A Secret Great Game

The world of Islam is under attack for the last two centuries. This essay explores the concept of a modern "Great Game" in the Middle East, tracing how global superpowers have historically deployed covert operations to fragment the region. By examining declassified British archives from 1916, the text reveals a blueprint engineered to dismantle the Ottoman Empire and foster internal division. Finally, it connects these century-old strategies directly to the modern era, analyzing contemporary normalization accords, behind-the-scenes monarchical alliances, and high-level compromises exposed in global investigative records.

أَعُوذُ بِاللّٰهِ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

In the name of ALLAH, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

A Secret Great Game

(A Game played in the Middle East to Counter Islam)

The Concept of a "Great Game" in the Middle East: Geopolitics, Ideology, and Regional Strategy

The phrase "The Great Game" originally defined the 19th-century strategic rivalry between the British and Russian Empires for supremacy in Central Asia. In the modern era, this terminology has shifted toward the Middle East, frequently utilized by political scientists and regional analysts to describe the complex web of covert operations, resource competition, and foreign interventions. Within certain political, historical, and religious discourses, there exists a narrative that this modern iteration constitutes a "secret game" designed specifically to counter the political, social, and economic influence of Islam. To understand this concept fully, one must analyze it through two distinct lenses: the documented history of Western intelligence operations, and the regional perspectives that view foreign intervention as a systematic effort to fragment the Muslim world.

1. The Geopolitical Lens: Securing Resources and Containing Rivals

From a mainstream historical and political science perspective, foreign intervention in the Middle East has primarily been driven by state interest, resource acquisition, and superpower containment, rather than an inherent ideological war against a religion.

During the Cold War, Western intelligence agencies, most notably the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), engaged in extensive covert actions across the region. As documented in historical accounts like Hugh Wilford’s America's Great Game, early Western intelligence strategies often did not seek to suppress Islam. On the contrary, during the mid-20th century, Western powers frequently aligned with conservative Islamic regimes and movements to counter the spread of secular Arab nationalism and the atheist ideology of the Soviet Union. The most prominent example of this strategy occurred during the Soviet-Afghan War, where the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan covertly funded and armed the Mujahideen to defeat Soviet forces. In these scenarios, religious identity was leveraged as a geopolitical tool rather than targeted for eradication.

2. The Regional Perspective: Strategic Fragmentation and the Suppression of Islam

Conversely, within the Middle East and the broader Muslim world, a compelling counter-narrative exists. Many local historians, scholars, and political analysts argue that global powers have engaged in a deliberate, long-term strategy to weaken the geopolitical standing of Islamic nations and suppress the rise of self-determined, Islam-aligned governance. Proponents of this view highlight several pivotal historical milestones:

• The Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916): The secret wartime treaty between Great Britain and France shattered the remnants of the Ottoman Empire—the last widely recognized Islamic Caliphate. By drawing arbitrary borders that ignored ethnic, tribal, and sectarian realities, colonial powers created inherently unstable nation-states, a move critics argue was designed to ensure long-term regional weakness and dependence.

• The Post-9/11 Era and the War on Terror: The military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with aggressive drone warfare and global surveillance apparatuses, deeply impacted the collective psyche of the region. Many populations interpreted these actions not merely as counter-terrorism, but as a systematic campaign to reshape the Middle East, depose uncooperative leaders, and marginalize political expressions of Islam.

• The Exploitation of Sectarian Fault Lines: A key element of the perceived "secret game" is the active exploitation of the Sunni-Shia divide. By backing different sides in regional proxy conflicts—such as the geopolitical rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran—external powers are seen as fostering internal conflict. This "divide and rule" mechanism effectively prevents the formation of a unified regional or economic bloc that could challenge global hegemony.

3. The Blueprint for Division: T.E. Lawrence and "The Politics of Mecca"

The most striking historical evidence supporting this narrative of deliberate fragmentation is found within the declassified British imperial records from World War I (1914–1918). Up until its collapse, the Ottoman Empire stood as the most powerful Muslim political entity in the world. Centered in Anatolia and led by the Turks, its jurisdiction encompassed an incredibly diverse demographic tapestry, stretching across Turkish, Arab, Berber, and Kurdish lands. Crucially, it held custody over the holy Hijaz region, including the sacred cities of Makkah and Madinah.

British colonial strategists believed that permanently neutralizing the threat of a unified Islamic superpower required the absolute destruction of Ottoman authority. The mechanism chosen to achieve this was the systematic manipulation of regional identity, specifically by exploiting Arab nationalist movements. British intelligence recognized that they could get the Arabs to rebel against the Ottomans in the name of independence. To execute this, the British established relations with different Arab political figures, giving special attention to two men: Sharif Husayn, who ruled the Hijaz on behalf of the Ottomans, and Ibn Saud. During the war, the British managed to have both figures cooperate against the Turks.

However, British secret records reveal a profound undercurrent of duplicity. The British believed that the Arabs themselves lacked the institutional discipline to unite effectively. The long-term imperial strategy dictated that once the Arabs rose to destroy the Ottoman Empire, they would be left to perpetually fight one another—ensuring they remained weak, fragmented, and incapable of posing a threat to British interests. Furthermore, British planners sought to actively stimulate theological disagreements between the Arabs and the Turks to facilitate the permanent dissolution of Islamic political cohesion.

