Not sure if I like it. I still see Syria and Saudi.

The Kurds, maybe?

I am reminded that (arguably) it was the pencil of a European cartographer that started this whole mess...

yeah just take out the line between jordan and saudi (and the saudi iraq and syrian titles) and the line between turkley and syria... otherwise great work!!!

I'm not sure the Turks want to take on all those extra Kurds. They may prefer to have the Kurds divided among as many countries as possible. The Kirkuk and Mosul oil may not be enough compensation for having all the Kurds together again. But, then, whatever happens, the Kurds will have their whey!

Robert Speirs
Tallahassee, Florida

I think we need to take over the entire region and rename it Lawrencia. Huzzah!

The Kurds will hate it. The Shiite Arabs will hate it. The Sunni Arabs of Mesopotamia will hate it. Yes, it's a guaranteed slighting of every single ethnic group in Iraq!

I know this "plan" has gained some traction in the blogosphere, but it's really an awful, awful idea....

Why give Saudi anything? Divide Iraq in half. Give half to the Kurds, offer the Kurds in Turky the right to move to that half of former Iraq.

How come you are not showing a capital for Israel?

Stephen,

You obviously made a mistake -- there is something called "Saudi" at the bottom of the map. Surely, that's an oversight on your part.

Why don't we acknowledge and correct (as much as possible) the original errors: a federal entity with a No. Kurdish State, a central Sunni and a So. Shiite in former Iraqi areas together with a Jordanian State and a Palatinate State (1967 Borders) under a Constitutional Monarchy of the Hashemites.
As matters evolve, perhaps the Shiia area now under the control of the present rulers of Saudi Arabia will be included.
The Wahabbi sect can go back to preaching to camels in the sand rather than exporting their insanity throughout the World.

The chance of this happening is about as good as the Av's winning the cup this season. Slim and none, and slim just passed me leaving town...

The problem with the idea of an independent Kurdish state in (future-ex-) northern Iraq is that our Turkish allies are vehemently against it. However, the Kurds, who are also among some of the most pro-American people in the region, won't settle for anything less.

The situation in the Middle East is a direct result of events caused by a number of countries in the late 19th century or so, and, as frequently is the case, most of those countries were predominately European. The history of the Middle East in the twentieth century can only be described as both absurd and deadly.

The French created Lebanon as a reward for the large Christian population in Syria that had been traditional French allies.

The British, double-crossing their Hashemite Bedouin army (of Lawrence of Arabia fame) that had help them drive the Ottoman’s away from the Suez Canal, gave the holy shrines of Mecca and Medina to the Saud Wahabis. The Hashemites had controlled those shrines since the 13th century.

Then the British created “Trans Jordan” (literally “Over the Jordan River”) out of the desert to harbor the Bedouins they double-crossed. The Hashemites’ “secret mission” has been to survive and to never forget their lost inheritance. Every since then the Jordanian (Hashemites) eyes have been squarely on regaining Mecca and dealing with the usurper Saudis.

So, the French invented Lebanon, the British invented Jordan, and the Syrians claimed everything. Then the Jews showed up, bought up the land from absentee Arab landowners and kicked the Palestinians off the land and started farming.

Most of these groups are not countries as much as they are tribes with tribal goals.

A summary quoted from an article written in STRATFOR some years back sums up the current situation and the rather bleak projection for the future:

“There are no permanent solutions to the region’s problems. All of the current structures are merely temporary and artificial, some without any real substance at all. How does one make peace in Lebanon when Lebanon is neither a nation nor a state? How can Syria, which sees itself as the rightful heir to Jordan, Israel and Lebanon, give up its inheritance without giving up its identity? How can Israel, which cannot decide if it is the Third Temple or a place to produce low-cost microprocessors, make a lasting peace with a Jordan whose real interest is to dream of a return to Mecca and 700 years of greatness?

The best that can be hoped for is temporary periods of relatively little mayhem. . Many conquerors have come into this region from the outside, dreaming of permanent empire. They all have gone away, many broken by the experience.

