I asked a man deeply involved in the world of decisions and information, about his outlook for the region at the end of this decade. He smiled, and then spoke on condition of anonymity. I had no choice but to agree, as it is not prudent for a politician to burn his career for the sake of a press interview. He said that he saw fragmented countries, bloodstained maps, and violated borders. I asked him to elaborate. He said he believes that the states born in the aftermath of the First World War seem to have aged severely, and now, the heirs are fighting among one another over their inheritance. He said that this is probably because these countries' borders were drafted in haste, and did not take into account the aspirations of the peoples who were crammed in this or that map. And it is also because these countries could not develop a sense of inclusive national allegiance that would correspond to the same map, and could not curb cross-border aspirations. He said that he expected governments to maintain control over capitals, but will at the same time have to fight sectarian, ethnic, or tribal factions outside them or share control over those areas with them, as these groups would prefer to be in a leading position in parts of the country, instead of having second-class citizen status for their members in superficial unity in all of the homeland's map. This means that a regular army would have to coexist with a “Free Army" or other militias that claim to protect the communities to which they belong. He reckoned that the state may be able to retain a unified flag and passport, but will live in what looks like a permanent civil war with the groups that would practically control autonomous regions – regions that only remain part of the map because they are unable to complete the divorce proceedings. This would only mean further tension, violence, corruption, and reduced services, in parallel with increased emigration and foreign intervention. My interlocutor remarked that the US invasion of Iraq allowed two projects to infiltrate the countries of the region, which has no power to tolerate them: the Iranian project and that of al-Qaeda. He said that Iran, through the notion of velayat-e faqih, succeeded in pulling Arab Shias out from the social fabric of their respective countries, linking their fate and decision to the Iranian schemes. On the other hand, al-Qaeda took advantage of any available opportunity to infiltrate and position itself, and with its ideology and practices, it contributed to tearing apart the social fabric of the countries they subverted. The cross-border Muslim Brotherhood tide then came, riding on the coattails of the Arab Spring, and pushed the region further into sharp crises of identity and unprecedented concerns among minorities to the tune of rising Sunni-Shia strife. He said, “Take Iraq, for example. The Kurdistan region is solidifying its roots while keeping the secession dream alive. Recent incidents in Anbar have practically drawn the borders of a Sunni autonomous region. The people of that region deal with the Iraqi army as an instrument of a ‘Shia government.' The Iraqi map has been shredded. We are going back in history to the conflict of major powers in the region. Iranian influence in Iraq requires no proof. The actual rival is Turkey." He added, “The Syrian map has also been torn. Last Friday's protest slogan was ‘The Friday of the protection of the majority.' At the beginning of the revolution, the dominant slogan was ‘One, One, One, the Syrian people are one.' The Sunnis will not accept to go back to the situation that stood before the revolution. The Alawis will not accept another regime that would put them in the same situation they were in decades ago. “The continuation of the war draws and entrenches demarcation lines. And on Syrian soil, all the projects are present: The Iranian project, al-Qaeda's project, and the Muslim Brotherhood's project, without cancelling out other factions that want a democratic Syria that can accommodate all its components. Syria, which took part in violating the borders of its Iraqi and Lebanese neighbors before, saw its borders collapse this time with the marauding fighters moving their agenda to its territory." He then said, “The Lebanese map was torn further. The Syrian crisis deepened the gap between Shias and Sunnis. The alliance of similar components without regard to international borders, from Lebanon to Syria and Iraq, portends long wars, torn maps, fragmented countries, autonomous regions, militias, and regular and non-regular armies. “The region has imploded under the weight of injustice, marginalization, and underdevelopment, regardless of what the United States and Israel have been planning. Borders fell, and we are now in the era of borders defined by components and old/new demarcation lines." I felt scared by the prospect of the region sliding into a Somali-style dystopia. I wished my interlocutor was mistaken, but the magnitude of bloody risks perpetrated in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon encouraged me to convey his gloomy outlook to the readers.
