June 1, 2006  

Blood borders

How a better Middle East would look

International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.

The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa’s borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.

While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region’s comprehensive failure isn’t Islam but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats.

Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make every minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried. Elsewhere, reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous as their current proponents expect. The boundaries projected in the maps accompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant "cheated" population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia, but still fail to account adequately for Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and many another numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting wrong can never be redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire.

Yet, for all the injustices the borders re-imagined here leave unaddressed, without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East.

Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served to engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still imperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosporus and the Indus. Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East’s "organic" frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected.

As for those who refuse to "think the unthinkable," declaring that boundaries must not change and that’s that, it pays to remember that boundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Borders have never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo to the Caucasus, are changing even now (as ambassadors and special representatives avert their eyes to study the shine on their wingtips).

Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works.

Begin with the border issue most sensitive to American readers: For Israel to have any hope of living in reasonable peace with its neighbors, it will have to return to its pre-1967 borders — with essential local adjustments for legitimate security concerns. But the issue of the territories surrounding Jerusalem, a city stained with thousands of years of blood, may prove intractable beyond our lifetimes. Where all parties have turned their god into a real-estate tycoon, literal turf battles have a tenacity unrivaled by mere greed for oil wealth or ethnic squabbles. So let us set aside this single overstudied issue and turn to those that are studiously ignored.

The most glaring injustice in the notoriously unjust lands between the Balkan Mountains and the Himalayas is the absence of an independent Kurdish state. There are between 27 million and 36 million Kurds living in contiguous regions in the Middle East (the figures are imprecise because no state has ever allowed an honest census). Greater than the population of present-day Iraq, even the lower figure makes the Kurds the world’s largest ethnic group without a state of its own. Worse, Kurds have been oppressed by every government controlling the hills and mountains where they’ve lived since Xenophon’s day.

The U.S. and its coalition partners missed a glorious chance to begin to correct this injustice after Baghdad’s fall. A Frankenstein’s monster of a state sewn together from ill-fitting parts, Iraq should have been divided into three smaller states immediately. We failed from cowardice and lack of vision, bullying Iraq’s Kurds into supporting the new Iraqi government — which they do wistfully as a quid pro quo for our good will. But were a free plebiscite to be held, make no mistake: Nearly 100 percent of Iraq’s Kurds would vote for independence.

As would the long-suffering Kurds of Turkey, who have endured decades of violent military oppression and a decades-long demotion to "mountain Turks" in an effort to eradicate their identity. While the Kurdish plight at Ankara’s hands has eased somewhat over the past decade, the repression recently intensified again and the eastern fifth of Turkey should be viewed as occupied territory. As for the Kurds of Syria and Iran, they, too, would rush to join an independent Kurdistan if they could. The refusal by the world’s legitimate democracies to champion Kurdish independence is a human-rights sin of omission far worse than the clumsy, minor sins of commission that routinely excite our media. And by the way: A Free Kurdistan, stretching from Diyarbakir through Tabriz, would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan.

A just alignment in the region would leave Iraq’s three Sunni-majority provinces as a truncated state that might eventually choose to unify with a Syria that loses its littoral to a Mediterranean-oriented Greater Lebanon: Phoenecia reborn. The Shia south of old Iraq would form the basis of an Arab Shia State rimming much of the Persian Gulf. Jordan would retain its current territory, with some southward expansion at Saudi expense. For its part, the unnatural state of Saudi Arabia would suffer as great a dismantling as Pakistan.

A root cause of the broad stagnation in the Muslim world is the Saudi royal family’s treatment of Mecca and Medina as their fiefdom. With Islam’s holiest shrines under the police-state control of one of the world’s most bigoted and oppressive regimes — a regime that commands vast, unearned oil wealth — the Saudis have been able to project their Wahhabi vision of a disciplinarian, intolerant faith far beyond their borders. The rise of the Saudis to wealth and, consequently, influence has been the worst thing to happen to the Muslim world as a whole since the time of the Prophet, and the worst thing to happen to Arabs since the Ottoman (if not the Mongol) conquest.

While non-Muslims could not effect a change in the control of Islam’s holy cities, imagine how much healthier the Muslim world might become were Mecca and Medina ruled by a rotating council representative of the world’s major Muslim schools and movements in an Islamic Sacred State — a sort of Muslim super-Vatican — where the future of a great faith might be debated rather than merely decreed. True justice — which we might not like — would also give Saudi Arabia’s coastal oil fields to the Shia Arabs who populate that subregion, while a southeastern quadrant would go to Yemen. Confined to a rump Saudi Homelands Independent Territory around Riyadh, the House of Saud would be capable of far less mischief toward Islam and the world.

