« the United States would have to guarantee the region(s)’ quasi-independence »
Yes, it makes sense (from our own point of view). The “locals” might think differently.
But, are we credible ? Can we guarantee “independence” to the region, when we make alliances with some “nasty” regional nations (which are financing terrorists). And simultaneously, we condemn other “nasty” regional nations (which are also financing terrorists).
Anyway, thank you for your interesting views.
Creating some new semi-autonomous (or autonomous) nations reminds me of the many plans elaborated in the past, in order to « redraw the Middle East ».
The 2013 Wright Plan was also proposing a greater Kurdistan. It was also breaking 5 countries into 14 smaller pieces.
Before that, we had the 2004 « Greater Middle East Initiative » plan which intended to export the american model to the Arab & Islamic world. From Morocco to Pakistan…
The 2006 « New Middle East » plan provided a new Middle East map, with the idea to redraw the boundaries in order to have countries with more homogeneous people within them. Which was supposed to bring peace.
Before that, we also had several ideas of a « Greater Israel » from Nile to Euphrates.
The State of Israel did not produce a Constitution, and never defined its boundaries. Israel’s neighbours fear some hegemonic views in this instable Middle East.
And the 2009 Netanyahu’s « A clean Break » strategy can be understood in different ways…
The Common Denominator to ALL Middle East Redrawing Plans is that the people who will « benefit » from them were not consulted. Nothing new since the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement !!
Also, we know that Israel has several hundreds of nuclear warheads (in top of the few thousands of American ones in the region). Does it make sense that western powers have helped Israel to get its nuclear arsenal (the only one « allowed » in the region), if there is no plan for Israel leadership on the Middle East ?