American dreams of permanent, stable arrangements would be funny, if they weren’t so dangerous.”

The Kurds have been especially helpful. There is no way they would have extended as much assistance as they have unless they were promised their own state. They won't get the entire Kurdish region but half a loaf is better than none.

A good start, but I can think of a couple of improvements; as many have noted, this arrangement actually seems to _reward_ the Saudi entity. I propose the following instead:

Starting from the current map, Jordan will be given control over the Hejaz, including Medina and Mecca, and the Jordanian monarchy will be awarded the status of custodian of the holy places. Jerusalem belongs to Israel and the West Bank will, for now, continue to rest under Israeli administration, but Jordan will be awarded custody of the Dome of the Rock, as was traditional. Meanwhile, the oil fields of the eastern coast of the Arabian peninsula, specifically those between the Kuwaiti and UAE borders, shall be divided among Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar. I propose that Qatar, as one of the few Arab states supporting us that's also making huge strides toward democracy over the last few years, be rewarded with an especially nice slice of the cake. To regularize the borders, Jordan should also be awarded control of the northern sectors of the Arabian peninsula lying in a more-or-less straight line from Aqaba to the Kuwaiti border. Finally, I propose that the northern portions of Iraq awarded to Turkey be established as a Province or Associated Free State of Kurdistan, in political union with Turkey but with self-government.

I'd get rid of those two extra yellow lines within Israel and then acknowledge the de facto annexation of Lebanon by Syria.

Oh, and that icky Saudi thingy has got to go.

Stephen, as a work in progress, it's interesting, but you still need to remove Riyadh.

Riyadh delenda est!

Yeah, sure, let's give everyone who wants one their own state. I think it would be possible to rearrange things and fit a few more stars on the American flag. ;-)

It's too frickin' wide...you're hosing your template.

Yeah, my vote would be to offer Iraqi Kurds to Turkey, which they may decline in spite of oil. Then put that Hashemite uncle guy as head of state over federalized Iraq with about 50-100,000 GIs stationed there for next 5 years. Then split up SA, giving Mecca & west to Jordan, and rearrange eastern Saudi shiites & their oil with existing Persian gulf sultanates. Leave Iraqi Shia arabs where they are under weak central Iraq gov. They'd be more trouble than they're worth to Persians. Hey this shor is fun.

Seems to me like all the problems in that part of the world began when ill-informed foreigners arbitrarily drew lines across the map of the Middle–East, and told the people there they all had new nationalities. I doubt drawing new ones will fix anything.

You're right, Neil. We should simply erase all those lines and refuse to recognize any Arab nation.

How about calling it the 9-11 Protectorate? Open the wells and use the money to re-build Ground Zero!

Why no discussion of Syria's occupation of Lebanon?

Funny, but unfortunately all wrong.
(1) Shia South Iraq (where most of the oil is) doesn't want to be part of Iran. They are Arabs and have historical differences and Iran should not benefit after all of the problems they've caused. Shi South Iraq should be independent Arabistan, another wealthy sheikdom along the Gulf Coast. This has the dual benefit of helping the Shia Arabs and providing headaches for the Mullahs of Iran as they worry about Irans only Shia Arabs directly across the border.
(2) The section of Saudi Arabia just south of Kuwait (where all the oil is) tends to be filled with Shia Arabs as well and should also become another independent sheikdom along the Gulf Coast. After all the Saudi's shouldn't benefit from the war after all of the problems they've caused.
(3) West Bank section of Isreal should be given to Jordan-Iraq (not sure about Gaza) because they are the only ones who've been able to keep a lid on the Palestinians in the past 50 years. Also give the Heshemites Mecca and Medina back leaving the rest of Arabia to the Saud family.
(4) I disagree with the posters, I think the Kurdish solution presented would be good for both Turkey and the Kurds and could be made to work. Its better than a Kurdistan that would always have claims to a quarter of Turkey.

