What is it about?
between 1919 and 1921, the Arabian Peninsula witnessed a political and military conflict between the Emirate of Nejd, led by Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, and the Kingdom of Hejaz, led by Sharif Hussein bin Ali. Britain played a significant role in this conflict through its complex diplomacy, as it aimed to maintain its influence in the region after World War I. Britain had supported Sharif Hussein during the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire, but at the same time, it viewed Ibn Saud as a strong and reliable ally who could bring stability to central Arabia. As a result, Britain attempted to strike a balance between the two sides without openly favoring one over the other. It adopted a policy of “non-direct intervention,” while quietly influencing the course of events through financial and political support. This dual British stance led to rising tensions between Hejaz and Nejd and indirectly weakened Hejaz, paving the way for Ibn Saud’s eventual victory. The conflict illustrates how colonial powers like Britain pursued their strategic and economic interests, particularly concerning oil, even at the expense of regional stability. The study reveals that British diplomacy was far from neutral—it was a calculated tool to serve imperial goals. This approach had a profound impact on the future of the Arabian Peninsula, contributing to the eventual formation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Featured Image
Photo by Hala AlGhanim on Unsplash
Why is it important?
Shaped the Modern Middle East: The British approach to the Hejaz-Nejd conflict directly influenced the political map of the Arabian Peninsula. It paved the way for the rise of Ibn Saud and the eventual creation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932—a country that plays a central role in regional and global politics today. Reveals Colonial Strategies: Studying British diplomacy during this period exposes how colonial powers operated: they often supported multiple sides, prioritized their own interests (like oil and trade routes), and used diplomacy as a tool to maintain influence without direct military intervention. Teaches Lessons on Foreign Intervention: The conflict is a historical example of how foreign involvement—even when indirect—can shape the outcome of local disputes, often with long-lasting consequences. It shows the risks of favoring short-term strategic gains over long-term regional stability. Connects Past and Present: Understanding the roots of Saudi Arabia’s rise helps explain many modern dynamics in the Middle East, including the country’s political structure, religious influence, and relationships with Western powers. Highlights Indigenous Agency: Despite British influence, leaders like Ibn Saud skillfully navigated both diplomacy and warfare to achieve their goals. This reminds us that local actors were not just passive victims of colonialism—they were strategic players too.
Perspectives
British Imperial Perspective: From the British point of view at the time, diplomacy in Arabia was about maintaining stability and protecting imperial interests, especially after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Britain saw both Sharif Hussein and Ibn Saud as useful allies at different points and tried to balance relations to avoid open conflict and safeguard access to trade routes and emerging oil resources. Hejaz (Sharif Hussein’s) Perspective: Sharif Hussein viewed Britain as a committed ally, especially after leading the Arab Revolt with British support. He felt betrayed when British policy shifted toward neutrality or subtle support for Ibn Saud. Many in Hejaz saw Britain’s shifting stance as a broken promise, contributing to their political and military weakening. Nejd (Ibn Saud’s) Perspective: Ibn Saud approached the British with caution but skillfully used diplomacy to gain recognition and resources without surrendering autonomy. From his perspective, British support (even indirect) was a strategic tool he could leverage while continuing to pursue his vision of unifying the Arabian Peninsula under his leadership. Modern Historical Perspective: Historians today often view British diplomacy as self-serving, prioritizing imperial power over Arab unity or self-determination. Many scholars argue that Britain’s contradictory promises and indirect interference fueled conflict rather than resolving it, setting a pattern seen elsewhere in the post-Ottoman Middle East.
Professor Mufeed alzaidi
University of Baghdad
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: الدبلوماسية البريطانية تجاه النزاع الحجازي النجدي في شبه الجزيرة العربية ( 1919 - 1921 ), January 2001, Journal of Social Affairs,
DOI: 10.35217/0048-018-070-006.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