Iran, a state with madcap boundaries, would lose a great deal of territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State and Free Baluchistan, but would gain the provinces around Herat in today’s Afghanistan — a region with a historical and linguistic affinity for Persia. Iran would, in effect, become an ethnic Persian state again, with the most difficult question being whether or not it should keep the port of Bandar Abbas or surrender it to the Arab Shia State.

What Afghanistan would lose to Persia in the west, it would gain in the east, as Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier tribes would be reunited with their Afghan brethren (the point of this exercise is not to draw maps as we would like them but as local populations would prefer them). Pakistan, another unnatural state, would also lose its Baluch territory to Free Baluchistan. The remaining "natural" Pakistan would lie entirely east of the Indus, except for a westward spur near Karachi.

The city-states of the United Arab Emirates would have a mixed fate — as they probably will in reality. Some might be incorporated in the Arab Shia State ringing much of the Persian Gulf (a state more likely to evolve as a counterbalance to, rather than an ally of, Persian Iran). Since all puritanical cultures are hypocritical, Dubai, of necessity, would be allowed to retain its playground status for rich debauchees. Kuwait would remain within its current borders, as would Oman.

In each case, this hypothetical redrawing of boundaries reflects ethnic affinities and religious communalism — in some cases, both. Of course, if we could wave a magic wand and amend the borders under discussion, we would certainly prefer to do so selectively. Yet, studying the revised map, in contrast to the map illustrating today’s boundaries, offers some sense of the great wrongs borders drawn by Frenchmen and Englishmen in the 20th century did to a region struggling to emerge from the humiliations and defeats of the 19th century.

Correcting borders to reflect the will of the people may be impossible. For now. But given time — and the inevitable attendant bloodshed — new and natural borders will emerge. Babylon has fallen more than once.

Meanwhile, our men and women in uniform will continue to fight for security from terrorism, for the prospect of democracy and for access to oil supplies in a region that is destined to fight itself. The current human divisions and forced unions between Ankara and Karachi, taken together with the region’s self-inflicted woes, form as perfect a breeding ground for religious extremism, a culture of blame and the recruitment of terrorists as anyone could design. Where men and women look ruefully at their borders, they look enthusiastically for enemies.

From the world’s oversupply of terrorists to its paucity of energy supplies, the current deformations of the Middle East promise a worsening, not an improving, situation. In a region where only the worst aspects of nationalism ever took hold and where the most debased aspects of religion threaten to dominate a disappointed faith, the U.S., its allies and, above all, our armed forces can look for crises without end. While Iraq may provide a counterexample of hope — if we do not quit its soil prematurely — the rest of this vast region offers worsening problems on almost every front.

If the borders of the greater Middle East cannot be amended to reflect the natural ties of blood and faith, we may take it as an article of faith that a portion of the bloodshed in the region will continue to be our own.

• • •


Winners —


Arab Shia State



Free Baluchistan

Free Kurdistan


Islamic Sacred State




Losers —








Saudi Arabia



United Arab Emirates

West Bank

Ralph Peters is the author of the new book "Never Quit the Fight," to be published on July 4th.

logo mats
logo mats

What about the other regional minorities, especially the indigenous non-Muslims, such as the Christian Assyrians, who has inhabited Iraq centuries before the Arab invasion.


Forget about all the minor but yet desirable border corrections. If only Kurds and Baluchis could get their own State and the Frontier tribes  in North West Pakistan could be reunited with their Afghan brethren and the House of Saud confined to a territory around  Riyadh, the world would become a different, more peaceful place.

Hani Hamdan
Hani Hamdan

It seems more practical and less of a terrible bloodshed that Kurds gain autonomous status in each of Turkey, Irak and Iran, preserving their culture and national specificities.

I don't know why Mr Peters is so soft on Israel, it is universally known that the expansionist belligerent state of Israel is at the root cause of the injustice and expropriation of the Palestinian People. The Bible counts do not objectively legitimize the theft of Palestinian Land, and should not, However Mr Peters recommendation for an Israeli withdrawal to 1967 frontiers is positive.

I do not find appropriate to strip Syria of the coast band, leaving a great Nation without reach to the Mediterranean and give this coastal strip to Lebanon who already have a 200 Km sea front, and given that majority of Lebanon Mouhafazats were historically attached to Syria and Palestine.

I am surprised that the Author did not say a word on the vital requirement for the Palestinian People to live at his historical Land without the odious and barbaric Israeli occupation who should withdraw to the frontiers drawn by the Security Council in 1947, thus achieving a historic, just and compliant with the UN resolutions, solution of the one century conflict, not even mentioned by Mr Peters. A solution equitable to the Jews and Palestinians. 

