in how governments lie, cheat, steal, murder, and dissemble in secret to get what they want. In this case it was within the competition between Britain and the United States for influence and oil in the Middle East. The struggle begins coming out of WWI, into and through WWII, and going on into the Vietnam Era when the British Empire finally collapsed after being forced out of its protectorate, Aden.
This book, written by a Brit, expounds on the inexorable decline of colonial era Great Britain across several fronts. There is an account here of how Zionist terrorists managed to defeat the occupying British forces in the process of the founding of Israel, including the murder of many British officials and soldiers in the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. You get an eye-popping tale about how the American CIA and the British MI6 manipulated and overthrew governments and rulers using money, propaganda and bullets. The toppling of the government of the popularly elected Mohammad Mosaddeq in Iran in 1953 is of particular interest as it set in motion a toxic relationship with Iran that is still running.
You are treated to how the British UN Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan ended badly, how it got pushed out of Egypt, Suez, and Yemen by Abdul Nassar, and frozen out of the oil concessions in Iran--you might be forgiven if you were cheering this on. You also get an inside look at the economic and political fragility of Great Britain as its Empire crumbled around its feet. Its desperation to save the English pound and protect its national income and prestige is palpable. Of course, the weakening of the Empire began as early as the conclusion World War I and continued into the period covered in this book.
This account is exhaustive in its detail, and it is supported by a lengthy biography. Such witty snark among diplomats and politicians is always fun to read, but it takes some serious effort to get through this lengthy and dense book. This story fills a niche in the history of the development of the modern Middle East, and it makes plain the inherent flaws in the organization and performance of early Arab society. Kings, rulers, ministers, and tribal leaders come across as flakey and selfish. No surprise there, as this is still quite obvious decades later.
If you have a yen for observing how government officials behave when you are not looking, you should read this fascinating book. If you have a shelf on Middle Eastern history this book should find a good place there.
This book, written by a Brit, expounds on the inexorable decline of colonial era Great Britain across several fronts. There is an account here of how Zionist terrorists managed to defeat the occupying British forces in the process of the founding of Israel, including the murder of many British officials and soldiers in the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. You get an eye-popping tale about how the American CIA and the British MI6 manipulated and overthrew governments and rulers using money, propaganda and bullets. The toppling of the government of the popularly elected Mohammad Mosaddeq in Iran in 1953 is of particular interest as it set in motion a toxic relationship with Iran that is still running.
You are treated to how the British UN Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan ended badly, how it got pushed out of Egypt, Suez, and Yemen by Abdul Nassar, and frozen out of the oil concessions in Iran--you might be forgiven if you were cheering this on. You also get an inside look at the economic and political fragility of Great Britain as its Empire crumbled around its feet. Its desperation to save the English pound and protect its national income and prestige is palpable. Of course, the weakening of the Empire began as early as the conclusion World War I and continued into the period covered in this book.
This account is exhaustive in its detail, and it is supported by a lengthy biography. Such witty snark among diplomats and politicians is always fun to read, but it takes some serious effort to get through this lengthy and dense book. This story fills a niche in the history of the development of the modern Middle East, and it makes plain the inherent flaws in the organization and performance of early Arab society. Kings, rulers, ministers, and tribal leaders come across as flakey and selfish. No surprise there, as this is still quite obvious decades later.
If you have a yen for observing how government officials behave when you are not looking, you should read this fascinating book. If you have a shelf on Middle Eastern history this book should find a good place there.
November 25, 2020
Mr Barr has the quality of being able to find the most outrageous anecdotal incidences that led to an event coming to pass. It is this which makes reading his histories so enjoyable—not only is one able to thoroughly appreciate how so much of today’s world has come about through petty chance, but the journey is also most intriguing.
The subject is the Middle East and the time is post-World War II and leading into the 1970’s. Iran’s revolution against Mosaddegh is covered in good detail as is the Israeli terror leading up to the creation of their state. Nasser’s Egypt and Syria are similarly in the forefront, while Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states bring up the rear. The players are the United Kingdom and the United States whose spy divisions meted it out against each other in this desert environment.
The book is intended as a sequel to Mr Barr’s treatise on the Sykes–Picot Agreement, ‘A Line in the Sand’, and its consequences which I read some time ago. The book is as well researched as its prequel, but the tone is slightly better—reading through my thoughts of the previous one, I think I was slightly overwhelmed by it, and possibly undercut by my lacking understanding of domestic politics of the United Kingdom and France in that time.
Though the scope of this book is the Anglo–American rivalry in the Middle East—including occasional temporary alliances in a maze of shifting self-interest—there are jumps to domestic politics. This is natural as the foreign policy of a state will be affected by its domestic ongoings. Yet, those domestic changes are not detailed in too much detail with emphasis on action in the Middle East. It is therefore very useful to have some knowledge of the domestic politics of the US and the UK between Truman and Johnson or Churchill and Wilson. The author’s tangents were generally more detailed for the Americans.
Overall, a very strong recommend from me for a book that really accomplishes its goals to show how the Middle East has become what it has become.
This review was originally posted on my blog.
The subject is the Middle East and the time is post-World War II and leading into the 1970’s. Iran’s revolution against Mosaddegh is covered in good detail as is the Israeli terror leading up to the creation of their state. Nasser’s Egypt and Syria are similarly in the forefront, while Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states bring up the rear. The players are the United Kingdom and the United States whose spy divisions meted it out against each other in this desert environment.
