First about the main trends in political in Middle East, the region’s political history, classic and modern world, has been punctuated by the rise and fall of great powers in many ways, colonial domination, the birth or creation of new countries, and rough marches toward political and economic development in the area. Also, the various consequences of these growths for the Middle East have been particularly pronounced since the early decades of the twentieth century. As it mentioned, the end of the Ottoman Empire dynasty marked the termination of caliphal rule as the Middle East had come to know it since the earliest years of Islam. So, the dramatic changes obviously had actually started a few years before the death of the Ottomans, with Europe’s raising economic and military interests in the region and an emerging Arab revolt having expedited the sultanate’s end. So, the more things change, goes the popular wisdom at that time, the faster they change over time. H (1949) said “The resulting instability is an invitation to the very foreign intervention that the Middle Eastern nationalists have sought to eradicate” (p, 244).The World War I and it’s important for the Arab lands of the Ottoman Empire date from after 1918 to the present day because of its changes and movement in political. The region had long been a matter and a real issue of Anglo-French rivalry for future control overwide because it caused many significant obstacle over there for a while, especially in politician separation. This issue emerges during and after the war and the conflicting promises made in the extensive scholarship on the war aims and military campaigns of both countries, especially by Britain. Also, it was great opportunity in both Arab officials in the region and Zionist leaders in England and France regarding the fate of Palestine.
Moreover about the military, it was an occupation of the Middle East at the end of 1918 by British and Indian armies of nearly a million men noticed the complete collapse there of the old international order. The dissolution of the Tsarist Empire, and the conquest of Germany and Turkey, clearly described the circumstances which had governed British policy in this region for a century. Then, the obvious changes made Britain their dominance of political and military power in the lands between India in the east, the Caspian in the north, and Constantinople in the west to be eligible to enter the corrupt areas. The emergence of sovereign, the independent states in the Middle East inthe1940s and1950s intensely changed their domestic power equations and the traditional basics for state society relations in each Middle East country. These ostensibly were thrust unprepared into a real competitive international environment in which they had to foster quick economic growth and industrial development. And, the most highly, satisfy the growing nationalist aspirations of their populations. These nationalist yearnings began in response to domestic social and political developments in the rea and as a consequence of the Palestinian-Israeli con?ict at that time. Also, after that the ending it clearly demonstrated by itself, serving as a catalyst for much regional con?ict and instability in the circumstance full of responsibility. Not surprisingly, the political history of the Middle East as it unfolded in the 20s century was one of the other wars in the region, conquests, political turmoil, and extremism for creating the dominant regions around. Finally, the colonialism has created a long history in the Middle East and to the modern world it detected in the happening events. We can clearly demonstrate the rhetoric of the Ottomans and what they actually stood for; the caliphate makes it easy to forget the reality which their rule, especially outside their Anatolian heart land, was basically colonial.
Second, all about the social trends in Middle East there was a lot of changes in population, medicine, and even cultures. The Middle East continues to experience immense changes from the sides of what the society wanted to change or move to better. In the Gulf process, evolving demographic, economic, and conditions are raising new questions about how governments relate to their citizens, to each other and border outside. Furthermore, the leaders in the Maghreb face a huge demand for improvements it increasingly transcends national boundaries, so grappling with security challenges. Also, a protracted conflict that they negotiated with in Syria continues to generate spillover of instability into Iraq and the Levant, which face their own political and socioeconomic weights at the same time. Such public discussion had arisen before World War one, in the context of Ottoman reform and the essential for social progress to protect the empire from any broad participants. .After 1918, the arena for debate was widened and utterly transformed by three new factors: prolonged social dislocation after the war, the construction of sovereign nation-states from previous Ottoman provinces, and foreign occupation. Newly organized states hurried war relief to citizens to justify their rules and expanding the organization. While Faysal’s Syrian government heralded health relief and the established the building for schools as a new era of development and liberation for the Arab peoples to learn, the French in Lebanon hurried to deliver relief in the name of their civilizing task as their demand for changing old society. Roucek (1956) said “For instance, at El Azhar, the greatest Mos lem University, students spent 13 years memoriz ing the Koran, a commentary on it, and then a commentary on the commentary” (p, 439). The French used their war relief to win the award of Syria and Lebanon as French mandates by the League of Nations in 1922. And, social services as changed over and over would be remaining a cornerstone of French rights to regulate. Also, by 1939, the mandatory states had dedicated themselves to a variety of social policies that struck deeper into society than the Ottomans ever required to do. But the transformation on these changes was not merely one of degree. However, at the same time, by building the infrastructure for development, the states unintentionally created social forces large working classes, especially national labor aristocracy, large middle classes, educated youth, and publicly active women that would later confront the states, since few institutional channels were made available for their expression. With the exception of Lebanon and Turkey, political parties, independent press, professional syndicates, independent trade unions, and NGOs were limited in the region. Dissidents were not tolerated and many human rights were violated; judicial independence and citizen participation in political life were seriously restricted.
Thirdly, about the economic changes