If I understand what the author is implying, the nation-states formed from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British Empires are fracturing into nation-states that adhere more to the religious and ethnic affiliation of their soon-to-be citizens than to the wishes of the victors in the Great War. That quite possibly is a timely development, but we will still have nation-states.
So will these new entities be a good thing? And will they show the respect to their neighbours borders that they will presumably expect to be shown to their own?
Man has forever gone to war over confessional divides. Will that stop? Will the Sunni and Shiah learn to live and let live after all these years? Will Saudi Arabia allow the Shiah in their east to join the majority of Shiah in the Gulf States? Will this spell the end of the Gulf States?
And the Kurds. It's all well and good to say the Kurdish populations in Iraq and Syria are forming their own nation-state(s). But what about the Kurds in Turkey? In Iran?
How many nation-states can be formed out of Lebanon?
And then there are the Palestinians. What will Israel do with fully half of its population once their myth of a two-state solution is finally put to rest?
And what about the arms trade. Not to mention the oil and gas. And water. Let's not forget the water.
Jordan is a myth. Lebanon is holding on by its fingernails, but can that last? Will the newly reconfigured Egypt hold with far more people than it will ever be able to feed again?
Undeniably Iraq is already a mess. Syria is a mess in the making.
But Iran isn't, at least not yet. Neither is Turkey, at least not yet. Is that where this is going?
And who or what is driving all this chaos? Who is benefiting from all this fracturing?

I agree halduell

For whatever reason what is left out of the author's article is Israel.

If Israel's Arab neighbouring States were to fragment into small ethnic territories wouldn't that be good for Israel?

Perhaps the former French colonial power over Syria might wish to regain some influence in Syria.

Perhaps France could achieve such political goals through limited strikes on Syria

- perhaps in alliance with the world's top military power.

Perhaps France, Israel and the US are working together on the Syria project?

Pete

Marika. Another interesting article, well worth reading as are your previous submissions. The article, as the comments from Haduell and Plantagenet illustrate, pose more questions than we could find answers to in this miasma.

Pitty Sykes-Picot did not dismiss proposals by Gertrude Bell and T.E. Lawrence at the time and possibly leap-frog the past 100 years?

Hi Marika

Yes yours is certainly a thought provoking article. A particular danger of the break down of the state structure (in Lebanon for decades, more recently Iraq and now in Syria) is the number of weapons in these failing states including WMDs.

As you have indicated the failing states break into armed warring camps not unlike the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. But at least the small states emerging from the Yugoslavia breakup have been shepherded into stability by the EU and NATO - something far more difficult in the Middle East.

Regards

Pete

Well...Here's another view;
Since the US has lost all credibility in the ME, not so China...Consider the following;

Quoting John Lee (Sydney Uni), in the Business Spectator:

"Beijing’s desire for stability and peace (in that order) in the Middle East is genuine. It currently imports over half of its oil, and most if it comes from the Middle East. By 2020, it is estimated that about four-fifths of its oil needs will come from the Middle East; almost all shipped through American patrolled waters".

This mute point is what matters in the end, irrespective of borders IMO!

This was an interesting article, but I have a problem with the hypothesis that the colonial and post-colonial carve-ups of the middle east (and Africa) created “nation states”. In fact, the problem is that they didn’t. “Countries” were defined with little concerns for the common bonds of ethnicity, religion, language or even natural geographic coherence that could be considered to constitute a “nation”, or to provide the common interest and sentiment from which a “nation” might be created. This seems to be a factor in the violence and oppression in many post-colonial countries (Sudan being a particular example).

Perhaps the dissolution of these artificial “states” will allow the various regional groups to reconfigure based on more natural and sustainable affiliations. I suspect the process could be prolonged and ugly, though.