The lines drawn by the agreement hardened into borders, but the actual control of the territories by Britain and France never came into actual effect due to the decolonization after WWII (and in the post-WWI era).
So in a sense, yes, the Sykes-Picot agreement did not come into effect as intended, but the lines those men drew did, and their consequences persist to the present.
This does not exonerate the various atrocities and actions committed by the various parties involved since then, of course. Lines on a map will be difficult to modify in the modern era no matter who drew them.
The only problem with your theory is Sykes Picot was never implimented.
The lines drawn by the agreement hardened into borders, but the actual control of the territories by Britain and France never came into actual effect due to the decolonization after WWII (and in the post-WWI era).
So in a sense, yes, the Sykes-Picot agreement did not come into effect as intended, but the lines those men drew did, and their consequences persist to the present.
This does not exonerate the various atrocities and actions committed by the various parties involved since then, of course. Lines on a map will be difficult to modify in the modern era no matter who drew them.
Again the problem with your thoery is the notion that Sykes Picot is the cause of the issues in that region.