What Mr Peters was hiding behind his concern to achieve Justice, is that most of these redefinition of boundaries in the Eurosian Bloc  which would trigger rivers of Blood  of the peoples of the Region, are merely parts of American- British-Israeli plans for hegemony, cheap exploitation and domination of the region resources in oil and gas, and achievement of the real Estate Tycoon state of Israel and its perpetual usurpation of the Palestinian Lands.

It is true that these plans of re-division and boundaries arrangement may casually achieve some kind of justice for some minorities and the Kurds, but re-division lacks of historic bases and rely in most of the cases on assumptions that the people of the Region are sectarian wise and ethnical wise divided and antagonist, which is denied by history of peaceful coexistence of the Peoples of the Regions, except when despot Rulers and corrupted tribal ruling governments have intentionally awaken the evils of confessional struggle and sectarianism and invested billions on this to serve their interests.


How about division of UK into three states, the division of USA into 50 states and India 29 states & Israel pre 1946. People of each new country will be more prosperous, peaceful, powerful and happier.

Mr Ab
Mr Ab

Ralph Peters smarty pants evil recipe is incomplete without Unnatural INDIA pieces, if we all believe what he was trying to cook.  

Mr Ab
Mr Ab

and Israel should be pre-1946

Guldaraz Khan
Guldaraz Khan

This all is happening against Islam. Almighty Allah , Inshaallah will save Islam against non-believers who are supporting them. Chaos and misconception is created among the Muslims - Shia and Sunny which is not beneficial for both of them. The outsiders are grabbing their resources that is the main motive behind this situation. Allah may bless and mercy upon Muslim Ummah.


Egypt is not a creation of 19th and 20th century power games. It is created by King Menes and the oldest state on earth. It is the only real state in the region which has the culture of one


Is the current situation in the Arab world is the fallow-up of the idea has been mentioned in this article ????????


Stop dreaming about divided Pakistan.... All such dreamers has to disintegrate first ....


@javed2world Pakistan is an un natural state. This is the main reason for all troubles pakistan is facing. A solution may the break away of pakistan in such a way that natural lands will become separate nations. So Baluchistan, Sindhudesh and Panjabistan will be better placed to live in peace.


Add U.S.A in who looses ;) this is what is expecting you. 


To anyone reading this. It's a 2006 article. And here's the map to that article:


Notice Iraq split up between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds gaining their state. Just how handy ISIS came up (funded by Saudis, blind eye turned by US and possibly some training involved with Syria rebels training programs)...


This article is a recipe for a total destruction and chaos!! which is exactly what the author wishes to take place. 

Ronnie REAL Republican
Ronnie REAL Republican


A chickenhawk retired Lt Col (couldn't even make full-bird) who never saw combat due to a curved spine and flat feet and is now a squeaky-voiced FoxNews war drums-thumper!


  1. […] Kurdistan would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan,” in the words of Armed Forces Journal. What Gen. Clark’s unnamed interlocutor called “those old Soviet regimes” are, […]

  2. […] Kurdistan would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan,” in the words of Armed Forces Journal. What Gen. Clark’s unnamed interlocutor called “those old Soviet regimes” are, […]

  3. […] عروج پر تھی امریکی عسکری ماہنامےUS Armed Forces Journal  میں “Blood Borders“(خونی سرحدیں) کے عنوان سے ایک مضمون شائع ہوا تھا جس […]

  4. […] عروج پر تھی امریکی عسکری ماہنامےUS Armed Forces Journal  میں “Blood Borders“(خونی سرحدیں) کے عنوان سے ایک مضمون شائع ہوا تھا جس میں […]

  5. […] عروج پر تھی امریکی عسکری ماہنامےUS Armed Forces Journal  میں “Blood Borders“(خونی سرحدیں) کے عنوان سے ایک مضمون شائع ہوا تھا جس میں […]

  6. […] Ralph Peters wrote in his Blood Borders article for the Armed Forces […]

  7. […] are not from any article written a few days ago. These excerpts are from Ralph Peters’ article “Blood Borders” published in 2006 in the US Armed Forces Journal. If you think it is proving to be a […]

  8. […] that article of a report that the former CIA officer Col. Ralph Peters had prepared and had hinted a specific strategy of changing the borders in the whole Muslim world whereby some new countries were to be created and some old ones truncated to make room for what CIA […]

  9. […] è stata pubblicata nel giugno 2006 dall’ufficiale statunitense Ralph Peters nel suo articolo «Blood borders : How a better Middle East would look» uscito sull’Armed Forces Journal. Essa prevede che, dopo aver invaso l’Irak nel 2003,  […]