Map: a “New Middle East”

[lordroel]

Map: a “New Middle East”

Map I (version I)

This map which depicts a “New Middle East” seems to be based on several other maps, including older maps of potential boundaries in the Middle East extending back to the era of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and World War I. This map is showcased and presented as the brainchild of retired Lieutenant-Colonel (U.S. Army) Ralph Peters, who believes the redesigned borders contained in the map will fundamentally solve the problems of the contemporary Middle East.

Before 



After



Map II (version II)

[spanishspy]

Why would Persia need 'new?' and why would it be NATO friendly?

[stevep]

Well that really upsets two nuclear powers[Israel and Pakistan], the two largest and most powerful states between them [Turkey and Iran] and the Saudis [who are threatened with losing both the bulk of their oil if I read the map correctly and control of the Muslim holy cities. The Kurds will be happy, provided the assorted Kurdish groups can agree on a common programme as I believe their political views vary considerably, but pretty much all their neighbours will be after their blood. The Arab Shia state seems to have a hell of a lot of Iran, well beyond where the Arab minority lies IIRC. Not sure why Kuwait survives in this case?

Yemen is difficult enough to hold together as it is already so not sure if this enlarged one will be any better? Similarly Afghanistan may be even more fractious.

Agree with ss that I can't see this reduced 'Persia' being likely to be friendly to the west, especially if its the west imposing such border changes.

Its possible that if you had a powerful coalition imposing those borders and preventing assorted groups using force to object then in a generation or two and if the assorted new communities start getting stable government then things might improve compared to now but I think it would be a long and difficult task to get the changes accepted.

[lordroel]

Jul 5, 2017 21:13:01 GMT stevep said:

Well that really upsets two nuclear powers[Israel and Pakistan]

Why would Israel be upset, it only lost the Palestine Territories and the Golan Heights to Syria.

[stevep]

Jul 6, 2017 14:51:24 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 5, 2017 21:13:01 GMT stevep said:

Well that really upsets two nuclear powers[Israel and Pakistan]

Why would Israel be upset, it only lost the Palestine Territories and the Golan Heights to Syria.

  The old secular Israel of the 60's and 70's probably would be happy with that if it meant a durable peace.  However nowadays the religious parties are a hell of a lot more influential.  To them much/all of the west bank is sacred territory.  Plus the Golan is important for covering the north of the country against Syria which barring significant changes looks to be a potential haze, one way or another for the foreseeable future.  [Albeit not in the short term as the regime recovers from a bloody civil war.  Not to mention what they decide about the Kurds once IS is removed as a visible player in the area.]

[lordroel]

Jul 6, 2017 15:04:22 GMT stevep said:

Jul 6, 2017 14:51:24 GMT lordroel said:

Why would Israel be upset, it only lost the Palestine Territories and the Golan Heights to Syria.

  The old secular Israel of the 60's and 70's probably would be happy with that if it meant a durable peace.  However nowadays the religious parties are a hell of a lot more influential.  To them much/all of the west bank is sacred territory.  Plus the Golan is important for covering the north of the country against Syria which barring significant changes looks to be a potential haze, one way or another for the foreseeable future.  [Albeit not in the short term as the regime recovers from a bloody civil war.  Not to mention what they decide about the Kurds once IS is removed as a visible player in the area.]

Also i think you are right, New Persia is a strange name, but maybe it is because it is a monarchy again, also why name your country Free Kurdistan, they are a country, why have Free before it.