I agree and disagree on certain points.

Firstly, the West’s policy towards the Middle East and Arab world post-WWI until today has been one of divide and conquer.

I agree there. Artificial boundaries drawn all over the region, and the empowerment of tribal clans/families (such as beit Saud in Saudi Arabia, the Hashemites in Jordan, Kuwait and Gulf royalties etc) and dictators (Mubarak, Morocco, Tunisia).

Placing Israel in the heart of the Arab world was the final Western stab that has ensured the Arabs remain weak.

The will of the people in all Arab countries has been suppressed for much of the 20th century and today.

I disagree, however, in the notion of a single Arab nation that spans from the Zagros mountains to the Atlantic sea, and as far south as Somalia and south Sudan.

I would argue that there exists an Arab world, much as there exists a Western world, whereby a region shares similar broad qualities, be it religion, linguistics etc.

The US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand share a common language, a common Christian heritage, even a common British colonial ancestry. Yet, these “broad” bonds only ensure that these countries co-operate and form alliances as part of an Anglophone sphere, but they do not consider each other part of the same nation.

A nation requires stronger bonds than the broad links of language and religion.

Attributes such as ethnicity, socio-economics, geography and history play crucial roles in distinguishing one nation from another. This is in addition to the language and religion aspects.

Within the Arab world, all the above factors vary substantially. The Levant, Fertile Crescent or Greater Syria (whatever you want to name it) has a clearly distinctive history to that of al Maghreb, or Somalia, or even the Gulf.

Each nation within the Arab world has followed different historical paths that have crossed over at some point or another. For example, pre-Arab conquest of Syria, the Levant was considered part of the Hellenistic world and Greek was a prominent, aristocratic language. This cannot be said of al Maghreb, or even the Gulf.

Therefore, in my opinion, a nation requires more than simply language and/or religion as common links, but indeed, a common history, ethnicity and defined geographical boundaries that throughout history has facilitated socio-economic interaction.

So, the Arab world indeed has artificial states, but the respective nations have yet to be determined. We’ve heard of the 4 nations of the Arab world theory, i.e. the Fertile Crescent (Syria/Iraq), the Gulf (Arabia), Egypt (inc. Sudan), and North Africa.

Scholars can come up with all sorts of theories, but at the end of the day, it’s what the people on the ground decide.

I think there is a deep-seated ignorance here in the west of the extent to which imperialist drawing of state borders has influenced and continues to influence events in the Middle East.