What do you think?
Rate this book
Empire of Sand: How Britain Made the Middle East
At the end of the First World War the modern Middle East was created by Britain and France, who carved up the old Ottoman possessions with scant regard for the wishes of those who lived there. Frontiers were devised and alien dynasties imposed on the populations as arbitrarily as in mediaeval times. It was destined from the outset to failure. Promises had been made to the Arabs during the War, but were not honoured, and brief hopes for Arab unity were dashed, leading to a bitter belief in western perfidy that persists to the present day. Britain was quick to see the riches promised by the black pools of oil that lay on the ground around Baghdad, and when France too grasped their importance, bitter differences opened up between the two allies, and the areas became a focus of a return to the traditional enmity between them.
606 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 1, 2011
91 people are currently reading
235 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
June 22, 2021
In this book, the author, Mr. Reid, reviews the history of Britain’s involvement in the Middle East, bookended by World War I and Israel’s Independence War. Over this time period, the following events happened:
• The Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers in the war against the Entente Powers.
• British forces from India overran Mesopotamia, albeit with some initial failures.
• Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot agreement in which France was promised a zone of influence in Syria that extended to Mosul in return for their lack of opposition to British conquests in the Middle East.
• Britain engaged in communication with the Saud and Hashemite clans, promising them kingdoms in return for their support for British military operations against Ottoman territory.
• Britain issued the Balfour declaration, making support for a Jewish homeland official government policy.
• British forces and their Arab allies separated the modern states of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Iraq from the Ottoman Empire and ended Ottoman influence over the Arabian Peninsula.
• After the Central Powers sued for peace, the victors assembled to negotiate the terms to be imposed on the defeated powers and to resolve the tangled mess of competing promises made in return for support in the war, with Britain taking a minimalist position on its commitments and the French and Arabs taking a maximalist position.
• The French were given Syria, which at the time included Lebanon, as a zone of influence. They had given up their claim to Mosul in hopes of more gains elsewhere. Given their past involvement in the Levant as far back as the Crusades, they wanted control of Palestine.
• The house of Saud managed to resolve its rivalry with the Hashemites by means of overwhelming force and laid claimed to what is now Saudi Arabia.
• Britain was given mandates over Mesopotamia and Palestine by the League of Nations.
• Britain formed Iraq from three Mesopotamian provinces (a Sunni Arab area, a Shiite Arab area and a Kurd area) and installed Faisal, a Hashemite, as king over it.
• Britain separated the Transjordan from Palestine and installed Abdullah, another Hashemite, as king over it.
• Britain oversaw Jewish immigration into Palestine, with a strong uptick after German Chancellor Hitler imposed anti-Jewish laws. As the Jewish population of Palestine increased and Jews purchased more and more land, Arab opposition to the Jews increased, as well, sometimes erupting in violence and prompting the Jews to form their own self-defense forces that engaged in reprisals. In an effort to contain the unrest, Britain began to restrict Jewish immigration, prompting the Jews to increasingly see the British as the enemy.
• Bankrupt from World War II and unable to contain the Jewish and Arab unrest, Britain decided to hand Palestine over to the United Nations and make it their problem. The U.N. chose to pursue a policy of partition in which the Jews would control part of Palestine, the Arabs would control another part, and the U.N. would control the holy sites in Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
• When the British withdrew from Palestine, several Arab armies advanced on Palestine to pursue a war of annihilation against the Jews. When the dust settled, the Jews had defeated the Arabs, retained almost all the Jewish areas and controlled much of the Arab areas of Palestine. The modern state of Israel had been born.
