Faisal I

King of Iraq (r. 1921-1933)

• Born: May 20, 1885
• Birthplace: Taif, Arabia (now Saudi Arabia)
• Died: September 8, 1933
• Place of death: Bern, Switzerland

After commanding forces that played a prominent part in the Arab revolt of 1916-1918 against Ottoman rule, Faisal became the first king of modern Iraq and ruled for thirteen years. By adopting a position midway between British and nationalist demands, he was able ultimately to win independence for his country.

Early Life

Although he was born of an auspicious family, the early years of Faisal (FI-sahl) did not seem to prefigure the path that his career in the politics of the Middle East later was to take. He was the third son of Ḥusayn ibn ՙAlī, and his father’s ancestors, through the line of Dhawu-Awn, were from one branch of the tribe of the prophet Muhammad. Faisal was born in Taif, a city southeast of Mecca, on May 20, 1885; his early years evidently were spent for the most part in the desert and oases among local Bedouin. His father was called to Istanbul in the course of intrigues that had embroiled him with the rival Dhawu-Zayd clan. With his brothers, Faisal was educated in the Ottoman capital; in 1905 he married his cousin Hazimah. In 1908, when the position of sharif of Mecca became vacant, the ascendancy of new Ottoman political factions following the Young Turks Revolution seemed to favor the opponents of Ḥusayn and his family; yet, through the intervention of Sultan Abdülhamid II and the grand vizier, Ḥusayn was able to secure his appointment as the sharif. As Ḥusayn set about to establish his authority by curtailing the depredations of local raiding bands, Faisal took part in expeditions against marauders from the Asir, the region to the south of Mecca along the Red Sea. Along with his brother, Abdullah, who represented Mecca, Faisal was elected to the Ottoman parliament of 1912 as deputy for Jidda. During this time, Abdullah had also begun to broach the possibility of a more forthright assertion of power on behalf of his family, and of Arab peoples more generally, and had approached British officials in Egypt to inquire about possible assistance; Faisal, however, remained wary and uneasy about ventures of this sort. All the while, Ottoman leaders had become persuaded that Ḥusayn was intent on consolidating and expanding his own power, and serious doubts had arisen that the government would maintain him in his post. Controversies of that sort, however, were overshadowed by more basic considerations after the outbreak of World War I. The Ottoman Empire had aligned itself with the Central Powers, and in October, 1914, it became involved in war with Russia; early in the following month, the United Kingdom and France declared war on the Ottoman state.

Life’s Work

Because of his position, Sharif Ḥusayn’s stance was important both to the Ottoman Empire and to the Allies, and, while he demurred when the Ottoman government asked him to proclaim a holy war, or jihad, against its opponents, he had come on evidence that the Ottomans intended to depose him. The sharif sent Faisal on a mission northward, ostensibly to clarify the situation with the Ottoman authorities but also to inquire about the political leanings of the Arab provinces. In March, 1915, Faisal stopped over in Damascus, where he concluded that the situation was still confused and uncertain; after conferring with Ottoman leaders in Istanbul and protesting that his father remained loyal to the empire, he went back to Syria in response to an entreaty he had received from Arab nationalist organizations. In May in Damascus, he was presented with a petition on behalf of local leaders, who offered their support should Ḥusayn break openly with the Ottoman Porte. Although he also met with the commander of the Ottoman Fourth Army, Ahmed Cemal Paşa, while the latter was in Jerusalem, and renewed his affirmations of allegiance to the Ottoman cause, Faisal later reported to Ḥusayn that plans for a revolt should be prepared. Nevertheless it would appear that he preferred still to wait on events; indeed, Faisal argued that the time would not be propitious until Ottoman armies had been weakened and active British support was assured.

While the sharif himself began to correspond with British officials in Cairo, Faisal’s beliefs in a policy of calculated ambivalence were rather rudely shaken during further visits to the northern Arab provinces. He met with Cemal for the apparent purpose of discussing military support for the Ottoman war effort. The Ottoman commander rather pointedly demonstrated to his guest means that he had devised for the suppression of nationalist sentiment among the Arabs; a certain number of prominent local figures were hanged, and Cemal invited Faisal to attend the execution of some of them. Later, during the spring of 1916, after Faisal had made a return visit to Syria, increasing pressure was brought to bear on the sharif to provide more definite assurances of his loyalty to the Ottoman Empire. Cemal was joined by Enver Paşa, the minister of war, and bargaining of a rather blunt sort went on between Damascus and Mecca. Faisal was in no position to oppose openly the demands of the authorities; when he departed, however, in May, 1916, tensions had risen markedly. The following month, Ḥusayn openly defied his nominal overlords by announcing an Arab revolt. The insurgents captured Mecca and other cities soon thereafter.

