Question about "stability" in the Middle East

[vicman]

All indicators point strongly to the eventual creation of a Shiite dominated Iraq which will be to all intents and purposes strongly allied to Shiite dominated Iran. Does anyone here have any idea what the effects (short and long-term) of a powerful Shiite multi-state coalition smack dab in the largest geographic area of the Middle East will be?

[SteppingRazor]

1. Y'know...

Would it be easier to just have Kurdistan, Sunnistan and Iraq, the Western most state of Iran?

[vicman]

2. This implies what will surely amount to a civil war

If Iran comes in on the side of the Shiites the Sunnis are toast as far as any sort of ruling power. I personally believe the Shia will stop at the boundaries of the new "Kurdistan," allowing them their own (quasi?) state. The question at that point becomes, "What will Turkey's response be?"

The Middle East is definitely in for a reshaping, but none of it will follow the neo-cons' delusions.

Our only alternative is to occupy Iraq until the end of time.....

or so it would seem.

[SteppingRazor]

3. It seems civil war is about the only option...

That's my point. I don't see any way around an Iraqi Civil War. It's pretty damn sad.

[bemildred]

4. Very disruptive to the post-WWI order.

It's hard to point to anywhere in the region that is likely to be left untouched by the change, and in certain places (Pakistan, Arabian Peninsula) the change is likely to be explosive (IMHO).

[rfkrfk]

5. Iran and Iraq are competitiors, not partners

The natural places for Shia scholarship
are the shrines in Najaf and Karbala, in Iraq.
Because of Saddam era repression, Shia scholarship
moved to Qom in Iran, a lesser shrine.

I just don't see the people of Iran taking political leadership
from the holy cities in Iraq.
This could go several ways, as I am under the impression
that many in Iran are less devout.