The Iraq Rebellion of 1920: Empire in crisis

Build-Up to Revolt

Britain’s occupation of Mesopotamia, secured after the defeat of Ottoman forces in 1917, was fragile from the outset. Driven by strategic and economic motives, Britain sought to control the region to safeguard its imperialist routes to India. However, governance proved difficult, and dissatisfaction simmered beneath the surface. One British officer warned in 1919 that ‘the possibilities of the situation must not be disregarded’, recommending military operations to prevent tribal disturbances.

By early 1920, it was clear that British intentions and Iraqi aspirations were incompatible. Telegrams from Baghdad revealed opposition to Britain’s preferred candidate for kingship and noted that ‘Mujtahids’ (authorities of Islamic law) in Najaf and Karbala advocated the return of Turkish advisers to an Arab government (IOR/L/PS/18/B346, f. 120r). These sources reflect a population unwilling to accept direct British control and already exploring alternative political futures.

Secret Assessments: The Bray Reports

One of the most revealing British assessments of the unrest came from Major Norman Napier Evelyn Bray, a special intelligence officer. In his ‘Preliminary Report on Causes of Unrest’, dated 14 September 1920, he emphasises the influence of educated Arab leaders and clandestine organisations in mobilising resistance. While some officials dismissed his theories as exaggerated, others – notably Secretary of State for India Edwin Montagu and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs George Curzon – found them persuasive.

In a follow-up memorandum, Bray argues that Iraqi nationalists were as committed to independence as their Egyptian counterparts, and that many had been disillusioned by Britain’s refusal to honour earlier promises of self-government. These candid reflections stripped away official optimism and acknowledged that the rebellion was fuelled by deeper political grievances.

Outbreak and Spread

Armed revolt erupted in June 1920, spurred by a fatwa issued by Ayatollah al-Shirazi – a Shia cleric – calling for resistance following the arrest of his son. Soon, tribal confederations and urban notables joined forces, while Turkish agents allegedly spread ‘pan-Islamic’ propaganda to inflame opinion against the British authorities (IOR/L/MIL/17/15/43, f. 25r). This, however, had limited success.

The murder of Lieutenant-Colonel Gerard Leachman on 12 August by Shaikh Dari and his sons marked a turning point. As reports note, this act ‘was the signal for the whole of the Zoba’ to rise and join the insurrection’, cutting communications between Baghdad and Fallujah.

The British response was severe. Aerial bombardment, crop destruction, and punitive raids were employed to bring the rebellious tribes to heel. At the same time, loyal allies such as Shaikh ‘Ali Sulayman of the Dulaim were viewed as crucial pillars of stability.

The rebellion also spread beyond the Euphrates. In the northern Jazirah region, the people of Tel Afar joined the uprising in June 1920, only to be forced into retreat by punitive expeditions. These developments show that the revolt was not confined to the south but reflected widespread resistance across Iraq.

British Military Response

After early reverses against a fast-moving insurrection, the British military clamped down on Baghdad, where organised opposition in the city had been largely neutralised by the weight of security forces and intelligence operations. Outside the capital, British forces regrouped, concentrated their thin garrisons, and launched co-ordinated counter attacks.

By late 1920, air power was being integrated into strategic planning. Reports from Western Kurdistan recorded punitive bombing of Kurdish tribes and surveys of potential aerodromes across the Tigris valley. The rebellion thus marked a turning point in Britain’s reliance on aerial control, combining coercion with forward planning for future campaigns.

The Aftermath

A file spanning October 1920 to May 1921 comprises telegrams and memoranda detailing ongoing British challenges in post-1920 Mesopotamia. It highlights persistent insurgencies in key areas such as Kirkuk, Sulaimani, and Hit, and along the vital Basra to Mosul route. British authorities responded by identifying insurgents and deploying significant force such as artillery and aeroplanes to suppress rebellion. This imperialist retrenchment also had stark humanitarian consequences, as Armenian and Assyrian refugees fleeing the British withdrawal from Persia [Iran], sought sanctuary in Mesopotamia, settling most notably at the Ba’quba refugee camp near Baghdad.

Roughly 6,000 Iraqis and 500 British and Indian soldiers were killed in the rebellion at a cost to Britain of £40 million. However, the suppression of the rebellion did not kill the desire for political change. A memorandum from November 1920 observes that while unrest lingered in some localities ‘the general public are expectant of some immediate step in the direction of National Government’ (IOR/L/PS/18/B363, f. 4v).

Regions differed in their visions for the future. Merchants in Basra remained broadly content with British rule, while Baghdad and northern Iraq pressed impatiently for greater self-governance. To balance these demands, Britain moved toward establishing an Arab monarchy by installing Faysal I as king in 1921.

Historical Significance

Though a fragmented tribal uprising, the 1920 Iraqi Rebellion has become one of the most enduring symbols in Iraq’s national memory. While militarily unsuccessful – it was suppressed within months – it was later reinterpreted as the country’s first war of independence and a unifying moment between the country’s various religious and ethnic fractions.

The rebellion’s legacy was far-reaching. It entrenched air control as a central method of imperialist policing, shaped Iraq’s monarchy under British oversight, and entered collective memory as Thawrat al-‘Ishrin (‘The Revolution of 1920’). For Iraq, it became a foundational episode in the struggle for national independence; for Britain, it was a costly reminder of the limits of empire.