Britain has received a lot of criticism over the years for its actions, some of it focusing on decision quality and some of it accusing the British government of duplicity regarding the promises made to the French and Arabs. For example, the French felt that Sykes-Picot entitled them to Palestine, and the Arabs felt that Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration undercut the promises made to them. Regarding the perceived duplicity, the resultant tensions had consequences, one of the greatest of which being a rupture between Britain and France that undermined the united front that was needed to contain the rise of NSDAP Germany. However, Mr. Reid also pointed out that Middle East policy was being formulated in London, Cairo and India all at the same time by government agents with rivalries and competing priorities, government agents who didn’t always communicate with each other. Before the advent of modern communications technology, British protectorates such as India and Egypt had their own governments that operated independently of London. There was no other way to make the prompt decisions necessary to maintain order in a distant territory. This factor, along with the exigencies of war, contributed to the conflicting promises. I am reminded of a scene from the movie Apollo 13. The CO2 scrubbers for the different modules had been designed by different outfits, and their filters differed in geometry, such that they were not interchangeable. When the Mission Director, Gene Krantz, was informed of this, he commented in frustration, “Tell me this isn’t a government project.” Well, tell me that the British conquest of the Middle East wasn’t a government project. That said, Mr. Reid noted and criticized some instances of what he considered duplicity, especially Britain’s efforts not to honor its Sykes-Picot commitments to France.
Regarding Mr. Reid’s evaluation of British decision quality and the results of British policy in the Middle East, I saw an effort to be a fair judge. When events don’t end well, people often conclude uncritically that someone did something wrong. That is always an option that should be considered, but there are often factors beyond the control of those being critiqued. Furthermore, while it is appropriate to consider potential outcomes of a decision, not all outcomes can be anticipated. Consider the following issues the British faced:
1. At the time the British were in communication with Arab leaders the Arab nationalist movement had yet to form. The Arabs weren’t inclined to pursue a common identity. On account of this, the British weren’t expecting the Arabs to want self-rule. For the most part, the Arab nationalist movement was inspired by President Wilson’s idea of self-determination, and even he was surprised at the number of nationalist movements it spawned.
2. The three regions from which Iraq was formed had nothing to unify them, and King Faisal, whom the British placed over Iraq, wasn’t a great choice, especially given that he had no ties to Iraq or its people. However, the British didn’t have other good options, either. There was no other candidate leader. Without an Arab leader for the mandate, they could have turned the land over to French control. Imagine the prospect of Vichy France controlling the oil fields of Mesopotamia during World War II. Or, they could have returned it to Turkey for an encore of the corrupt management previously practiced by the Turks. None of the alternatives could reasonably be expected to produce a good outcome. Britain’s choice may well have been worst one, except for all the others.
3. At the time Britain accepted the mandate over Palestine, it was expected that the Jews and Arabs would peacefully coexist, as they had done in Palestine for centuries. The British failed to anticipate that the Arabs would feel threatened by a growing Jewish population and that the Jews would ultimately want to control the land. Mr. Reid brought up this issue but let it slide. As noted above, the Arabs and Jews had coexisted peacefully for centuries. However, I have mixed feelings about the failure to anticipate trouble because the increasing numbers of colonists in the North America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had prompted armed resistance by the American Indians. Why wouldn’t immigration prompt some opposition among the indigenous population of Palestine? I think promoting a Jewish homeland in Palestine was the right thing to do, but the British failure to anticipate issues impresses me as a case of historical amnesia.
On the whole, I thought Mr. Reid was thorough and fair, and I enjoyed learning some of the history behind the perennial disfunction in the Middle East.
• The Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers in the war against the Entente Powers.
• British forces from India overran Mesopotamia, albeit with some initial failures.
• Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot agreement in which France was promised a zone of influence in Syria that extended to Mosul in return for their lack of opposition to British conquests in the Middle East.
• Britain engaged in communication with the Saud and Hashemite clans, promising them kingdoms in return for their support for British military operations against Ottoman territory.
• Britain issued the Balfour declaration, making support for a Jewish homeland official government policy.
• British forces and their Arab allies separated the modern states of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Iraq from the Ottoman Empire and ended Ottoman influence over the Arabian Peninsula.
• After the Central Powers sued for peace, the victors assembled to negotiate the terms to be imposed on the defeated powers and to resolve the tangled mess of competing promises made in return for support in the war, with Britain taking a minimalist position on its commitments and the French and Arabs taking a maximalist position.
