{"id":55199,"date":"2026-04-07T06:14:33","date_gmt":"2026-04-07T06:14:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/55199\/"},"modified":"2026-04-07T06:14:33","modified_gmt":"2026-04-07T06:14:33","slug":"iraq-british-occupation-mandatory-regime","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/55199\/","title":{"rendered":"Iraq – British Occupation, Mandatory Regime"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Merging the three provinces of Mosul<\/a>, Baghdad<\/a>, and Basra<\/a> into one political entity and creating a nation out of the diverse<\/a> religious and ethnic elements inhabiting these lands were accomplished after World War I<\/a>. Action undertaken by the British military authorities during the war and the upsurge of nationalism<\/a> afterward helped determine the shape of the new Iraqi state and the course of events during the postwar years until Iraq finally emerged as an independent political entity in 1932.<\/p>\n

British control of Iraq, however, was short-lived. After the war Britain<\/a> debated both its general policy in Iraq and the specific type of administration to establish. Two schools of thought influenced policy makers in London<\/a>. The first, advocated by the Colonial Office, stressed a policy of direct control to protect British interests in the Persian Gulf<\/a> and India<\/a>. Assessing British policy from India, this school may be called the Indian school of thought. The other school, hoping to conciliate Arab<\/a> nationalists, advised indirect control. In Iraq itself British authorities were divided on the issue. Some, under the influence of Sir Arnold Wilson, the acting civil commissioner, advocated direct control; others, alarmed by growing dissatisfaction with the British administration, advised indirect control and suggested the establishment of an indigenous<\/a> regime under British supervision. Britain was still undecided on which policy it should follow in 1920 when events in other Arab countries radically changed conditions in Iraq.<\/p>\n

Early in 1920 the emir Faisal I<\/a>, son of the sharif Hussein ibn Ali<\/a> (then king of the Hejaz), who had led the Arab Revolt of 1916 against the Ottomans, established an Arab government in Damascus<\/a> and was proclaimed king of Syria. Meanwhile, a group of Iraqi nationalists met in Damascus to proclaim the emir Abdullah<\/a>, elder brother of Faisal, king of Iraq. Under the influence of nationalist activities in Syria<\/a>, nationalist agitation followed first in northern Iraq and then in the tribal areas of the middle Euphrates<\/a>. By the summer of 1920, the revolt had spread to all parts of the country<\/a> except the big cities of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra, where British forces were stationed.<\/p>\n

In July 1920 Fay\u1e63al came into conflict with the French authorities over control of Syria. France<\/a> had been given the mandate<\/a> over Syria and Lebanon<\/a> in April and was determined to obtain Fay\u1e63al\u2019s acceptance of the mandate<\/a>. Nationalists urged Fay\u1e63al to reject the French demands, and the conflict that ensued between him and the French resulted in his expulsion from Syria. Fay\u1e63al went to London to complain about the French action.<\/p>\n

Although the revolt in Iraq was suppressed by force, it prompted Iraq and Great Britain<\/a> to reconcile<\/a> their differences. In Britain a segment of public opinion<\/a> wanted to \u201cget out of Mesopotamia\u201d and urged relief from further commitments. In Iraq the nationalists were demanding independence. In 1921 Britain offered the Iraqi throne to Fay\u1e63al along with the establishment of an Arab government under British mandate. Fay\u1e63al wanted the throne if it was offered to him by the Iraqi people. He also suggested the replacement of the mandate by a treaty of alliance. These proposals were accepted by the British government, and Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill<\/a> promised to carry them out. He was advised by T.E. Lawrence<\/a>, known for his sympathy for the Arabs.<\/p>\n

In March 1921 a conference presided over by Churchill was held in Cairo to settle Middle Eastern affairs. Fay\u1e63al was nominated to the Iraqi throne with the provision that a plebiscite<\/a> be held to confirm the nomination. Sir Percy Cox<\/a>, recently appointed a high commissioner for Iraq, was responsible for carrying out the plebiscite. A provisional government set up by Cox shortly before the Cairo<\/a> Conference passed a resolution in July 1921 declaring Fay\u1e63al king of Iraq, provided that his \u201cGovernment shall be constitutional<\/a>, representative and democratic.\u201d The plebiscite confirmed this proclamation, and Fay\u1e63al was formally crowned king on August 23.<\/p>\n

The establishment of the monarchy was the first step in setting up a national regime. Two other steps followed immediately: the signing of a treaty of alliance with Great Britain and the drafting of a constitution. It was deemed necessary that a treaty precede the constitution and define relations between Iraq and Britain. The treaty was signed on October 10, 1922. Without direct reference it reproduced most of the provisions<\/a> of the mandate. Iraq undertook to respect religious freedom and missionary enterprises and the rights of foreigners, to treat all states equally, and to cooperate with the League of Nations<\/a>. Britain was obligated to offer advice on foreign and domestic affairs, such as military, judicial, and financial matters (defined in separate and subsidiary agreements). Although the terms of the treaty were open to periodic revision, they were to last 20 years. In the meantime, Britain agreed to prepare Iraq for membership in the League of Nations \u201cas soon as possible.\u201d<\/p>\n

It soon became apparent that the substance, though not the form, of the mandate was still in existence and that complete independence had not been achieved. Strong opposition to the treaty in the press made it almost certain that it would not be ratified by Iraq\u2019s Constituent<\/a> Assembly. Nor was British public opinion satisfied with the commitments to Iraq. During the general elections of 1922, there was a newspaper campaign against British expenditures in Iraq. In deference to public opinion in both Britain and Iraq, a protocol<\/a> to the treaty was signed in April 1923, reducing the period of the treaty from 20 to 4 years. Despite the shortening of British tutelage, the Constituent Assembly demanded complete independence when the treaty was put before it for approval. Ratification of the treaty was accomplished in June 1924, after Britain\u2019s warning that nonapproval would lead to the referral of the matter to the League of Nations.<\/p>\n

The Constituent Assembly then considered a draft constitution drawn up by a constitutional committee. The committee tried to give extensive powers to the king. Discussion on the draft constitution by the Constituent Assembly lasted a month, and after minor modifications it was adopted in July 1924. The Organic Law<\/a>, as the constitution was called, went into effect right after it was signed by the king in March 1925. It provided for a constitutional monarchy<\/a>, a parliamentary government, and a bicameral legislature. The latter was composed of an elected House of Representatives and an appointed Senate. The lower house was to be elected every four years in a free manhood suffrage<\/a>. The first Parliament met in 1925. Ten general elections were held before the downfall of the monarchy in 1958. The more than 50 cabinets formed during the same period reflected the instability of the system.<\/p>\n

From the establishment of a national government, there was keen interest in organizing political parties. Three parties formed in 1921, one by the group in power and two by opposition parties, had similar social and economic views and essentially the same political objective: terminating the mandate and winning independence. They differed, however, on the means of realizing the objective. After the achievement of independence in 1932, these parties dissolved<\/a>, because their raison d\u2019\u00eatre had disappeared. It was only when social issues were discussed that new political groupings, even if not formally organized as political parties, began to emerge. The power struggle between these groups became exceedingly intense after World War II<\/a> (1939\u201345).<\/p>\n

The Iraqi nationalists, though appreciating the free expression of opinion permitted under a parliamentary system<\/a>, were far from satisfied with the mandate. They demanded independence as a matter of right, as promised in war declarations and treaties, rather than as a matter of capacity for self-government as laid down in the mandate. Various attempts were made to redefine Anglo-Iraqi relations, as embodied<\/a> in the 1926 and 1927 treaties, without fundamentally altering Britain\u2019s responsibility. The British treaties were viewed by the nationalists not only as an impediment to the realization of Iraq\u2019s nationalist aspirations<\/a> but also as inimical<\/a> to the economic development of the country. The nationalists viewed the situation as a \u201cperplexing predicament\u201d (al-wa\u1e0d\u02bf al-sh\u0101dh)\u2014a term that became popular in Parliament and in the press. It referred to the impossibility of government by the dual authority of the mandate. The nationalists argued that there were two governments in Iraq, one foreign and the other national, and that such a regime was an abnormality that, though feasible<\/a> in theory, was unworkable in practice.<\/p>\n

In 1929 Britain decided to end this stalemate and reconcile its interests with Iraq\u2019s national aspirations. It notified Iraq that the mandate would be terminated in 1932, and a new treaty of independence was negotiated. A new government was formed, headed by Gen. Nuri al-Said<\/a>, who helped in achieving Iraq\u2019s independence.<\/p>\n

The new treaty<\/a> was signed in June 1930. It provided for the establishment of a \u201cclose alliance\u201d between Britain and Iraq with \u201cfull and frank consultation between them in all matters of foreign policy<\/a> which may affect their common interests.\u201d Iraq would maintain internal order and defend itself against foreign aggression, supported by Britain. Any dispute between Iraq and a third state involving the risk of war was to be discussed with Britain in the hope of a settlement in accordance with the Covenant<\/a> of the League of Nations<\/a>. In the event of an imminent<\/a> threat of war, the two parties would take a common defense position. Iraq recognized that the maintenance and protection of essential British communications was in the interest of both parties. Air-base sites for British troops were therefore granted near Basra and west of the Euphrates, but these forces \u201cshall not constitute<\/a> in any manner an occupation, and will in no way prejudice<\/a> the sovereign<\/a> rights of Iraq.\u201d This treaty, valid for 25 years, was to go into effect after Iraq joined the League of Nations.<\/p>\n

In 1932, when Iraq was still under British control, the boundaries between Iraq and Kuwait<\/a> were clearly defined in an exchange of letters between the two governments, but they were never ratified by Iraq in accordance with the Iraqi constitution. This set the stage for future Iraqi claims on Kuwaiti territory, particularly on the islands of B\u016bbiy\u0101n and Warbah, which had originally been part of the Ottoman province of Al-Ba\u1e63rah but had been ceded<\/a> to Kuwait in the unratified convention of 1913.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Merging the three provinces of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra into one political entity and creating a nation out…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":39978,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[1162,1199,1198,1197,94],"class_list":{"0":"post-55199","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-iraq","8":"tag-article","9":"tag-britannica","10":"tag-encyclopeadia","11":"tag-encyclopedia","12":"tag-iraq"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@iran\/116361957672421510","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55199","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55199"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55199\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/39978"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}