In his book A Line in the Sand, James Barr explains why the Sykes-Picot deal was struck in 1916 to divide most of the Ottoman Empire between Britain and France.
After the Second World War, the political systems that appeared following the Sykes-Picot agreement had undergone several changes. The two colonial powers had to step back and the kingdoms in Syria, Iraq and Egypt fell one after the other.
A wave of nationalism hit the region helping some young army officers climb the ladder of power. An effort to reunify the Arab countries was exerted, mainly by the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. He succeeded at the beginning, then failed and later, after his country’s defeat in the 1967 war with Israel, what had been a dream for many became a nightmare.
Forty-eight years later, the trend in the region is to talk how new sectarian states could solve the region's problems.
Some defend the idea by claiming that the Sunni-Shiite strife that is now so widespread has reached an unprecedented point.
These same people believe that pushing each sect apart could diffuse tension and this might help build a peaceful future.
In fact, some of the bloodiest wars in this region were fought between people of the same sect.
Lebanese Shiite groups, Amal and Hizbollah, fought each other in a three-year war from 1987 to 1990. Both groups come from the same areas, sect and families and have Imam Moussa Sadr as a common spiritual influence. Yet when they struggled for power, thousands of fighters were killed, sometimes two brothers from the same house fought on opposite sides.
In the Kurdish region, both the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan contested a similar war. Thousands of people lost their lives in the Iraqi Kurdish Civil War despite the fact they shared the same objective of having an independent Kurdish state one day.
Many people may have forgotten these conflicts because of the time that has passed, but one only has to look at Syria for further evidence.
The struggle against Bashar Al Assad hasn’t prevented rebel fighters from forming dozens of groups, some of whom are only copying each other, and later launching wars against each other. The Syrian civil war – and the conflicts among the rebels themselves – has given more life and confidence to the regime.
Shiitestan, Sunnistan and Kurdistan are the proposed three states of Iraq suggested by those who would have the country splinter into smaller pockets of land and influence. But what would happen if it did?
In this scenario, the Shiite state would have plenty of room for conflict. For starters, there is Muqtada Al Sadr’s army and about five rival groups that have defected from his ranks. Along with Sadr there would be former prime ministers Nouri Al Maliki and Iyad Allawi, as well as the Hakim dynasty, all competing for supremacy. Taken together, all of these political figures make the possibility of forming a new and stable government almost impossible.
As for Sunnistan, there would potentially be ISIL, former Baathists, Islamists, former vice president Tarek Hashemi, former speaker Ossama Nujeifi and others seeking primacy.
The Kurdistan Regional Government already enjoys a form of autonomy, but many Kurds are preoccupied by the threat posed by ISIL. Additionally, a few days ago clashes between Iranian Kurds and the PKK brought some fatalities, suggesting continuing tension.
But it is not just about the three states of Iraq. To these should be added another three states within Syria if not more, and two states in Yemen, three in Libya, two in Lebanon and so it goes on.
All these new states would mean a potential civil war in each one of them. And that would result in tens of thousands of fatalities. The end result of that would be deep scars that might never heal – not in decades, not even in centuries.
Ali Hashem is chief correspondent for Lebanese satellite television channel Al Mayadeen News
On Twitter: @alihashem_tv