• The French were given Syria, which at the time included Lebanon, as a zone of influence. They had given up their claim to Mosul in hopes of more gains elsewhere. Given their past involvement in the Levant as far back as the Crusades, they wanted control of Palestine.
• The house of Saud managed to resolve its rivalry with the Hashemites by means of overwhelming force and laid claimed to what is now Saudi Arabia.
• Britain was given mandates over Mesopotamia and Palestine by the League of Nations.
• Britain formed Iraq from three Mesopotamian provinces (a Sunni Arab area, a Shiite Arab area and a Kurd area) and installed Faisal, a Hashemite, as king over it.
• Britain separated the Transjordan from Palestine and installed Abdullah, another Hashemite, as king over it.
• Britain oversaw Jewish immigration into Palestine, with a strong uptick after German Chancellor Hitler imposed anti-Jewish laws. As the Jewish population of Palestine increased and Jews purchased more and more land, Arab opposition to the Jews increased, as well, sometimes erupting in violence and prompting the Jews to form their own self-defense forces that engaged in reprisals. In an effort to contain the unrest, Britain began to restrict Jewish immigration, prompting the Jews to increasingly see the British as the enemy.
• Bankrupt from World War II and unable to contain the Jewish and Arab unrest, Britain decided to hand Palestine over to the United Nations and make it their problem. The U.N. chose to pursue a policy of partition in which the Jews would control part of Palestine, the Arabs would control another part, and the U.N. would control the holy sites in Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
• When the British withdrew from Palestine, several Arab armies advanced on Palestine to pursue a war of annihilation against the Jews. When the dust settled, the Jews had defeated the Arabs, retained almost all the Jewish areas and controlled much of the Arab areas of Palestine. The modern state of Israel had been born.
Britain has received a lot of criticism over the years for its actions, some of it focusing on decision quality and some of it accusing the British government of duplicity regarding the promises made to the French and Arabs. For example, the French felt that Sykes-Picot entitled them to Palestine, and the Arabs felt that Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration undercut the promises made to them. Regarding the perceived duplicity, the resultant tensions had consequences, one of the greatest of which being a rupture between Britain and France that undermined the united front that was needed to contain the rise of NSDAP Germany. However, Mr. Reid also pointed out that Middle East policy was being formulated in London, Cairo and India all at the same time by government agents with rivalries and competing priorities, government agents who didn’t always communicate with each other. Before the advent of modern communications technology, British protectorates such as India and Egypt had their own governments that operated independently of London. There was no other way to make the prompt decisions necessary to maintain order in a distant territory. This factor, along with the exigencies of war, contributed to the conflicting promises. I am reminded of a scene from the movie Apollo 13. The CO2 scrubbers for the different modules had been designed by different outfits, and their filters differed in geometry, such that they were not interchangeable. When the Mission Director, Gene Krantz, was informed of this, he commented in frustration, “Tell me this isn’t a government project.” Well, tell me that the British conquest of the Middle East wasn’t a government project. That said, Mr. Reid noted and criticized some instances of what he considered duplicity, especially Britain’s efforts not to honor its Sykes-Picot commitments to France.
Regarding Mr. Reid’s evaluation of British decision quality and the results of British policy in the Middle East, I saw an effort to be a fair judge. When events don’t end well, people often conclude uncritically that someone did something wrong. That is always an option that should be considered, but there are often factors beyond the control of those being critiqued. Furthermore, while it is appropriate to consider potential outcomes of a decision, not all outcomes can be anticipated. Consider the following issues the British faced:
1. At the time the British were in communication with Arab leaders the Arab nationalist movement had yet to form. The Arabs weren’t inclined to pursue a common identity. On account of this, the British weren’t expecting the Arabs to want self-rule. For the most part, the Arab nationalist movement was inspired by President Wilson’s idea of self-determination, and even he was surprised at the number of nationalist movements it spawned.