This grand strategy was explicitly laid out by T.E. Lawrence, the famous British agent in charge of organizing the Arab revolt. In his January 1916 memorandum titled "The Politics of Mecca," preserved in the British archives (File 53/1915 Part IV 'German War: Turkey; Caliphate etc'), Lawrence explicitly detailed how imperial interests were served by fracturing the Muslim world from within:

"Sherif Hussein is not working in the British interests, except in so far as they further the particular dreams and hopes of the political party to which he belongs... His activity seems beneficial to us, because it marches with our immediate aims, the break up of the Islamic “bloc” and the defeat and disruption of the Ottoman Empire, and because the states he would set up to succeed the Turks would be as harmless to ourselves as Turkey was before she became a tool in German hands. The Arabs are even less stable than the Turks. If properly handled they would remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of small jealous principalities, incapable of cohesion, and yet always ready to combine against an outside force...

Sherif Hussein’s activities have already been of use to us... If we can only arrange that this political change shall be a violent one, we will have abolished the threat of Islam, by dividing it against itself, in its very heart. There will then be a Khalifa in Turkey and a Khalifa in Arabia, in theological warfare, and Islam will be as little formidable as the Papacy when Popes lived in Avignon."

Following the conclusion of World War I, the British were forced to decide which of their proxies would ultimately control the holy lands of the Hijaz. While they had initially favored Sharif Husayn to lead the region, post-war dynamics shifted. Ibn Saud aggressively demonstrated his tactical capability and strategic alignment with British interests. Recognizing the shift in regional power, the British eventually acquiesced to Ibn Saud's conquest of the Hijaz, paving the way for the modern geopolitical map of the Arabian Peninsula.

4. The Modern Recurrence: Covert Alliances, Monarchical Cohorts, and the Epstein Files

The structural "tissue of small jealous principalities" engineered by T.E. Lawrence has evolved significantly in the 21st century. While the players have changed, regional critics argue that the underlying objective—preventing a unified Islamic political or economic bloc—remains identical. Today, this manifests as a highly coordinated, behind-the-scenes effort where several Arab Monarchies act in lockstep with Western and Israeli geopolitical interests, effectively sidelining Pan-Islamic solidarity in favor of dynastic preservation.

The most glaring manifestation of this modern coordination was the signing of the Abraham Accords, which formally normalized diplomatic, economic, and security relations between Israel and Gulf entities like the United Arab Emirates (UAE). While marketed publicly as regional peace initiatives, political analysts point out that these accords formalized decades of deeply entrenched, covert intelligence sharing and security partnerships. Critics view this alignment as a strategic betrayal of Islamic solidarity—most notably the Palestinian cause—designed to establish a security architecture that permanently represses independent or grassroots Islamist political movements under the guise of counter-extremism.

The deep, transactional underbelly of this modern closed-door game was brought to light through the declassified Jeffrey Epstein files released by the U.S. Department of Justice. These documents revealed that the late, disgraced financier operated not merely as a criminal, but as an influential political backchannel attempting to build powerful intelligence and business networks across the Middle East. The files exposed that Epstein spent years cultivating networks that essentially laid the blueprint for the Abraham Accords, brokering meetings between high-level Israeli officials (such as former Prime Minister Ehud Barak) and elite Emirati figures.

The fallout from these files directly impacted the highest echelons of the Emirati corporate and political establishment. Following intense public scrutiny over thousands of leaked emails detailing personal and business relationships with Epstein, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem—the powerful billionaire chairman and CEO of Dubai’s global ports giant, DP World—was forced to resign. The records exposed extensive coordination, including Epstein leveraging his connections to help Middle Eastern elites secure technology deals and political backchannels with Israel, while advising Gulf monarchs on how to manipulate their international image to stay in the good graces of Washington. Critics argue that the entanglement of Arab monarchs in these compromising global networks ensures their perpetual compliance, keeping the region fragmented, subservient to external security interests, and internally neutralized exactly as Lawrence envisioned over a century ago.

Conclusion

Whether interpreted as a pragmatic pursuit of energy security and wartime alignment or as a calculated ideological effort to fragment the Muslim world, the concept of a modern "Great Game" highlights the deep historical scars of the Middle East. While documented Western intelligence operations during the later Cold War favored alignment with religious factions to defeat secular communism, the foundation of the modern Middle East crisis was built on a deliberate policy of engineered division.

The declassified words of T.E. Lawrence stand as an undeniable historical blueprint of imperial manipulation, a scheme that smoothly transitions into the contemporary era of the Abraham Accords and compromise-driven backchannels exposed in the Epstein files. Local aspirations for independence and regional security continue to be weaponized by external actors and complicit ruling dynasties to break any potential for a unified political bloc. Ultimately, the legacy of this century-old "game" remains alive today, as artificial borders, engineered rivalries, and structural instabilities continue to dictate the destiny of the region.

References

1. Lawrence, T.E. (1916). "The Politics of Mecca." British National Archives. Reference ID: File 53/1915 Part IV 'German War: Turkey; Caliphate etc' [159r] (314/481).

2. Wilford, Hugh. (2013). America's Great Game: The CIA's Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East. Basic Books.

3. Fromkin, David. (1989). A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Owl Books.

4. U.S. Department of Justice. (2024). Publicly Disclosed Investigative Files and Transcripts Regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Criminal Case and Associated Foreign Contacts. Washington D.C.

5. The Abraham Accords Declaration. (2020). Joint Statement of Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. U.S. Department of State.

6. DP World Corporate Press / Leaked Correspondence Archives. (2024). Investigative Reports and Resignation Filings Concerning Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem and Middle Eastern Backchannel Tech Deals.