Would a unified Middle-East be good or bad?

Question

Would it create a confederacy style government leaning towards democracy, or just be a country hell-bent on ruling the world under than name Islamabombazionistan?

Islamabombazionistan is copyrighted, so don't even THINK about using it!

Answer 1

Peace is allways a good thing.

Answer 2

It would certainly be a good thing for the middle east. Whether it would be a good thing for the US is another matter... and that tends to be pretty much all the US is concerned about... Anyway perhaps the US is currently hell-bent on ruling the world under the name 'Democracy'? Just a suggestion.

Answer 3

There may be yet another Caliphate. I doubt it would unite each and every of the midsection East (or each and every of the Islamic or Arabic states in the midsection East, the two). The solidarity under the Caliphs replaced into very short-lived; it broke down a era later, whilst the instantaneous enthusiasm of the placed up-Prophetic enhance gave thank you to intense hobbies in political autonomy. with ease, all human beings will not provide up their independence definitely, and if there's a measurement of non secular authority exerting tension on it, they are possibly to best buddy themselves with dissenting non secular communities. Colin McEvedy, in "The Penguin Atlas of Medieval historic previous," observes this technique the two in early Christian and early Muslim politics: -- initiate costs -- the magnitude of those diffused arguments lies in the adoption of dissenting perspectives as a badge by making use of human beings at odds with authority or by making use of international locations groping for a feeling of solidarity. In those days of pragmatic political theory, an attempt to secede from the Empire on the inspiration of ‘Armenia for the Armenians’ could have been unthinkable. however the often happening potential must be in a roundabout way challenged by making use of adopting the community patriotic heresy, and consequently the Monophysitism so passionately adhered to in Egypt, Syria (which in the initiating liable to Nestorianism), and Armenia replaced into particularly a demonstration of discontent in any different case inexpressible. ---- The provinces of the Caliphate in many circumstances first seceded in the call of Ali (Spain is an exception, however the Umayyad reason replaced right into a sufficient huge distinction). Their independence quickly exceeded previous undertaking and the 2d era of Emirates, the Murabits, Zirids, and Samanids, decrease back to orthodoxy, with no complication acknowledging an area of subculture with Baghdad, as quickly as doing so did not prejudice their freedom. -- end costs -- If there is an attempt to ascertain a Caliphate, I assume there'll be a counterbalancing opposition to it.

Answer 4

A unified pro-Russian Middle East would be good.
An ICTFY funder political whore of NATO is bad.

Answer 5

I think it would be good. It would counter balance western power. I don't think they would be as radical as people think. Governance of such a large region with such a diverse population would take alot of time and energy away from world domination.

Answer 6

It couldnt happen becuse there is a lot of difrences between the countries in middle east.from language to theire relegion.

Answer 7

ruling the world would be their goal. There will never be peace over there and I'd hate to have to spell the word.

Answer 8

Utopia
culture r diffrent
human smaal group fight
for Resouces/power/money/

Answer 9

It would be impossible, unless one of those countries got a hold of some nukes...

Answer 10

"Unified middle east" is an oxymoron. Question has no answer.