2. The three regions from which Iraq was formed had nothing to unify them, and King Faisal, whom the British placed over Iraq, wasn’t a great choice, especially given that he had no ties to Iraq or its people. However, the British didn’t have other good options, either. There was no other candidate leader. Without an Arab leader for the mandate, they could have turned the land over to French control. Imagine the prospect of Vichy France controlling the oil fields of Mesopotamia during World War II. Or, they could have returned it to Turkey for an encore of the corrupt management previously practiced by the Turks. None of the alternatives could reasonably be expected to produce a good outcome. Britain’s choice may well have been worst one, except for all the others.
3. At the time Britain accepted the mandate over Palestine, it was expected that the Jews and Arabs would peacefully coexist, as they had done in Palestine for centuries. The British failed to anticipate that the Arabs would feel threatened by a growing Jewish population and that the Jews would ultimately want to control the land. Mr. Reid brought up this issue but let it slide. As noted above, the Arabs and Jews had coexisted peacefully for centuries. However, I have mixed feelings about the failure to anticipate trouble because the increasing numbers of colonists in the North America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had prompted armed resistance by the American Indians. Why wouldn’t immigration prompt some opposition among the indigenous population of Palestine? I think promoting a Jewish homeland in Palestine was the right thing to do, but the British failure to anticipate issues impresses me as a case of historical amnesia.
On the whole, I thought Mr. Reid was thorough and fair, and I enjoyed learning some of the history behind the perennial disfunction in the Middle East.
April 12, 2018
An essential and very calm telling of when Britain "accidentally" opened a third empire in Mesopotamia. I felt this book was invaluable given the time period and I learned quite a bit. From the mess of bureaucracies that surround this topic, Reid really cuts straight through it and makes it very exciting, from numerous Arab revolts to the build up of India's power that rivals Great Britain herself. Relevant to this day with the status of Kurds, borders of a safe Israel, and radical jihadist groups, defenitely give it a read if you're curious how the "modern" Middle East came to be.
October 2, 2018
Reading this was like trying to take a sip out of a fire hydrant. Reid pours dates, people, and rivers of political manipulations on his readers for a solid 353 pages without rest. Despite the overload and frenetic pace of the narrative, I found myself enjoying Reid's occasional ironic commentary on various characters paired with the parties' own thoughts on each other and the haphazard policies implemented in the Middle East. Reid is clearly biased in favor of the Brits, but he at least admits this and doesn't completely avoid criticizing some of his country's actions in this deeply complicated history.
July 15, 2017
Powerful Middle East Exposition
I learned much from the author's attempt to explain the relationship between Britain and this extraordinary part of the world. What a cast of characters were involved in the story! The final section deals with the mandate in Palestine. In the author's opinion Britain did its best, but was powerless - as was the United Nations - to prevent the emergence of a situation which defies all rationality and is a scar on the face of civilization.
I learned much from the author's attempt to explain the relationship between Britain and this extraordinary part of the world. What a cast of characters were involved in the story! The final section deals with the mandate in Palestine. In the author's opinion Britain did its best, but was powerless - as was the United Nations - to prevent the emergence of a situation which defies all rationality and is a scar on the face of civilization.
December 4, 2022
Too much blame deflection for the empire.
Read
August 31, 2025Contains a lot misinformation and myths at the very end of the book . Almost like someone edited the end of the book since it’s completely contrast thé content of the book . Some myths like the seven armies that attacked Israel during their independence ( where in fact this myth has been debunked by my scholar and historian like Ilan Pappe and Avi shlaim where some of these countries they didn’t even exist as independent not alone having army .
Another thing I noticed regarding how he framed the Hagana ethnic cleansing date in May which is KNOWN by everyone is False where everyone knows plan D started almost two months earlier than announcing the establishment.
Many words were chosen carefully to “ manufacture consent “ dehumanizing Arabs in the region and exclude Britain from the blame where they’re in fact is the reason of why what we see today .
Definitely the writer borrowed a word by word orientalist attitude and analysis ( read Edward Said orientalism ) in his conclusion .
Definitely worthy reading, but definitely need to be aware of many myths that were carefully imbedded in the content.
Another thing I noticed regarding how he framed the Hagana ethnic cleansing date in May which is KNOWN by everyone is False where everyone knows plan D started almost two months earlier than announcing the establishment.
