The New York Times has published a potential new map of the Middle East which looks good to me as a Kurd. But it looks more like wishful thinking than a real evaluation because I think it is far more complicated than this simply put by the New York Times. I think the person who drew this map was thinking about the issues in the Middle East more like "I think this is the best solution for all the issues" rather than "I think this is what is going to happen because of this and that". The issue here is that other than Kurds in the Middle East, every body else wants a "unified country" than seeing the country be divided into smaller countries or regions.
Americans suggested that Iraq be divided into three federal regions, Sunni, Shite, Kurdish, in order to overcome disputes but it was rejected by Sunnis and many Shites alike, other than Kurds. Sunnis who are now minorities in Iraq are the most ferocious opposers of this division into three regions or possible states. They never stop complaining about the powers of the central Shiite held government yet they stress on one central government. The issue here is that each one claims that they want a unified country, but one which gives them the power to rule. Shites want a unified country ruled by Shiites, Sunnis consider different federal regions and division a blasphemy and they want a unified country, looking back on it with nostalgia how great Iraq was under Sunni rule. The same thing applies to Syria as well. Sunnis Arabs who form the majority see the opportunity to rule the whole country as the Shiites did in Iraq after the 2003 fall of Saddam so they will never give up on a unified Syria. Kurds want at least autonomy, or a Kurdish region government by a Kurdish government within Syria just like in Iraq, but Sunni Arabs vehemently oppose it.
Other than that, if this could be accepted by all, I do believe [like the editor might have thought than evaluated the issues] that it is a good solution to the turmoils in the Middle East.
