As I understand the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, the demarcation between it and Persia was then in the same place as the border between Iraq and Iran is now:
http://www.timemaps.com/store/timemaps/2012/4/middleeastad1914.jpg
Therefore, the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire did not move the border of Persia to the west, as this Saudi says it did.
It would be better to say that the borders created in the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire were at least somewhat arbitrary, and had more to do with preserving outside influence over the region (in particular, French and English), than with creating new nations of people having shared language and culture, each of which had a port on an international waterway.
The Turks, led by Ataturk, rose up to expel the foreign occupiers. We can admire their patriotism while condemning their excesses as in the Armenian genocide.
The Arabs, contrariwise, have seemed paralyzed by intercinine fighting, and by the rule of strong men each of whom is mostly concerned with maintaining power.
Also, the tolerance of the Ottoman Empire for minority religions and ethnic groups has largely broken down. Jews, who had been scattered throughout the Ottoman Empire, have largely fled to Israel (where they were joined by Jews fleeing Europe and Russia). Christian Arabs have largely fled to the west. Today, we see a mass exodus of Sunni Muslims from Syria.
Instead of harkening back to old borders, which might not even be historically accurate, we should rely on the principle of popular consent (with due consideration for geographic integrity and access to international waters). Then, when border are secure, we can start working on trade and travel.
Good fences do make good neighbors.
I’d say, let’s support borders that give the Ahwazi Arabs of Iran control over the oil being extracted from their land, the Kurds in all four states control over the oil being extracted from their land, and divide Shiite and Sunni Muslim fanatics so they can’t cause too much damage.
