Nation-States or Religious Blocs? Rethinking Identity and Power in the Middle East
Yesterday, I came across a post on X claiming that the West is pursuing a new project aimed at replacing the nation-state model in the Middle East with sectarian-based entities. Honestly, it wasn’t the first time I’d seen such argument. Also, in recent years, I’ve come across more than a few academic panels, policy briefs, and whispered discussions in think-tank corridors about a provocative idea: that the global West may be supporting a quiet reconfiguration of the Middle East: one that moves away from the old nation-state model toward a patchwork of entities grounded in religious identity, sect, and tribal affiliation.
It’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s a reflection of real political experiments happening on the ground. In countries like Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, power has increasingly been redistributed along sectarian lines. Sunni, Shiite, Alawite, Salafi, Druze names are no longer just religious descriptors, but political labels with hard borders and militias to match.
The idea begs a deeper question: Is it truly possible, or even desirable, to reshape the Middle East based on religious identity rather than the classic nation-state model?
The Rise and Strain of Nationalism
To answer that, we must go back to the early 20th century. Nationalism in the Middle East, especially Arab and Turkish nationalism, emerged not as a mirror of Western secular nationalism, but as an antidote to colonialism, fragmentation, and, often, Ottoman rule. It carried with it a promise of unity, sovereignty, and modernity.
In Türkiye, for example, Turkish nationalism under Atatürk was a driving force behind the creation of the modern secular republic. But over time, that same nationalism began to alienate non-Turkish ethnic groups, most notably the Kurds. Many argue that the rigid form of nationalism practiced in Türkiye played a role in fueling the PKK insurgency, an enduring conflict that has shaped the country’s internal and foreign policies for decades.
In the Arab world, nationalist regimes like Egypt under Nasser or Syria under the Ba’ath Party offered an alternative to Islamic movements. They promised social reform, Arab unity, and anti-imperial strength. But those promises often collapsed under the weight of authoritarianism, economic failure, and internal repression.
Unlike the West, where secular nationalism gradually replaced the influence of Christianity, Middle Eastern nationalism has always had to compete with a strong and enduring religious identity. Islam is not simply a spiritual faith; it is a deeply social religion. It permeates culture, law, politics, and personal life. And because Islam offers a comprehensive worldview, it is much harder to sideline than Christianity was in post-Enlightenment Europe.
Why Religion Persists
This is not to romanticize religion, nor to dismiss the nation-state. But the Middle East’s political culture cannot be understood without acknowledging Islam’s durability. Across the region, religious movements have outlived ideologies, borders, and in some cases, even states.
From the Muslim Brotherhood to Hezbollah, from Salafi communities to Shiite political blocs, religious identities have proven to be far more adaptable and more deeply rooted than many early nation-builders anticipated.
One reason for this is the nature of Islamic theology itself. With no centralized authority (unlike the Catholic Church), interpretation varies wildly. Each sect believes it holds the “true Islam,” and this sense of exclusive legitimacy fuels not only spiritual devotion but political competition.
Moreover, foreign interventions, whether intentional or incidental, have played into these divides. The U.S. occupation of Iraq in 2003, for instance, dismantled state institutions and empowered sectarian groups. The Arab Spring later opened political vacuums that religious movements were quick to fill. Where once Ba’athist regimes maintained a form of iron-fisted secularism, now militias and factions claim legitimacy through the lens of divine authority.
What Stability Looks Like
I remember speaking with an Iraqi friend who said, with a kind of weary nostalgia, that Baghdad under Saddam, despite the brutality, was more predictable than the chaos that followed. It’s a chilling thought, but one that captures a sentiment echoed across the region: perhaps the Middle East was more stable when governed under strong, centralized nation-states than it is today, splintered by sect and tribe.
That doesn’t mean those regimes were ideal. But the disintegration of national institutions and the rise of identity-based governance have led to prolonged conflicts and regional instability.
So, should the West (or anyone else) be working to reshape the Middle East into a mosaic of religiously defined territories? I would argue no. The reality on the ground is that such divisions already exist, but formalizing them could deepen fragmentation and set dangerous precedents. A more realistic path might be to recognize religious identity without letting it dominate politics, while investing in inclusive, pluralistic nation-states that reflect the diverse fabric of Middle Eastern societies.
No Easy End to Ideological Conflict
Whether the region organizes itself around religious lines or re-commits to the nation-state, one thing is certain: ideological conflict will not vanish. Too much history, too many grievances, and too many competing visions for the future make the Middle East one of the most contested geopolitical arenas of our time.
Still, diplomacy, patience, and an honest reckoning with both nationalism and religious identity can create new possibilities for peace. It’s a long road. But for a region that’s endured colonialism, coups, wars, and revolutions, resilience is already written in its DNA.
