in
History
—
Inventing a Region: The Colonial Origins of the 'Middle East'
The term 'Middle East' isn't ancient; it's a 19th-century British invention. Popularized by US strategist Alfred Mahan in 1902, it replaced 'Near East' to define the strategic area between Egypt and India, framing a diverse region through a colonial, Eurocentric military lens.
When we hear the term “Middle East,” we picture a distinct, albeit diverse, region of the world. But where is it the middle of? The name feels so natural that we rarely question its origin, assuming it’s as ancient as the civilizations it describes. The reality, however, is that this familiar term is a relatively modern invention, born from the strategic ambitions of a global empire.
From the 'Near East' to a New Imperial Map
Before the 20th century, Western powers primarily spoke of the “Near East.” This term generally referred to the territories of the declining Ottoman Empire, the lands closest to Europe: the Balkans, Anatolia (modern-day Turkey), and the Levant. It was a term defined by its proximity to the European center of power. However, as the 19th century progressed, the strategic concerns of the British Empire, the world's dominant power, began to shift eastward.
For Britain, the crown jewel of its empire was India. Securing the trade routes and territorial buffers around India was paramount. The region stretching from Egypt to the Persian Gulf became a critical zone of interest, a geographical pivot in the “Great Game” against Russian expansion. This strategic necessity required a new way of thinking about the map, and with it, new terminology.
A Term Coined for Colonial Convenience
The phrase “Middle East” first appeared in the 1850s within the British India Office. It was an internal, administrative label used to delineate the area between the established “Near East” of the Ottomans and the “Far East” of China and its neighbors. It was a term of pure geopolitical convenience, carving up the world from the perspective of London and its imperial headquarters in India.
However, the term remained obscure until it was thrust onto the world stage by an American naval strategist, Alfred Thayer Mahan. In his influential 1902 article, “The Persian Gulf and International Relations,” published in London's National Review, Mahan gave the term its modern, strategic definition. He wrote:
The Middle East, if I may adopt a term which I have not seen, is that area between Arabia and India... The future of the world will be decided in this region.
Mahan’s focus was on naval power. He identified the Persian Gulf as a crucial strategic waterway that Great Britain must control to maintain its dominance and keep rivals like Russia at bay. His popularization of “Middle East” permanently framed the region not by its own cultures or history, but by its value as a strategic chokepoint in the grand chessboard of imperial power.
A Colonial Legacy in Modern Language
The adoption of Mahan's terminology had lasting consequences. It cemented a Eurocentric—or more specifically, an Anglo-American—view of the world. The term inherently defines the region based on an outsider's perspective, lumping together dozens of diverse countries and cultures under a single, foreign-born label. It’s a linguistic relic of colonialism that remains the standard nomenclature today.
This has led to criticism and the promotion of alternative, geographically-based terms like “West Asia” or “Southwest Asia and North Africa” (SWANA), which attempt to describe the region on its own terms, free from a colonial framework. The very existence of this debate highlights how the names we use are never neutral; they are loaded with history, power, and perspective.
The term became further entrenched in the global vocabulary during the World Wars and the Cold War, officially adopted by the United States government with the 1957 Eisenhower Doctrine. What started as a British administrative note became an American foreign policy cornerstone, forever shaping how the world sees, and speaks of, this vital and complex region.