Had the Europeans kept their noses out of the Middle East during the Imperial Era, we might actually see something similar to this today. However, Wesern meddling interfered with the natural order of things and resulted in the arbitrary boundries we have today. Maybe if this map had been drawn in 1900 or after WWI it could have made a difference. Today, however, it is unlikely that we will ever see any major boundry changes unless widespread war breaks out involving nearly all of these countries.
You mean that Europe should have kept these regions under Ottoman control, or the local Feudalesque chieftains who ruled most of modern day Saudi before Oil became a major factor in the region?
Of course what the European powers (more to point, Britain and France) should have done is to have kept to the original 14 points agreement (Which Mandated an independant Kurdish state) and keep their promises to the Arabs over Independance from Ottoman Turkey instead of the "Divide and Rule" tactics which followed.
Iraq was created out of Three fairly different Ottoman Provinces which had nothing more uniting them than any of the other ex-Ottoman provinces - except that it's ethnic differences were useful for the British as it would divide any potential resistance (Of course the only thing Britain was interested in was the Oil reserves), since then only leading Thugs like Al-Bakr and Saddam kept the country together.
Now the United States wants to apply neo-imperalist tactics to the Middle East to divide the region and create new nations mainly for it's economic benefit. Don't we learn anything from History?