As a Turk, I have a HUGE problem with the borders of Turkey being altered in any way, even if they are enlarged to include the oil of Erbil & Kerkuk. Since the borders of Turkey were drawn not by a European cartographer but by a fierce war of independence that my great grandfather fought and died in, those borders are sacred to me, and to most Turks. Just give Northern Iraq to the Kurds and let them have their own state, and allow the Kurds in Turkey to move there if they wish to, or stay as Turkish citizens if they prefer that. Alas, most of my fellow citizens would not agree with me on this (in fact I'd be jailed as a separatist if this comment was traced to me), and there'll be a bloody war when (not "if") the Kurds declare statehood.

Oh, I see that you've also united Cyprus. Good luck with that.

Why does everyone think the Shiite Iraqis want either independence or annexation by Iran?? The Shiite's make up 60% of Iraq's population. They were oppressed by the Sunni Arabs in the past, but under an even nominally democratic Iraq they are the dominant people, and have the most reason to want a UNITED Iraq with its current boundaries. (they might eventually find dominance exhausting, a la Russia in the USSR, but that will take quite a while I think)

As for the Kurds, theres no way they will accept Turkish rule, or that the US will force it on them. (how many times can we betray the Kurds, after all?) Nor is it likely that Turkey will accept an independent Kurdistan - and the Kurds know it, and know that it would be indefensible against the Turks, or for that matter the Iranians. The Kurds best bet is to stay inside Iraq, but it must be a more or less democratic Iraq, freed from Sunni Arab dictatorship, and with some autonomy for them.

The odd men out are the Arab Sunni's who might well look toward Jordan. But out Shiite and Kurdish friends wont like that, and it looks like King Abdullah is none to keen on it either. (its not too meaningful without metro Baghdad, a pretty big piece for tiny Jordan to chew, and with a considerable Shiite minority)

So the most likely solution is keeping Iraq boundaries just as they are, despite their artificiality. Artificial, imperialist boundaries have proven pretty resilient, and with good reason.

A major informal influence by Jordan over Iraq, would be a good idea however. As would a Jordanian-Iraqi-Kuwaiti-Qatari axis to offset both Iran and Saudi.

Similarly a strong INFORMAL Jordanian influence over a Palestinian state would be very desirable, even if the old idea of Jordanian-Palestinian federation seems to be dead in the water. While a larger Jordan might make this more feasible, I doubt its in the cards.

Now that I think about it, a large Sunni arab state under Hashemite rule makes a certain amount of sense. Not only Central Iraq plus Jordan, or even with Hejaz added, but with Sunni portions of Syria added as well. After all, as Jim's Stratfor quote pointed out, isnt Syria as currently constituted a natural threat, lacking in national identity except as core for greater Syria, or for larger and more virulent arab nationalism? Would it not be better to take the shiite/druze portions of western and southern Syria, add the Shiite;/Druze sections of Eastern Lebanon, leave a rump Maronite Lebanon. The Jordan-Syria-central Iraq-Hejaz state would indeed be "lawrencia" fulfilling the Hashemite dream of that era. It could have Palestine too, (Barak plan at Camp David boundaries)
Shiite portions of Eastern Saudi would compensate Shiite Iraqis for loss of Bagdad.

Of course I dont see how you get there from here (I really dont see this as leading to wars against Saudi and Syria, not anytime soon, though i realize instability there could accelerate things), and i think its a pipedream, but an historically interesting one.

I say restore the Ottoman Empire. Then we won't have to listen to any more whining about how every goddamn problem in the Middle East is the fault of Dead White Guys.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they've been murdering each other, committing genocide, and taking each other's territory in a very serious fashion since the time of the Sumerians.
The history of that damn place goes back just a little farther than 1921.

Toren, the problem with restoring the Ottoman Empire is the Turks don't want those areas back (even with all that oil).

The real long term solution is to keep the borders more or less the same after the war and push full scale towards hydrogen fuel-cell economy and dump oil all-together. Let the middle east sell sand to the world when the oil value drops to a hair above nil. Unfortunately this would remove the leftist excuse that every war is about oil, but you can't have everything.

I wish I could view this map.

My only problem with this map is that it still shows the west bank as not part of Israel.