The book is intended as a sequel to Mr Barr’s treatise on the Sykes–Picot Agreement, ‘A Line in the Sand’, and its consequences which I read some time ago. The book is as well researched as its prequel, but the tone is slightly better—reading through my thoughts of the previous one, I think I was slightly overwhelmed by it, and possibly undercut by my lacking understanding of domestic politics of the United Kingdom and France in that time.
Though the scope of this book is the Anglo–American rivalry in the Middle East—including occasional temporary alliances in a maze of shifting self-interest—there are jumps to domestic politics. This is natural as the foreign policy of a state will be affected by its domestic ongoings. Yet, those domestic changes are not detailed in too much detail with emphasis on action in the Middle East. It is therefore very useful to have some knowledge of the domestic politics of the US and the UK between Truman and Johnson or Churchill and Wilson. The author’s tangents were generally more detailed for the Americans.
Overall, a very strong recommend from me for a book that really accomplishes its goals to show how the Middle East has become what it has become.
This review was originally posted on my blog.
July 23, 2024
Aunque en el título se hable de la competición del Reino Unido y EEUU por dominar Oriente Medio, en realidad es más una crónica de la salida de los ingleses de la zona. Por supuesto que los EEUU tienen un papel relevante, acomodándose a su papel de gran potencia, pero el tema central del libro es como el Imperio Británico va perdiendo su posición de poder en la zona, hasta evacuarla completamente, en los aproximadamente veinte años que van desde el final de la II Guerra Mundial hasta finales de los años sesenta.
Asistimos a la progresiva decadencia de un Imperio que no quiere dejar de serlo, que se autoengaña pensando que todavía puede hablar de tú a tú a la nueva gran potencia, aferrándose como puede a su influencia sobre una zona que empieza a desplegar su riqueza petrolífera. Hay intrigas políticas, enemistades regionales y un puñado de golpes de estado orquestados bien desde Londres, bien desde Washington o en colaboración entre las dos capitales.
Asistimos a la progresiva decadencia de un Imperio que no quiere dejar de serlo, que se autoengaña pensando que todavía puede hablar de tú a tú a la nueva gran potencia, aferrándose como puede a su influencia sobre una zona que empieza a desplegar su riqueza petrolífera. Hay intrigas políticas, enemistades regionales y un puñado de golpes de estado orquestados bien desde Londres, bien desde Washington o en colaboración entre las dos capitales.
January 5, 2021
Oh, dear. What a way to shape my first week of 2021. I am so sorry for this negative review but I really did not like this book.
I can't even begin to explain why I disliked this book so profoundly. It was too convoluted, too complicated, and from a far too Western and Eurocentric perspective.
I like "A Line in the Sand" thoroughly (ignoring its Eurocentricism), so I had high expectations for this book. Unfortuately that was not the case.
The analysis was somehow simultaneously both too macro and micro, and I don't understand how.
It was not a good analysis like "The Silk Roads", which was a profound insight into the likes of Saddam Hussein.
Because I don't want to indulge in negativity I will leave the review here. However, a note for the author: less is more.
I can't even begin to explain why I disliked this book so profoundly. It was too convoluted, too complicated, and from a far too Western and Eurocentric perspective.
I like "A Line in the Sand" thoroughly (ignoring its Eurocentricism), so I had high expectations for this book. Unfortuately that was not the case.
The analysis was somehow simultaneously both too macro and micro, and I don't understand how.
It was not a good analysis like "The Silk Roads", which was a profound insight into the likes of Saddam Hussein.
Because I don't want to indulge in negativity I will leave the review here. However, a note for the author: less is more.
August 5, 2021
I read this book after Lines in the Sand by the same author. It is a historical account of the Anglo-American struggle for oil and political dominance. I found it an interesting read as it exposes the "special relationship" for what it really is - a bond of self interest. There are plenty of interesting anecdotes and lots of colourful characters. At times it's hard to believe it is not a manuscript for a Bond film. At the end, I felt a hint of sadness. Imagine what the people in this region would have achieved if their governments were not satellite states for the big powers. Ultimately it is always the poor citizens who suffer from this game of nations.
September 22, 2021
Magnificent, Eye-opening, intriguing
the book is well researched, with a great explanation, in a way that takes you in to place of the discussion and feel as if you were part in that situations.
the book talks about certain events, hence if you don't know much about middle east it may not be the best book to start with. (you will change your mind about certain leaders or political movements !!)
most probably gonna read the writer other books. "the books deserves a 2nd read TBH"
the book is well researched, with a great explanation, in a way that takes you in to place of the discussion and feel as if you were part in that situations.
the book talks about certain events, hence if you don't know much about middle east it may not be the best book to start with. (you will change your mind about certain leaders or political movements !!)
most probably gonna read the writer other books. "the books deserves a 2nd read TBH"
July 22, 2025
A masterful work again by James Barr, this time on the intricacies of British and U.S. policy in the Middle East from the 40's to the 70's, and how so many times theirs was in direct contradiction to the other.
June 7, 2021
Very detailed book about why the region is such a mess. Told in an objective way about how America, Britain, France and others meddle in the Middle East in the period after the second world war.
May 24, 2022
Coming from the "A line in the sand" James Barr is a very intelligent author, knows how to link the events.
August 23, 2020
Very heavy on detail, I found this to be quite dull and repetitive in places, although my dislike for anything post-1600 may have contributed to that opinion. 😂
Displaying 1 - 30 of 117 reviews