While at the outset Faisal was less sanguine about the prospects for an armed revolt than other members of his family had been, his efforts in the end won for him the esteem and particular regard of Arab nationalists. In October, 1916, he first met with Colonel T. E. Lawrence, who was to become the most renowned of British participants in the guerrilla war against Ottoman forces. In January, 1917, an army of about ten thousand men under Faisal’s command was on hand when Arabs assisted by the British navy wrested control of Al Wajh, on the Red Sea, from the Ottomans; that July, troops operating in advance of Faisal’s camp captured Aqaba, opposite the Sinai Peninsula, and Faisal entered the city the following month. Various raids and attacks on Ottoman positions to the north followed as the Arab armies attempted when possible to coordinate their efforts with the Palestine offensive mounted by British imperial forces under General Lord Allenby. During later phases of the war, Arab troops harassed enemy positions along the Hejaz Railway and to the east of the Jordan River Valley; toward the end of the campaign, Der’a in southern Syria was captured, and Arab forces entered Damascus on October 1, 1918, just ahead of Australian cavalry. Faisal arrived a few days later. The enlistment of some soldiers from other parts of the Arab world during the struggle had endowed the movement with a wider aura that seemed to cast Faisal as the spokesman for much of the Arab Middle East.

During the early stages of the war, British representatives had assured Ḥusayn of support for the independence of Arab lands to the east of four cities in Syria; yet offers had also been made, in a celebrated agreement concluded by Sir Mark Sykes and Charles François Georges-Picot, to recognize French interests in the Levant. Moreover, in November, 1917, Great Britain had agreed in the famous Balfour Declaration to support the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. Such undertakings could be reconciled with one another, if at all, only with difficulty; revelations about such engagements, moreover, had aroused Arab suspicions about British and French intentions. In October, 1918, Faisal proclaimed the establishment of a Syrian state; he subsequently left for Europe as the head of an Arab delegation that was to present its claims at the Paris Peace Conference. Accompanied by Lawrence, who served as his assistant, Faisal attempted to persuade Allied statesmen that, on grounds of self-determination, independent Arab states should be established in the liberated countries. He also met with the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann and with jurist Felix Frankfurter, who was then at the Harvard law school, and Faisal maintained that Arab and Jewish interests could be pursued in common, though he was careful to add that joint support could be predicated only on the attainment of complete independence for the Arab countries.

In person, Faisal presented a striking figure; indeed, to Western observers he seemed both dignified and exotic. He was thin and fairly tall, and had a refined, contemplative bearing. He had fine dark eyes, thick eyebrows, and an expressive mouth; a receding chin was offset by the carefully trimmed beard and mustache he had cultivated. Many of those present at the peace negotiations regarded him as a sympathetic and somewhat extraordinary individual, though such attributes seemed to have little effect on the decisions that were reached in pursuit of previous Allied undertakings. In particular, France’s claims on Lebanon and Syria precluded any accommodation that would leave his Arab government in power. Although some fighting had taken place already, during March, 1920, a Syrian national congress proclaimed the complete independence of that country, and Faisal was made its king. In July, when Faisal was unable to respond in time to an ultimatum issued by France’s general Henri Gouraud, the nationalists were summarily and ignominiously routed at Khan Maysalun, and Faisal was driven from Damascus.

During World War I, British imperial forces had occupied much of modern Iraq, and in April, 1920, as territorial assignments in the Middle East were made, Britain was awarded a mandate over that country from the League of Nations. The installation of orderly government in any form, however, was complicated by an insurrection that kept British forces at bay during much of that summer and autumn. In March, 1921, an imperial conference was held in Cairo, under the chairmanship of Winston Churchill; partly at the prompting of Lawrence, it was decided that Faisal should be offered the throne of Iraq. At about this time, Abdullah was made the king of Transjordan.

Particular precautions were taken to ensure that Faisal would be well received by his subjects; one of his leading rivals was exiled, while a plebiscite was conducted so carefully that it indicated 96 percent support for the new king. Faisal was duly crowned in August, 1921. Rather than relying solely on its mandatory authority, Britain preferred to conclude a treaty that, while ostensibly treating Iraq nearly as an equal partner, required the appointment of British advisers to all important government departments. A parliamentary form of government, under an organic law, was introduced in 1924. Iraqi politics tended to be turbulent and were marked by relatively rapid changes of cabinets. Nevertheless, rather definite advances were achieved in foreign policy and on domestic matters. In June, 1926, most of the province of Mosul, to the north, formally became part of Iraq following an agreement with Britain and Turkey; near Kirkuk, during the next year, oil in large quantities was located. Friendship treaties with other neighboring states were concluded in 1929 and 1930.