Many words were chosen carefully to “ manufacture consent “ dehumanizing Arabs in the region and exclude Britain from the blame where they’re in fact is the reason of why what we see today .
Definitely the writer borrowed a word by word orientalist attitude and analysis ( read Edward Said orientalism ) in his conclusion .
Definitely worthy reading, but definitely need to be aware of many myths that were carefully imbedded in the content.
February 8, 2025
Walter Reid’s Empire of Sand is a fascinating and often infuriating look at Britain’s role in shaping the modern Middle East. He does a masterful job of showing how imperial ambition, arrogance, and short-sighted decision-making left a legacy of conflict that still lingers today. The book is rich with detail—sometimes overwhelmingly so—but Reid’s storytelling keeps it engaging. What struck me most was how familiar these political miscalculations feel, echoing mistakes repeated throughout history. If you’re interested in the messy realities of empire and its lasting consequences, this book is a must-read. It’s both eye-opening and, at times, deeply frustrating. I facepalmed myself multiple times when reading this erudite text.
October 17, 2025
Very important part of history for obvious reasons - often quite a boring book though: it's mostly forgotten Edwardian bureaucrats bickering over things through treaties and letters and white papers... some very interesting characters appear here and there however - Gertrude Bell in particular probably deserves more fame than T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia). Stunningly well researched, take nothing away, but can't quite give it a 5 star for the way it's written.
Many obvious mistakes were made in the late British Empire's often unplanned imperial acquisitions in the Middle East, but it makes an interesting case for why a lot of these were often forced errors.
Many obvious mistakes were made in the late British Empire's often unplanned imperial acquisitions in the Middle East, but it makes an interesting case for why a lot of these were often forced errors.
October 22, 2022
Very informative survey of the founding of the modern middle east. The author is quite fair to all sides and is content to state the facts about the mistakes that were made and not make them out to be part of an anti-Arab conspiracy. Britain tried to be an honest broker to both the Arabs and the Jews but in the end, facts on the ground overtook their capability to influence the course of events.
July 1, 2023
A sweeping account of how the British and French stepping into the vacuum created by the defeat of the Ottoman Empire at the turn of WW1 and where the ME went from there on. Intrigue, confusion, malintent, and so much more shaped the ME, particularly Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria into what they are today. The account is charitable towards the British, perhaps a bit too much, but is a good history of the region.
May 10, 2025
Lots of bits cover history I’m not educated in so I can’t comment about the accuracy/ historiography. However in terms of Palestine I think this book was awful, suggesting that the Palestinians were stubborn for not just accepting the Balfour declaration and to allow Palestine to become the national home for Jews, effectively signing away their rights to their homeland. It’s absurd and apologia for britains hand in the Middle East
April 9, 2022
Great Read
Great read, fascinating and illuminating. Britain’s loss of her great empire leaves her in 1948, unable to cope with the intractable problems of Palestine. At times necessarily glossing over great events, the author admirably guides the reader through the very complex issues of the Middle East, between the two world wars, and on, to 1948.
Great read, fascinating and illuminating. Britain’s loss of her great empire leaves her in 1948, unable to cope with the intractable problems of Palestine. At times necessarily glossing over great events, the author admirably guides the reader through the very complex issues of the Middle East, between the two world wars, and on, to 1948.
October 24, 2024
Very interesting. Did suggest, as I thought, that by 1948, Britain was in an impossible position....
December 6, 2024
If you really want to understand the Balfour declaration--I mean REALLY understand it--this right here is your book. Focuses on a short segment of time, but across a broad geographic area.
February 17, 2025
Conscientious and comprehensive. Well structured and documented.
September 29, 2025
Well written, full of fascinating characters, a strong point of view.
October 17, 2025
A fascinating book. A must have for anyone interested in either history or the contemporary Middle East.
October 22, 2025
Any “short” book covering such a turbulent and interesting period of history is going to struggle to find a balance between context and pacing. Reid managed this very well in my view.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews