Hashemites!
01:19:00 Share

This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Whether you're selling a little or a lot, Shopify helps you do your thing, however you cha-ching. From the launch your online shop stage, all the way to the we just hit a million orders stage. No matter what stage you're in, Shopify's there to help you grow. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash special offer, all lowercase. That's shopify.com slash special offer.

Amen. How are you? I'm still alive, Thomas, as every listener by now would have guessed. Good, good, good. You know, I had considered naming this episode Arabs are revolting, but thought maybe people would get the wrong idea. Revolting or revolting. Exactly. I mean, if I had called it that, it would be in reference to the Arab revolution.

revolt. One of many topics we're going to discuss today, because yes, this episode is all about the Hashemites. Proper Arabian stuff. Indeed. So, Ayman, you're going to be in the driver's seat today, especially since we're going to focus on Iraq. And as you told us back in episode three, your family has close Iraqi connections. Indeed, because of course, my grandfather was, you know, head of the colonial police in Basra.

Traitor, traitor, traitor. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. From 1919 to 1926, you know, tumultuous years. And actually, he was involved in the suppression of the 1920 rebellion in Iraq. As we will hear about. I've got a big list of questions, Eamon. I cannot wait to pick your brains. Let's get to it. ♪

As we race toward the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars, we're putting our final duck in its row. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Jordan and Iraq both received Hashemite monarchs. And the rivalries and ideological conflicts that followed still reverberate today, perhaps nowhere more powerfully than on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Focusing mainly on the tragic history of modern Iraq, but also on Jordan, this episode engages with the clash between modern Arab republicanism and something like traditional monarchism, Ayman's favorite, as competing versions of pan-Arabism violently spread throughout the region, prompting the Hashemites into ever more desperate acts of self-preservation.

But first, Ayman, the present day. I joked that the Arabs are revolting, but in fact, on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the Arabs have in fact been revolting. At least some Arabs have been. What's going on? In all honesty, I've been looking at the latest clashes in Jerusalem, and all I can see basically is an attempt by some elements from Hamas mostly to

to ignite a fourth intifada, as if we had a third intifada. I don't know if we had a third intifada by now. So just to make sure our listeners understand, in mid-April, violence broke out on the Temple Mount, ostensibly because some extremist Israeli religious fanatics were intending to sacrifice a goat up there in line with ancient ideas of the Passover. But

This idea that Israelis are going to start bringing back old temple sacrifices, it sometimes pops up to create conflict over the holy spaces there. So then on the 15th of April of this year, Palestinian protesters began marching. Early in the morning, it was 4 a.m., they began marching around the Al-Aqsa Mosque carrying Palestinian and Hamas flags.

So, Eamon, you know, the media reports were a bit confusing and contradictory. What do you think happened? First, there was the question of, like, you know, the Passover ritual. Then you have the marches,

you know, trying to disrupt that. Then, of course, the marshals, you know, started throwing stones and all of that, the protesters. The security forces wanted to clear them of the Temple Mount. And funny enough, because there were Palestinian elder people, basically, who were angry about the presence of these troublemakers in the Temple Mount. And this is what exacerbated the clashes.

What really made me question whether this was premeditated on the part of the Hamas elements is the fact that they brought with them

stones, rocks, and fireworks into the Al-Aqsa Mosque. And from inside, they were launching the fireworks and the stones and the rocks on the security forces and Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall. So in my opinion, they really wanted to provoke

a significant clash inside Al-Aqsa Mosque in order to create the conditions for a third or a fourth intifada, depending on how you think about this. But what surprised me more than ever is the

almost the lack of the predictable outrage, you know, from the Arab world, whether on social media or, you know, it was more mooted this time. It was more, you know, measured response rather than the out loud, you know, outrage. And that's the case, even though, you know, it was violent. 150 Palestinians, according to reports, were injured.

And 400 were arrested. Only three Israeli police officers were injured. So clearly there was a disproportionate

response. Is that right? Well, in a sense, yes. But again, what really made the general sentiment among the Arabs on social media, and I'm talking here about the Gulf Arabs, because of course, basically, and to some extent, many Egyptians, and to some extent, also some Moroccans and

other nationalities, seems to be less enthusiastic this time about supporting the Palestinians because there were so many photos and videos spreading of these kids bringing in rocks and stones into the Al-Aqsa Mosque inside. They were entering the mosque with their shoes. They were playing football inside the mosque itself. I mean, inside the mosque over the carpet. That really angered many Arabs saying, what the hell are you doing?

So there was an element of, you know, are these kids really defending al-Aqsa or taking advantage of al-Aqsa? You know, are they there because they were told to be there? Is there something else behind this? Because there were also many Arab writers and journalists who were saying that

Don't be fooled. This time, it's not really a proper Israeli provocation. There is something else going on here. The response may have been a bit more muted than in past years, but nonetheless, many Arab countries, including big ones, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, they openly condemned the actions of the Israeli government. I mean, is this going to upset any of the recent protests?

peace accords, any of the recent cooperation moves between Arab states and Israel? Or do you think those condemnations were just for show? For show. I mean, these condemnations basically were just recycled old condemnations. I mean, it's the same language from before. It's just a formality. That's the best way I can describe these condemnations because they

They have to do it. I mean, they have to say, well, look, I mean, you know, even if there are provocations from inside the mosque, you have to take more measured response. But what surprised me is that this time we start to see clashes between Palestinians and Palestinians inside the mosque, between the younger generation and the older generation, between elders who are saying, for God's sake, don't make the mosque into a... Don't turn it into an arena of conflict between...

You know, you and the Israelis and the younger generation who are hotheaded and they really want to start yet another intifada. If you remember, dear listener, in episode seven, the one on Israel, we talked about the recent Negev summit where the Israeli foreign minister met with his counterparts from several important Arab countries, except not Jordan. Jordan was invited, but it declined to attend.

You didn't tell us why, though, Ayman. What got the Jordanian kings back up? Why didn't he attend the summit? The king of Jordan, King Abdullah II, was not happy about many aspects of the rapprochement and the closeness between the Gulf Arabs and the Israelis.

Because in particular he is threatened by the prospect of a Saudi-Israeli normalization of relations. Because the price that the Saudis are demanding, and this is based on, you know, well, certain intel and certain information that are not available in the public domain, if we can call it this way, but...

The Saudi price for normalization of relationships with Israel is the Temple Mount.

They want to have a full custody of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Because right now, the Temple Mount is managed as a waqf, as a charitable endowment overseen by the King of Jordan. Yes. So it's the Jordanian waqf, the Jordanian religious trust that looks after the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock within the Temple Mount complex. But the Saudis want to get it. Yes. Yes.

The Saudis, you know, and it is, you know, for a good reason, what they are saying is that, look, if we want to convince our people, the most conservative Arab population in the Middle East, if we want to convince them that there is, you know,

going to be a normalization of relations with Israel, then there has to be a price. And this price is worth that normalization of relations. What is that price? You know, the Temple Mount itself, Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. So what will happen is that instead of the King of Saudi being called the custodian of the two holy mosques,

he will become the custodian of the three. This is fascinating. You know, it's in a way, it's also the sort of final insult of the House of Saud against the Hashemites. A hundred years ago, an earlier clash between the Saudis and the House of Hashem, the Hashemites laid the foundations for much of the modern Middle East.

In this episode, we're focusing on Iraq mainly, but the episode is called Hashemites. So in geographical terms, it'll be a bit discontinuous. After all, the Hashemites don't come from Iraq. And though in the modern period, they ascended the thrones of Syria briefly, Jordan and Iraq, they come from the Hejaz. Eamon, historically, who are the Hashemites? Why are they called Hashemites?

Well, the Hashemites, you know, if we go back really, really back in time, like, you know, 1500 years ago, I would say, just 100 years before the birth of the Prophet Muhammad, the great ancestor of Muhammad from, you know, the tribe of Quraysh. So there was a tribe of Quraysh and Muhammad belonged to that tribe. So the Prophet Muhammad,

line is that his great-great-great-grandfather is Hashem. So Hashem is the founder of one of the clans from within the Quraysh tribe.

So there were other clans such as the Umayyads, which would later clash with the Hashemites in later years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. And also you have the Makhzum, the Abdul Uzza. There were so many different… These are all clans within the tribe of the Quraysh. Exactly. Exactly.

So Muhammad was from Bani Hashim of the Quraysh. And of course, there were other clans within Quraysh. But in order to distinguish who are, when we say the Hashimites, it means the people who belong to the same clan from within Quraysh of the Prophet Muhammad.

So that doesn't mean that they're direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, in fact. No. They're just direct descendants of this Hashem who lived earlier. Exactly. Bani Hashem. And therefore, you know, when the Abbasids, the Abbasid caliphate, you know, you have that kind of dynasty. While they were not descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, they were descendants of his uncle, al-Abbas. And as a result, they were Hashemites, even though, you know, they...

The modern day Shia, I don't like to call them Hashemites, but they are Hashemites in a sense. So today, whenever we say Hashemites, really, really, we really mean the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad from his two grandsons.

Hassan and Hussein, and they are the sons of his daughter, Fatima. So really, that's the meaning of Hashemites. In the end, the Hashemites held a special title, Sharif of Mecca. And what does that mean? What is the Sharifateh?

of Mecca. I understand it became a political power in 967, so you know 300 years and a bit after Muhammad's death during the revolt of a sect from Qatar of all places called the Karamita. Tell us about this story.

We have to distinguish that there are the Ashraf of Mecca, the Sharifs, and there are As-Sada, you know, the masters. So Sharif means noble, and As-Sada or As-Sayyid means, you know, masters. So there are the nobles and the masters. The nobles are the descendants of Hassan ibn Ali, so the older grandson. And the nobles or the, you know, Sada or the, you know, masters are the descendants of Husayn, the younger son.

So, for the Shia, they revere the latter. For the Sunnis, they revere, you know, the earlier ones, you know. So, basically. I am ashamed to say, Ayman, I never knew this. This is so illuminating. Yeah, that's why they, you know, if you hear about someone called the Sharif, they are descendants of the Hassan ibn Ali.

If they are a Sayyid, you know, the master, you know, then they are descendants of Hussein. And all Sayyids are Shia and all Sharifs are Sunni? No. I mean, still, like, you know, basically from both. I mean, there are even Zaidis, you know, who are, you know, Sharif and Sayyid and there are Sunnis who are Sharifs and Sayyid and there are Shia who are Sharifs and Sayyid. But, you know, but

But the Sayyids have more status within the Shia, and between you and me. I mean, let's be honest, the vast majority of those who claim to be Sharif or Sayyid, basically, it's false, really. I mean, it is impossible to determine the fact that there are 10 million Muslims who are descended from the Prophet Muhammad. It's just impossible. But what about your illustrious family, Ayman? Are you a Sharif or a Sayyid? No, we are not.

Oh, that's very humble of you. Why don't you get on the bandwagon and claim direct dissent from Mohammed? Bolster your credentials. At the end of the day, what does it do? I mean, it does nothing at the end of the day, basically, to elevate me above certain people. I don't believe. I believe in egalitarianism.

you know, societies, you know, and with monarchies being just tribal chiefs rather than like, you know, I mean, basically like, you know, just a class of nobles. I don't believe in classism. So therefore, I don't believe in the Sharifs and the Sayyids. But nonetheless, because of all this instability, you know, that was taking place in the Arabian Peninsula and the constant raids,

by either religious fanatics or by brigands against the pilgrims and their caravans, the responsibility of securing the Hijaz, securing Mecca, securing Medina for the pilgrims and for the pilgrimage season fell upon the Sharifs of Mecca, which means the Sharifs of Mecca were basically the holders of the keys to the Kaaba. They were the servants, the

you know, of the shrine, servants of the Kaaba. So the Abbasid caliph, who was mostly like in a ceremonial position at the time, you know, bestowed upon the sheriffs of Mecca the title of princes. And that is how the Sherifate of Mecca was created in the 960s.

Eventually this title, Emir of Mecca, passed to a sub-branch of the Hashemites called the Banu Qatada. And this sub-branch held the title until 1925. And these are the people that we're going to talk about now, because we've got to jump forward to the crumbling Ottoman Empire. The British were fighting the Ottomans in World War I.

And when thinking about how the Middle East would be ruled after the war, they came up with the Sharifian solution. Now, Ayman, what is the Sharifian solution? It was Lawrence of Arabia's idea. Well, as far as Lawrence of Arabia was concerned, he was looking at the Hijaz and thinking, okay, there we have a family, you know, the Banu Qatada. They've been around for 900 years. Can you believe it? Like, you know, a royal family been around for 900 years, continuous line, you know, of succession.

So he thought, OK, this family could be the key to unlocking the independence of Arabia. And when we talk about Arabia at that time, you know, it wasn't just the current peninsula of Arabia, which extend, you know, just only Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the other GCC countries. No, you know, you're talking about Iraq and Jordan and modern day Syria. All of this was included, you know, in what was known as Arabia at that time.

The idea is that since the Ottomans were on the side of the Germans in that war, since the Ottomans were an obstacle to British interest in the region, especially the Suez Canal and other strategic assets, therefore there is the need for

to unite the Arabs and to use them as the Achilles heel of the Ottoman Empire to bring it down. And who could be able to unite them except the Sharifs of Mecca who have this noble blood? You know, who could like, you know, unite them and fight the war?

This plan for how the Arab Middle East was to be governed after the Ottoman withdrawal became known as the Tangle because it was so convoluted. But before we go a bit more into detail about the plan, let's talk about monarchy briefly. I mean you're a big supporter of monarchy, Eamon. God knows you've told us that many times. And the Sharifian solution, Lawrence of Arabia's solution, envisioned a monarchical future for the Middle East.

However, from what I understand, throughout history, really, Muslims have sometimes believed that monarchy, mulk or malakiyah in Arabic, monarchy is not truly Islamic.

because God alone is the monarch of the universe. So did this British plan, which meant to kind of recreate the Middle East almost in a British constitutional monarchical way, was it destined to fail in a region that was already a little bit ambivalent about monarchy as a principle of governance?

Actually, Thomas, I believe there is a misconception among Westerners that there is an antipathy in Islam or among Muslims towards the idea of monarchy. No, it's not. In fact, you know, the founder of the Umayyad dynasty, Muawiyah, the first Umayyad caliph, he said, I'm the first king of Islam. You know, that's the first thing. And the second thing is that the title king is

actually is not looked down upon. In the Quran, you look at King David and King Solomon, and they were actually the perfect image of what a king should be. - And does the Quran use the word melek, king? - Exactly, yes. And actually, talking about David and Solomon, they were kings.

And in fact, I mean, the idea of a king to unite, we're enshrined in the Quran when it talks about the Israelites asking their prophets to send them a king. Iba'ath lana malikan, send us a king from God. So the idea of a God-anointed king is already enshrined in the Quran, and it is there. So when many people said Islam doesn't like the idea of kings, no, actually, I don't know where this idea comes from, but actually it is there. Even

Salah al-Din, you know, the one who conquered Jerusalem from the Crusaders, I mean, he was called al-malik al-mudhaffar, you know, which means the victorious king. So in Islam, then, what's the difference between a king and a caliph? So you can imagine, you know, for a Western audience, it's the difference between the Holy Roman Emperor

And, you know, you have the kings of Europe, you know. So that's the only difference is that there is someone who is a semi-Semitex.

Pope and a semi-emperor at the same time, you know, someone who holds a religious position as well as a political position. So it's a marriage between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope at the same time. This is what a caliph means. I see. And there can only be one caliph, but there can be so many kings subordinate to him. This is very reminiscent of the ancient Persian idea of the king of kings. Yes. A shah-an-shah, a king that is above all other kings.

And in the Roman period, this is what the Roman emperor was. He was over all the kings. He had a kind of universal monarchy, whereas kings had territorial monarchies. They were limited. Absolutely. And this is, I think, where the idea that kings and kingship doesn't really clash with Islam because there can be a caliph that can be where all other kings can be subordinate to him.

Well, let's go on now to outline this Sharifian solution in a bit more detail. So the Sharif of Mecca at the time of Lawrence of Arabia was Sharif Hussein bin Ali. And he had four sons, Ali, Abdullah, Faisal, and Zayd. Lawrence's idea was to give those sons parts of the Middle East to rule as kings. Ali, the eldest son, was going to become king of the Hejaz after his father, Sharif Hussein, died. The next son, Abdullah, was supposed to be king of Iraq.

Faisal, the next son, was supposed to be king of all of Syria, of Greater Syria. And finally, the youngest son, Zayd, was supposed to become king of Northern Mesopotamia, Kurdistan in fact. Right, let's see how the plan worked out. Let's start with Faisal. Now, Faisal was Alec Guinness in Lawrence of Arabia, remember? Now, Eamon, how did Faisal's part in this plan go? He was the commander of the Arab Northern Army during the Arab revolt against the Ottomans. And in that capacity, he worked very closely with Lawrence.

Well, Faisal, of course, was a charismatic figure. I mean, no question about it. And he was, you know, he had that charisma and the pull and all of that, but also he had the help of the British. And what helped him also is the fact that during the late stages of the Ottoman Empire, the Ottoman rule, you know, became increasingly Turkish rule. Um,

And there was exceptional amount of xenophobia and racism from, you know, the Turks towards the Arabs. Not to mention, of course, you know, the atrocities they committed and the neglect they showed to many parts of the Arab world, you know, from Syria all the way to Yemen.

So, his mission was made easier by the Turks, and of course, then when the Turks decided to enter the First World War on the side of the Germans, he struck gold, let's put it this way, British gold, when he found that the aims of the sheriffs of Mecca now corresponded nicely with the aims of the British Empire.

That's true. And at the end of the war, he was at the head of an army that conquered Damascus, where he was installed as king of Syria in October 1918. Again, claiming all of greater Syria, of the traditional Syria, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, the whole thing. Though, in fact, he was only in control of the inland areas.

He was only in control of the parts of Greater Syria on the other side of the mountains, the Levantine mountain ranges. Now, sadly for Faisal, when the British eventually agreed with the French to withdraw to the southern half of Greater Syria only and leaving the French in charge of the northern half, including Damascus, Faisal had to fend for himself against the French. And that didn't really go so well for poor Faisal, did it?

Well, Faisal found out in 1920 that British promises are not even worth the paper they are written on. He's not the first one to find that out. But he found out to his...

you know, to great cost that, yeah, you know, whatever, you know, the crown and the British crown promised him basically means nothing really on the ground because the British promised the same land to someone else, the French. And, you know, the French after Versailles of 1919 were in no compromising mood at all. And so they,

just, you know, chucked him out of Syria, you know, after the Battle of Maiseloun. Yes, the famous Battle of Maiseloun in July of 1920. This was a big battle between Faisal's forces and the French army of the Levant.

And Faisal, I'm afraid, was defeated. Of course. I mean, he was able to win against the Ottomans because of British arms, British guns, and British officers. None of this was available to him at the Battle of Maysalun. And, of course, he lost, and he withdrew all the way to Jordan and then from there to the Hejaz. Defeated, Faisal's kingdom of Syria ceased to exist, and

But before long, the British installed him as king of Iraq. So, yay Faisal. He did get something in the end. We talked about Faisal becoming king of Iraq in episode three because his installation as king there followed the notorious crushing of the great revolt against the British, which your grandfather helped achieve. Amen.

Indeed, my illustrious grandfather. Right. That's Faisal. We'll come back to Iraq. But what about Abdullah? So he commanded the Arab Eastern Army during the Arab revolt, and he was earmarked to rule Iraq. What happened? It's very mysterious what happened about this. Apparently, you read some things and it says that he was, in fact, proclaimed king by

by a Congress of Iraqi notables, but he refused the position. Why, Ayman? Why did Abdullah not become king of Iraq and his brother did? So, Sharif Abdullah, he decided not to take up the position in Iraq because, one, there was already the internal family agreement that, after the Battle of Maysalun, that if

Faisal couldn't get the greater Syria, then what will happen is that Faisal will end up being the king of Iraq. Even though Faisal was the younger brother. Even though Faisal was the younger brother. Because why? Actually, you know, Abdullah was having his eye set on the greater prize, which is Jerusalem and the Transjordan region. So for him, it's a greater prize. Why? Because it is closer, you know, to the Hejaz.

Remember, it is 1920. They are still in control of the Hijaz, the family as a whole. So his father, Hussein, his older brother, Ali, they are firmly in control of the Hijaz. And therefore, what he wanted is to have Jerusalem. So having a holy city and for him to be the Sharif of that holy city is greater than, you know,

that place called Mesopotamia, or as they call it, the messy pot. Well, perhaps with Jerusalem in mind, after his brother Faisal's defeat at Mesalun, Abdullah did head in the same direction towards Damascus. He hoped to defeat the French, grab Damascus for himself, and from that position of power, establish claims over Jerusalem.

But it didn't go so well for him either. On the way, Churchill, in fact, Winston Churchill, convinced him to stop in Jordan, and he ended up king there. They founded a new kingdom, the Kingdom of Transjordan, in 1921. Abdullah's desires were really cut down to size, I would say, because the Kingdom of Transjordan wasn't really much to sniff at at that time. Pretty poor, pretty underpopulated, pretty bad, really.

Actually, I mean, between you and me, Jordan is the most, in its current form, is the most natural resource impoverished country in the Middle East.

And yet it is one of the most stable, funny enough, like it just shows you like in the power of monarchy. But, you know, it doesn't have that much access to the sea. It doesn't have that much water. It doesn't have any oil, any gas, any natural resources except phosphate, which has been completely, you know, ravaged by now. So really, poor Jordan.

Since we started out talking about political control of a holy site, Jerusalem, giving legitimacy to Muslim leaders, we can briefly mention another sad chapter in the Hashemite story, the Sharifian Caliphate. So if you remember, dear listener, the Ottoman Caliphate was abolished in 1924. Sharif Hussein, who was king of the Hejaz, claimed the title for himself. He was going to be the caliph of all Muslims based in Mecca.

But sadly, this gains little traction in the Muslim world and within a year, your friend, Ayman, King Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia, launched his successful conquest of the Hejaz and sent the Sharifs of Mecca packing. Hussein, the father, fled to his son, King Abdullah, in Amman and there he died in the end. And where is he buried, Ayman? Where else but? Jerusalem.

Temple Mount, actually. On the Temple Mount, inside the Al-Aqsa Mosque? Just beside it. Amazing. Now, Hussein's eldest son, Ali, who was supposed to be the king of Hejaz, he briefly did hold that title, but he ended up fleeing the Saudi onslaught to Iraq, where he died. So, you know...

In the end, the Hejaz was no longer ruled by the House of Hashem. It had been ruled by the House of Hashem for 1,300 years and fell into a Nejdi royal family's hands, the House of Saud. Indeed. The only thing that didn't change, though, is the custody of the Kaaba itself and the keys of the Kaaba remain with Bani Hashem. This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Whether you're selling a little or a lot...

Shopify helps you do your thing, however you cha-ching. From the launch your online shop stage, all the way to the we just hit a million orders stage. No matter what stage you're in, Shopify's there to help you grow. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash special offer, all lowercase. That's shopify.com slash special offer.

Indeed.

Ali al-Wardy, you know, of course, is one of the greatest sociologists of the entire Arab world. And he commented a lot on Iraq and, you know, Iraqi people. And he said in one of his writings, you know, he said that the census will tell us that there are 15 million people in Iraq. He said, I disagree, you know.

He said there are 30 million people because each Iraqi is capable of being two people at the same time. So, you know, so one person, so if we talk about like another Iraqi person being two, one person is capable of being generous,

you know, a good father, a good husband, a wonderful neighbor, you know, a charitable individual. And then the same person will possess another personality, which will be sadistic, you know, murderous, treacherous, and, you know, capable of atrocities.

Oh, my goodness. What are our Iraqi listeners are going to feel insulted? I mean, I guess one of their own laid out this theory. I didn't say that. You know, I'm not Ali Alwardi. I'm not Professor Ali Alwardi. That is, you know, although he died in 1995. But, you know, his books are amazing, basically. Like, I mean, if there are any Iraqi listeners, you know, they will know about Wa'ad al-Salatin and many other books, basically, he's written and the personality of the Iraqi individual, Shakhsiyat al-Sahra.

I mean, all of these wonderful books he's written and wonderful writings, but he never minced his words. And why this is important? Because he talked about the difference between the civilizational progress of Iraq

and of the other regions. For example, he talked about the Levant, he talked about Persia, and he talked about Egypt, and how Iraq was different. So, for example, he said, Egypt and Iraq, both are river civilizations, both are very old, 7,000 years old, both are invaded by different empires, controlled by different empires, invaded almost by the same set of empires, Greeks, Persians, Arabs, British, you name it. But,

How the Iraqis, you know, deposed their king in 1958 and how the Egyptians deposed their king in 1952 shows the complete difference between the two. Oh, you're racing ahead. We will get back to that when we get to the infamous revolution in Iraq of 1958. But sticking with the post-Ottoman period, now post-Ottoman Iraq was earmarked to be a British mandate like Palestine and Transjordan.

But immediately in 1920, the Iraqis rebelled against this plan. And the rebellion was put down by the British and your grandfather, quite brutally, and an agreement was reached via what's known as the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1922. Eamon, honestly, what did your grandfather, a pious Muslim, think he was doing allying with the British to crush Iraqi national aspirations?

Okay, so my grandfather had a lot to say. No doubt. Your grandfather? A lot to say. I don't believe it. Yeah, he had a lot to say about the 1920 revolution. I mean, first of all, the 1920 revolution started actually, you know, as a small alliance between the attendees, you know, the former Ottoman officials and the Shia religious clerics.

of Karbala and Najaf, and what they call the Middle Euphrates region, you know, the area between Karbala all the way to Basra, so the Middle Euphrates. So this is where, you know, the revolution started, because at the time there was a British civil servant who was the Viceroy of Iraq, you know, Sir Arnold Wilson, and he wasn't exactly like, you know, the brightest, you know, tool in the shed, let's put it this way. And so he didn't know how to deal with it. And that's why

he lost control over swathes of Iraq. I mean, first it was an Ottoman remnants and Shia clerics, you know, started the revolt. Now my grandfather was in the South. So as an ardent Sunni, you know, the British used him, you know, really, and many other officers from the British Indian Army. And, you know, most of them were actually Afghans, just like my grandfather. You know, they were used, you know, to really crush

the rebellion and they were telling them these are the Shia, you are Sunni. So there was. But then there was an element of sectarianism there. But then it was a big surprise when the tribes of Shammar and Zawba and others

who are Sunnis, started to rebel. So the Shia had rebelled in the south, and then more in the north, the Sunni tribes from the desert are rebelling. Oh my goodness. And even the Kurds started to rebel also. And this is when our dear friend Winston Churchill used chemical weapons to subdue the Kurds. Good old Winston. Yeah. So Saddam, where did he get his idea to gas the Kurds? Oh no, oh no.

It's true. Yeah. So this is when Winston Churchill decided, you know what, let's use chemical weapons because it was mountain warfare. In the desert, you can, you know, have easy warfare there. But in the mountains there, just use gas. And of course, he got the idea from what the Germans did during the World War I. And so he deployed chemical weapons in Kurdistan. It's well documented that Winston Churchill did it.

And of course, it all came to an end because the 1920 revolution failed. Why? Because it was carried out by a multitude of disparate groups, no coordination, they didn't know how to fight, they had no modern weaponry. And the most important thing is that the British deployed another viceroy, a much more competent viceroy, Sir Percy Cox.

And he, of course, like an Amin, reached the 1922 treaty, the Anglo-Iraqi treaty, which, you know, solved the problem. How?

Again, we come back to the Hashemite solution. Well, it's true. Faisal was king and Iraq was pacified, I suppose, but only for the time being. In British mandatory Iraq following the 1922 treaty, religious, ethnic groups asserted their claims to autonomy or they wanted a greater share of power in this new, growing, modern central government.

I mean, first, as you said, there's the Shia. They weren't so happy. In general, again, as you mentioned, Eamon, tribalism was rife in the society and was a huge hindrance to creating a strong modern state, as tribalism always is.

So just like as was happening at the same time in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, really everywhere, the modern state was extending its bureaucracy into the countryside, forcing a transition away from tribal organization, from tribal values. And as a result, in the 30s, there were tribal revolts. The tribes did not wish to be sort of subjugated to the central government. In addition to the Shia, the Sunni tribes, the Kurdish tribes, there were a lot of Christians in Iraq as well.

especially in the north, especially amongst a population called the Assyrians. The Assyrians are a fascinating people descended from the ancient Assyrians who were in fact the first people to unite Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia into one empire way back in the 8th century BC. They were eventually Christianized during the First World War. They were at the receiving end of Turkish genocidal mania and so were resettled

in northern iraq and during the british period they were organized into a colonial military unit which the british used during the revolt in nineteen twenty with great affect however

The use by the British of this Christian militia as a police force for Iraq would rebound upon the Assyrians when the British mandate ended in 1932 and Iraq gained a greater measure of independence. In 1933, there was tremendous fighting between the Assyrians and the new Iraqi army. The Iraqi army really crushed the Assyrians. Summary executions,

widespread and in general there was a huge increase of distrust between central governments and minorities and in the midst of all this chaos the military becomes politically prominent for the first time in Iraq it would always remain so this is the legacy of British rule in Mesopotamia Iraq was becoming a very challenging country

to run. And this brings us to a very important Iraqi, the man who was running Iraq at the start of the Cold War and would play a very important role in regional geopolitics in the 1950s, Nuri al-Saeed. Oh, yes, Nuri al-Saeed.

Tell us about Nuri Saeed. So Nuri Saeed, he was born in Baghdad, you know, belongs to a family from Mosul in northern Iraq and, you know, of Arab origin. He, you know, his father was actually, you know, a civil servant, you know, within the Ottoman Empire. And that's what enabled him to send his son, Nuri, to Istanbul, you know, to the, you

you know, military academy there where he graduated, you know, one of the top of the class, you know, to put it this way, you know, he was sent to the Balkans to fight the war there for the Ottomans. So we're talking here about someone who was, you know, Ottoman, you know, really through and through.

And he fought for the Ottoman Empire. But of course, events in Iraq later would change his mind and change his allegiance. With the beginning of the Arab Revolt, he lent his services to the Hashemites and to the Arab Revolt. His military...

you know, training, his understanding of Turkish military tactics, his understanding of Ottoman weapons made him indispensable. He fought with Prince Faisal in the Arab revolt. He was very close to Prince Faisal and then King Faisal. In fact, he was at the head of Faisal's armies who conquered Damascus. So he really played a very important role in the revolt and therefore was in a position to benefit when Faisal became king of Iraq.

Faisal actually appointed Nuri al-Said director general of the Iraqi police force in 1922, which I suppose means he was your grandfather's boss. Is that right, Ayman? In a sense, because, you see, my grandfather was distinctively in the Iraqi colonial police, not the Iraqi national police. Ah.

These two forces are separate because, for example, my grandfather was more responsible for the protection of the strategic assets, such as the port in Basra, such as the canals, such as the water facilities, while the national police were more responsible for the day-to-day running of the security within the urban centers.

Right, let's move on. Nouria Saeed eventually was made prime minister in 1930 and signed a revised Anglo-Iraqi treaty which granted Iraq more independence but also gave the British the right to station its troops in Iraq. Why? Well, those

those strategic assets you just described, Eamon, especially oil. The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty guaranteed British control of the oil industry and was therefore not at all popular. Not at all popular, you know, and again,

And it shows the short-sightedness of the British at that time for not granting, you know, a favorable terms, you know, in terms of oil exploration and oil revenue sharing that could have prolonged, you know, British influence there in the long run. Unfortunately, it was short-sighted. Just like what we saw in Iran with the Mossadegh case, the British made this mistake a lot. Yeah.

Indeed. Not the Americans, though. Yeah, that's one of the things that made the Americans a little bit more successful in their long-term ability to keep oil-producing nations under their umbrella. Including Saudi Arabia and other countries, yes, indeed. So as a result of the dissatisfaction with the new treaty, Nouri was dismissed by King Faisal. But then, suddenly, King Faisal died of a heart attack and was succeeded as king of Iraq by his son Ghazi.

The British convinced King Ghazi to appoint Nuri al-Said foreign minister. And then Nuri would go on to be prime minister 11 more times, so 14 times in total. And his proximity to the British made him increasingly unpopular.

As a sign of this closeness to the British, when the new King Ghazi adopted an anti-British policy and supported a military coup against the civilian government, the first military coup in modern Middle Eastern history, the king was then killed in a mysterious car crash. People said the crash had been on Nuri Asaeed's orders. Well, after King Ghazi was mysteriously and unfortunately killed, his son,

three-year-old son became the king of Iraq, King Faisal II. Of course, he's young, so there needs to be a regency. And of course, who was appointed as prince regent? Prince Abdulillah, the uncle of King Faisal II. And who...

happens to be a very close friend of Noura Saeed. Yes, and the alliance between Noura Saeed and Abdullah for the next few years was very powerful in Iraq. And in a way, given that Iraq's king was a small child, the civilian prime minister, Noura Saeed, and others, but mainly Noura, the civilian government was able to have a lot more control than they otherwise would. Indeed, because of course the military was a little bit sidelined in that case. And the military was always...

More or less, like I mean, influenced by British officers as well as by Prince Abdullah himself. Anyway, Iraqi politics is as confusing as Syrian politics. So let's jump forward to the period following the Second World War. Now, Iraq declared neutrality at the beginning of the war. So Britain, which had actually withdrawn from Iraq in 1932, re-invaded it and occupied the country until 1947.

In 1947, the British wanted to stay on. They used their closeness to Nouria Saeed to negotiate a new Anglo-Iraqi treaty, which went down even worse than before. And the situation was changing in Iraq because, don't forget, the Soviet Union triumphed over Nazism, and that gave rise to many communist movements.

you know, movements in the Middle East, including in Iraq. Communism started to find more sympathetic ears in Iraq, especially among the educated young classes, especially among the Shia young educated classes.

Yes, that's right. The communists were just one of many, many groups of people who were very angry by the new Anglo-Iraqi Treaty. Massive protests broke out, which were followed by harsh police crackdown. Nouria Saeed became extremely hated, especially by those communists whom he hated back then.

In turn, he hated communism and his government became harshly anti-communist. I think it's worth pointing out, though, Eamon, that the political system in Iraq at the time very much favored big landowners and the urban rich. Inequality was stark and therefore the growing dissatisfaction wasn't based on nothing. Oh, no, there's no question that, you know, the south was neglected. The north was neglected.

And, you know, it was, as you said, like, you know, favoring, you know, the people of the big cities, Baghdad, Basra and Mosul. You know, if you are not part of the urban elite there, then you are part of the peasantry.

At the same time, the nationalist anti-colonial movements of Mohammad Massadegh in Iran and Abdel Nasser in Egypt struck a strong chord among the Iraqi people. Riots broke out again and again and were put down violently again and again. Trouble was on the way.

Which brings us, finally, after so many hints in so many episodes, to the Baghdad Pact. All right, Eamon, here's one of my long historical rants as I try to put the Baghdad Pact in context.

Nouri Al-Saeed had learned from the protests following the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty that a subtler arrangement had to be found for keeping Iraq within Britain's security umbrella. He was pro-British. He wanted Britain to remain a big player in Iraq, but he needed to do it in a way that would get the Iraqi people on side. So wanting the subtler arrangement with the British, he would soon get it, but as he'd find out, the consequences would literally be fatal. All right.

Remember back in Episode 6 on Nasser, we said that the U.S. had suggested to Egypt that it participate in a new alliance like NATO only for the Middle East and that Nasser had said, no, thank you. The Soviet Union doesn't threaten us. Britain threatens us. Right. Remember that? Well.

The US pressed ahead with the alliance anyway, which they reconfigured as an alliance of "northern tier nations of the greater Middle East." Basically, an arc of nations to the south of the Soviet Union, which would help to contain Soviet expansion southward.

At a first step towards this goal, in April 1954, Turkey and Pakistan signed an agreement of friendly cooperation, basically a lightweight defensive agreement. And in response, Nasser convened the Arab League and strong-armed all the Arab states to promise never to join a non-Arab military alliance.

Nuri al-Said, the Iraqi prime minister, rather reluctantly agreed to go along with this. Nuri al-Said favored military alliance with British-oriented powers. However, this wasn't to last long.

In episode six, we also covered the Anglo-Egyptian agreement, which Nasser signed with Britain, in which Britain agreed to withdraw from the Suez Canal zone by the summer of 1956, which it did, which prompted Nasser to nationalize the canal, which led to the Suez crisis. Remember? Yeah. Anyway.

That agreement with Britain, which was signed in '54, contained an important clause that Egypt would allow Britain to reoccupy the canal zone in the event of an attack on Turkey. Now that may sound weird, but Turkey was in NATO. And so an attack on Turkey would have meant a Western assault on the Soviet Union, World War III basically, in which case control of the Suez Canal would be vital.

In Nuri Said's eyes, this clause that allowed Britain to reoccupy Egypt if Turkey was attacked was something like a three-way defensive alliance between Egypt, Turkey, and the UK.

So he negotiated his own defensive agreement with Turkey, which was signed on the 24th of February, 1955. Over the next few months, Britain, then Iran, then Pakistan would join this alliance, the headquarters for which was Baghdad. Thus was born the Baghdad Pact.

So the Baghdad Pact was a defensive alliance like NATO to some extent. It was aimed at preventing the spread of communism in the region like NATO but unlike NATO, it had no central military command or anything like Article 5 which says that an attack on one is an attack on all. So it was like kind of mini-NATO, a watered-down NATO for the Middle East.

But most importantly, Eamon, unlike NATO, the United States was not a member of the Baghdad Pact. Why? Why was that, Eamon? Well,

Well, the two reasons why the U.S. did not join, simple. I mean, first, they wanted to stay completely away from the British sphere of influence when it comes to antagonizing Nasser, as well as antagonizing the Israelis who they were supporting. That's right. I mean, they supported the Baghdad pact, but from behind the scenes, they did not join it. They were, quote, unquote, disengaged.

benevolent patrons of the Baghdad Pact. He was part of Eisenhower's ceaseless quest to balance Arab nationalism and Zionism at the same time. He didn't want to piss off either side in that divide. It's obvious why Iraq joined a pact like the Baghdad Pact. I mean, for most of its history, Iraq has been at the mercy of whoever controlled Anatolia, like Turkey, or whoever controlled the Iranian plateau, like ancient Persia,

like modern Iran. I mean, Nouria Saeed thought that joining a military pact that included both Turkey and Iran would neutralize the threat from either side. And this was actually foresighted because as we'll see, Iraq would eventually withdraw from the pact. And from that day onward, its relations with both Turkey and Iran have been dangerously strained.

Oh, yes, for sure. Which leaves the elephant in the room, Eamon. Why didn't Jordan join the Baghdad Pact? I mean, when we left Jordan, the Hashemite King Abdullah was in power. Jordan became independent of Britain in 1946. During the 1948 war with Israel, it annexed the West Bank, thus expanding its borders. So it seems natural, given that it was a British protectorate, given the close relationship between the British military and Jordan, that it would join the Baghdad Pact. Why didn't it?

Well, because of an event that happened in July of 1951 that rocked the Hashemite monarchies of the Arab world.

As you know, Jerusalem was part of King Abdullah I's domain, the kingdom of Transjordan. And so, as usual, every Friday he would go to Al-Aqsa Mosque, he would pray there, and on that fateful day, a Palestinian assassin, 21-year-old, who under the influence of Haj al-Amin al-Husseini, which we talked about before, Hitler's propagandist,

um, shot and killed, you know, uh, the King, uh,

on that fateful day. And of course, basically, that really was a deeply shocking event and a destabilizing event for the Hashemites. And, you know, not only, like, you know, the royal family in Jordan took note of it, of course, but of course the royal family in Baghdad, the cousins, you know, took note of it. King Abdullah's 15-year-old grandson, the future King Hussein, was by his side when he was shot and killed. In fact, he received a bullet himself

But, you know, what happened is that he was wearing a medal that his own grandfather insisted that he wears. And it's that medal which actually, you know, where the bullet was lodged. Otherwise, he could have been killed. A miracle. Absolutely. Absolutely.

So Abdullah's son Talal succeeded him, but Talal, King Talal, was pushed out of power the following year, and the 16-year-old Hussein became king. Why was Talal pushed out of power? - It was a palace coup, and it was organized, of course, by Talal's wife, Queen Zayn al-Sharif. So Queen Zayn al-Sharif, the mother of King Hussein, felt that her husband was too much of an Arab nationalist,

I think at least that's one of the stories. The official story is that he was suffering from schizophrenia. He was sent to an insane asylum in Istanbul. There are two conflicting stories here about why Talal was pushed away. I mean, and this is conflicted, so we have to talk about the two stories here. I mean, the first story is that he was really schizophrenic and prone to violence.

and therefore an unstable, therefore, you know, he needs to be removed in favor of a more stable and rational form of governance. The second story here is that, no, he was actually a pan-Arab nationalist, and he was, you know, more or less like an Amin trying to form an Arab alliance in order to liberate Palestine and all of this, you know, nonsense, let's put it this way, but

Nonetheless, you know, the timing of him being deposed is rather interesting. It was merely just three weeks after King Farouk of Egypt was ousted, you know, by the Free Officers Movement in Egypt in the 1952 revolution. So, you know, two kings out within quick succession, except King Talal was deposed through an internal palace coup. Yeah.

And that was it. I mean, it was organized by his wife, who was very close to the British, especially the British head of the military, you know, Glob Pasha. The famous Glob Pasha. I swear, Eamon, we should do a whole series on each one of these episodes. There's so many great personalities. Queen Zayn was a very strong character. Indeed. And though her son, only 16 years old at the time, King Hussein, became king, she remained loyal.

very influential from behind the throne. King Hussein and policymakers in Jordan wanted to join the Baghdad Pact, getting back to what we were talking about in 1955, but as soon as they announced their intention to join, riots broke out across Jordan protesting the alliance. So Jordan didn't join. And it's important to note that these riots were largely influenced by Nasser's very sophisticated anti-Western propaganda machine.

So the Baghdad Pact split the Arab world right down the middle. You were either pro-Western or pro-neutrality with a leaning towards the Soviets. And this began to play out as a battle between Nouria Saeed in Iraq and Gamal Abdel Nasser, the president of Egypt.

But the chips were really stacked against Nouria Saeed all along. He was already extremely unpopular inside Iraq for his draconian, authoritarian, anti-communist, anti-minority regime. And then after the Suez crisis, Nasser became way more popular inside Iraq. Nouria Saeed was very much undermined by this.

Which takes us up to where we left off at the end of the last episode, the episode on Syria, with the formation of the United Arab Republic, the UAR, the union between Egypt and Syria, which was formed in February 1958. The idea then was that other Arab countries, slowly, slowly, would also join this new union. The announcement of the United Arab Republic freaked out the Hashemite monarchies, didn't it, Eamon? Especially King Hussein and Jordan.

King Hussein really freaked out about the United Arab Republic because one reason is that to the north, it's Syria. To the southwest, it's Egypt. He is sandwiched between two big Arab powers, you know, and he is an underpopulated small country.

It's also important that he was only 22 years old. I mean, a lot of the decisions that King Hussein would make over the next few years might be attributed to the fact that he was a very young man. Young men aren't really famous for their wisdom. And this brings us to the Iraqi King Faisal II.

He was only three years old following his father King Ghazi's death in that car crash. Well, it's important to note that King Faisal had come to power properly in 1953 when he was 18 years old. So when the UAR was proclaimed in 1958, he was also only 22 years old, just like his cousin, King Hussein in Jordan. Eamon, tell me about Faisal II. I know that you love him. Yeah.

Well, who wouldn't? I mean, I would definitely encourage the listeners to go and Google him. I mean, basically, I mean, and just see some of the videos of him visiting, you know, you know, world powers and all of that. I mean, you can tell, like, I mean, his gentle demeanor, his, you know, charisma, his, you know, his...

you know, good nature, he doesn't strike you as a despot, as a dictator, as someone basically, like, you know, who's a bloodthirsty. In fact, he was one of the gentlest kings that ever, you know, reigned over any Arab country. Yes, I mean, he had received a Western education, but, you know, he's famed for being a proponent of democracy. He was hoping to turn Iraq into a proper constitutional monarchy. Indeed, and it was a dream, and what a dream, unfortunately. Yeah.

This dream ended up in nightmare. Nasser was by this point so popular and his brand of pan-Arabism so inspiring that both King Hussein of Jordan and King Faisal II of Iraq feared that they'd be overthrown by forces favoring joining the UAR.

Now, what does this say about monarchism, Eamon? If it's supposed to be the great unifying, stabilizing force that you say it is, then why were the Hashemite monarchs at the receiving end of so much pro-Republican agitation by their people? Because the monarchs at the time did not understand yet the power of transnational ideas and how they can cross borders and

You know, and the power of the media, the power of ideas spreading like virus. And at that time, it was communism and international socialism. And Arab nationalism. And Arab nationalism. Arab nationalism, you know, based on the socialistic ideas, were really infectious at that time. And they...

did not have what we call the countermeasure, the ability to counter this narrative with their population. So it was all about not the monarchy or nationalism, it was actually the failure of narratives.

It's interesting. I mean Arab nationalism had for a brief period in the 1910s and 20s been sort of focused on the Sharif of Mecca and his sons creating a pan-Arab monarchical imperium. And it was pan-Arab. I mean they hoped to unite all the Arabs under their Hashemite rule.

It didn't work. The Western powers didn't play along exactly as they should have or would have or could have. And then Arab nationalism took a secularizing turn with the rise of Nasser and other movements like the Ba'ath Party and things. And so the vision of pan-Arabism that the Hashemites had first propagated came back in a secular form to bite them in the butt. Indeed.

And by them it did. And this is what will bring us to the July events of 1958. That's right. In extreme haste after the announcement of the United Arab Republic, on King Hussein's initiative, he and King Faisal proclaimed their own union, the Arab Republic.

federation literally within 13 days they dreamt up a whole new union the arab federation nuria saeed was appointed prime minister of the new federation but it was not destined to last long amen as you say this brings us to an episode in iraqi history that you always speak of with great emotion the 14 july revolution of 1958

It was a cursed day, a dark day, a black spot on the history of not only Iraq, but the entire Middle East. As we've been saying, inside Iraq for several years, opposition had been brewing against Nouria Saeed, against the regime there, against...

Whether it was led by Noura Seed or someone else, the regime had become very authoritarian, forcing most opposition voices underground. The disparate strands of the Iraqi opposition at this point were either pro-Nasser or at least anti-anti-Nasser. So this is from right-wing nationalist to left-wing communist. And the opposition coalesced into a new political organization, the United National Front. So uniting all the opposition under one umbrella.

At the same time, as early as 1952, in fact, radical officers inside the Iraqi army, inspired by Nasser and the other young Egyptian officers who had overthrown King Farouk, had begun to organize it.

It's a sign of Nasser's influence of how inspiring he was, wasn't it, Ayman? Yes. I mean, this is the problem, Lakin, I mean, with Nasserism that, you know, it really reminds me of the age, you know, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

These officers loved Nasser's centralizing reforms. They loved his position of non-alignment in the Cold War. They loved his boldness during the Suez Crisis. And they were itching for radical change.

Okay, so now we're going to talk about this in detail a few episodes down the line. But in 1958, the year of the UAR and the Arab Federation, Lebanon suddenly collapsed into civil war. The young King Hussein in Jordan was spooked again. And that is why King Hussein requested military aid from his cousin, King Faisal in Baghdad, you know, to deal with, you know, the ramifications of the Lebanese civil war.

He feared that the fighting in Lebanon would spill over into his country, so he called upon his cousin in Baghdad to help. Nuri al-Said ordered Iraqi troops to Amman to defend the regime there, but instead they marched on Baghdad. Indeed, and they were marching on Al-Rahab Palace where King Faisal resided. And when the news came to King Faisal, he was told that we can defend you, we can quickly wreck the barricades.

We can defend you all the way until you can get in an airplane because he was supposed to fly that day to Istanbul in order to seek the hand of his fiancee in marriage. He was supposed to be engaged that day, that very day. His beautiful fiancee was waiting for him in Istanbul. So King Faisal, having already instructed the garrison not to fight and open the gates of the Rehab Palace, he came down with

his uncle, his aunts and his cousins. And most of them were females, actually young girls. And he was carrying a white flag. All of this magnanimity and surrender did not spare him at all.

They were all put against the wall in the Rehab Palace in the courtyard and they were all shot dead. And, you know, even when one of the guards took him to the hospital, he was still bleeding but alive. The soldiers prevented the doctors from saving his life and he died bleeding on a hospital stretcher.