During much of Faisal’s reign, marked improvement of social and cultural conditions was also achieved. A number of educational institutions were opened, while communications and navigation were improved; irrigation projects and agricultural programs were carried forward as well. Some complications arose as nationalist agitation mounted. Faisal, who was under some pressure to throw off or limit his country’s dependence on Britain, negotiated new treaties; by an agreement of 1930, in return for guaranteed access to Iraqi transport facilities, the continuing presence of some British advisers, and the lease of air bases to the Royal Air Force, Britain pledged to support Iraq’s admission to the League of Nations. This offer would lead to an effective grant of independence and termination of the mandate. Local opinion was divided; minority groups, notably Christians and Kurds, feared that they would be without protection once Britain’s position in the country had diminished, while others believed that Faisal had accepted too little in view of the concessions that Iraq was still required to make. While the League of Nations accepted Iraq’s application for membership in October, 1932, several serious uprisings had already taken place among the Kurds, and conflicts in the northern part of the country led to an unfortunate and much-publicized confrontation between Assyrian Christians and units of the Iraqi army during the summer of 1933. Faisal, who evidently was susceptible to nervous strain, went to Switzerland for medical treatment; he died of a heart attack rather abruptly in Bern on September 8, 1933. He was succeeded by Ghazi, his youngest child and only son.

Significance

While assessments of Faisal I’s character and intentions have varied among observers, some particular themes have appeared regularly; often outwardly negative qualities have taken on more favorable connotations when regarded in a different light. It has often been maintained that Faisal displayed a certain diffidence in the early phases of the Arab revolt during World War I. This characteristic some have ascribed further to duplicity and self-interest, while others have regarded it as necessary prudence. Although certain writers have contended that his importance as a military commander has been exaggerated, and indeed that some of his exploits were simply stage-managed, others have argued that, in view of the limited forces at his disposal, his accomplishments were by no means to be belittled.

Faisal’s detractors have held that in Iraq his manner of rule manifested vacillation, temporization, and self-promotion; his willingness to compromise has been taken sometimes as a lack of resolve. More positive assessments of his reign have stressed the material progress that was achieved as he exercised control over a country that was stormy enough to overturn the governments of some of his successors. Indeed, more on a personal plane, what to some historians appeared as a vacuous and unprincipled opportunism has been characterized by others as that quality of balanced realism that is essential for successful statesmanship. Although such differing viewpoints remain, the results of Faisal’s endeavors, during the transition from one period of Middle Eastern history to another, should underscore the importance of his place in the modern development of the region.

Bibliography

Atiyyah, Ghassan R. Iraq, 1908-1921: A Socio-Political Study. Beirut, Lebanon: Arab Institute for Research and Publishing, 1973. Internal developments are considered in this work by an Iraqi specialist who has assessed the effects of war and upheaval during the period leading to Faisal’s accession.

Khadduri, Majid. Independent Iraq, 1932-1958: A Study in Iraqi Politics. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1960. An important study of the transition to self-government in Iraq by a distinguished scholar who himself originally was from that country.

Longrigg, Stephen Hemsley. Iraq, 1900 to 1950: A Political, Social, and Economic History. London: Oxford University Press, 1953. This work by an authority on the region, who for many years served as an administrator and a British military officer, contrasts the lowly position of Iraq as an Ottoman province with the social and political advances it achieved under the monarchy.

Marr, Phebe. The Modern History of Iraq. 2d ed. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2004. A sound and well-balanced study of the nation that, for a time, Faisal and his successors ruled. The second chapter deals with events under the mandate.

Penrose, Edith, and E. F. Penrose. Iraq: International Relations and National Development. London: Ernest Benn, 1978. Modern transformations are traced by two writers who have drawn from extensive acquaintanceship with the country and scholars familiar with it.

Silverfarb, Daniel. Britain’s Informal Empire in the Middle East: A Case Study of Iraq, 1929-1941. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Problems in Britain’s management of its Middle Eastern concerns are considered in this work on the transition from one form of administration in Iraq to a more turbulent relationship with its independent ally.

Sluglett, Peter. Britain in Iraq, 1914-1932. London: Ithaca Press, 1976. Probably the most useful and well-balanced work on the period of World War I and the mandatory state, which allots due space to the concerns of both countries.

Tarbush, Mohammad A. The Role of the Military in Politics: A Case Study of Iraq to 1941. London: Kegan Paul International, 1982. This scholarly work sets forth the achievements and the complications entailed by the establishment of an Iraqi national army, which provided support during Faisal’s reign but later unsettled the rule of his successors.

Tripp, Charles. A History of Iraq. 2d ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. This overview of Iraq contains information about Faisal’s rule in chapters 2 and 3.

Zeine, Zeine N. The Struggle for Arab Independence: Western Diplomacy and the Rise and Fall of Faisal’s Kingdom in Syria. 2d ed. Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan Books, 1977. A vital work on Syrian politics and international complications during Faisal’s short-lived effort to establish an Arab state according to his own ideas.