That's right. It's a terrible, terrible story. The revolution was the work of two officers mainly, Abdul Karim Qasim and another one. I mean, Qasim is the man who ended up leading the revolutionary state that would emerge after the revolution. Yeah, there was no resistance from the royal palace, as you say. He was gentle. He said, look,

We're going to let these people in. They're our fellow Iraqis. And at 8 a.m., the royal family were taken out into the courtyard and executed by firing squad. Nuri Saeed, who they were also looking to kill, escaped. But the next day, he was spotted in the street. And right there, right where he stood, they shot him dead.

The bodies of Nouray Saeed, of the royal family, as well as politicians and businessmen who had been hunted down and killed. The bodies were dragged through the streets, strung up. You know, it was disgusting. It was extremely barbaric. And of course, the king was buried in an Ammar grave, you know, like a commoner.

Until years later, Saddam Hussein, of all people, exhumed the body of King Faisal, gave him the proper burial and

Well, I do believe that what happened to King Faisal, that regicide, you know, that, you know, barbaric killing of that young, you know, king who actually had nothing but good intention towards his people and towards his country. I think it is what really sent Iraq, you know, down that

spiral of instability and warfare and bloodshed that is still plaguing the country until now? Well, after the revolution in Iraq in 1958, the Arab Federation that King Faisal and Hussein had so hastily put together immediately fell apart. I think that's obvious. Iraq also withdrew almost immediately from the Baghdad Pact.

In fact, the revolutionary officers had invoked the Baghdad Pact as a justification for the coup. It's likely that most of the revolutionaries expected that Iraq would join Nasser's UAR. But Abdul Karim Qasim, the general who managed to grab the reins of power in Baghdad, he didn't want to surrender any power to Nasser. So he didn't join the UAR and the course towards pan-Arab union was stalled once again.

Iraqi politics became very messy. For 18 months, Iraq saw escalating violence as a new political elite swirling around Qasem polarized. There were pan-Arab unionists versus Iraqi nationalists, socialists versus liberal democrats versus communists.

versus Ba'athists, i.e. Iraqis who were more pro-Egypt and Iraqis who were more pro-Syrian, Christians versus Muslims, Kurds versus Arabs, poor versus rich. Shia versus Sunni. Iraq, it fell apart. Indeed. And, you know, one of the things when you look at, you know, at the what-ifs of history is that there was no need to kill the king, you

You know, they could have easily just, you know, went all the way to him and, you know, say, okay, that's it. We're taking over the government. Dismiss Noor al-Saeed. Dismiss your uncle, Abdullah. And we are taking over as a government with you as a figurehead. And things would have been pretty much different.

Eventually, the general Qasim was able to navigate a way through this chaos and he crushed dissent. So he became the dictator of Iraq for five years and built a state much like Nasser's in Egypt, secular in outlook, oriented toward development and social mobility, but a military dictatorship. Oh, and also just like Nasser, he turned to the Soviet Union for loans and armaments.

Qasem himself was overthrown in a coup by the Ba'ath Party in 1963. And Iraq, like Syria at around the same time, was now fully dominated by a radical secular dictatorship espousing pan-Arab nationalism. There's a pattern here.

You say, Ayman, that monarchism is built into the Middle Eastern mindset or soul or whatever, but surely the relentless spread of pan-Arab nationalism in the 50s and 60s is a powerful argument against your view. It was all very popular. It was. And the secret word here, it was, was, you know, W-A-S, was. It, you know, it's, you know, because if you look at

The popularity of monarchy right now, it is really soaring because when you look at Egypt, when you look at Iraq, when you look at Libya, when you ask around basically the population there, and they will always now remember the monarchs of old more fondly. The monarchy has been rehabilitated.

Because populations went through hell, you know, due to, you know, all the decisions that were taken by these dictators, especially like Amin Saddam, Hafez al-Assad, Ali Saleh, all of these dictators who ruled their countries with iron fist, you know.

if they start to compare them with what came before them, they would say, oh, we wish that era never ended. And the same with Iran. Many people still looking at the repressive days of the Shah, you know, with more fondness when they compare it to what they are living under right now, under the Mullah's regime in Tehran.

Well, Eamon, I don't really have a sermon to end today's episode with. All this talk about the Temple Mount, the Temple in Jerusalem, has got me thinking about kingship and especially sacred kingship. In the Hebrew Bible, the original Temple in Jerusalem built by King Solomon was intimately bound up with the monarchy. The king was something like an image down here on earth of what God was up in heaven.

This despite the fact that, according to the text of the Bible, when the Israelites asked God for a king, he told them they'd be better off as they were, a loose collection of self-governing tribes, which in times of trouble would turn to divinely inspired judges to help them through the crisis. Nonetheless, the Israelites insisted, and so God gave them what they wanted, a king, with decidedly checkered results, I must say.

Now, when Christianity came along, a similar sort of tension arose between right worship and kingship. Christ's kingdom was, quote-unquote, not of this world, he said. But when the Roman emperors became Christians, they would rule as the vicegerent of God on earth. And again, the results were not altogether Christian.

We've already discussed Islam's ambivalence about kingship, I would say. You disagree, Eamon. But in all three religious traditions, worldly kingship, monarchical governance,

existed alongside in a sort of stable tension with other more explicitly religious forms of authority rabbis, priests, elders, sheikhs judges, monks, ulama but modernity and secular republicanism which is modernity's most pure political expression upset that balance, that tension the part of the world that the monarch had governed was secularized and made absolute the other half

it was hardly even acknowledged, certainly not in the same way, and it was marginalized. Now, I don't know where I'm going with this, Ayman, but I sound like a broken record, but again, you do see modernity imposed in a non-modern and non-Western civilization, and the result is clash, conflict, violence. Exactly. That is why, in my opinion, the best form of governance are those which are organic.

We agree about that, Eamon. Okay, we've done what we can to tell the story of the rise and rise of Arab nationalism, pan-Arabism, Nazism, whatever. With more and more Arab countries going nationalist and tilting toward the Soviets, all the pieces were in place for a couple of civilization-shaking wars with Israel. Stay tuned.

Did you know, dear listener, that you can follow the show at MHConflicted on both Twitter and Facebook? And did you also know that there is a Facebook discussion page where you can join like-minded listeners to pick over the details of the subjects we discuss on the show?

Well, now you know. Head over to Facebook and search Conflicted Podcast Discussion Group to learn more. Finally, we'd like to let you know that at the end of each episode, Eamon and I answer a question posed to us by one lucky listener. Send us your burning questions on Twitter and Facebook. Then, to hear if your question is read out...

Subscribe to ad-free listening and bonus content access on Apple Podcasts for just 99p. If you listen on Spotify, you can access the same perks by subscribing to Conflicted Extra, also for just 99p. We look forward to you joining us again in two weeks' time for the next episode of Conflicted.

Conflicted is a Message Heard production. This episode was produced and edited by Rowan Bishop. Sandra Ferrari is our executive producer. Production support and fact-checking by Molly Freeman. Our theme music is by Matt Huxley. ♪