Would redrawing the Middle East national boundaries reduce the current and future conflicts?

Like the others who have answered this question, in my view redrawing national boundaries would actually be ineffective and may actually cause more problems. First, we need to consider the criteria of determining new borders - do we use ethnic groups as a basis for new nation states, or are religious groups considered to be more close-knit and therefore more likely to become stable? In either case, you would see the forced displacement of large groups from areas where they are not considered part of the majority group. And this type of border change would probably cause more ethnic/religious conflict in the long-run. Creating new borders will likely not solve economic issues in the region, which tend to be related to ethnic/religious issues. In Iraq for example, oil fields tend to be in the North and South, areas where certain ethnic or religious groups dominate (Kurds are mostly found in the North, Shi'is in the South). So if we create a "Kurdistan" or "Shiastan" in Iraq, Sunni's living in central Iraq would be disproportionately affected by economic problems, and would likely attack their neighbors to the North and South. The most important reason, and something that everyone studying Arab/Islamic society needs to understand, is the fact that the idea of nation states is essentially un-Islamic. Throughout Islamic history, rulers almost never prevented people from freely crossing their borders in order to move, trade, or seek asylum. Even when both Sunni and Shi'i caliphates existed simultaneously (i.e. the Spanish-Umayyad Caliphate, Fatimid Caliphate, and Abbasid Caliphate), there was no real legal basis for preventing citizens from any one of these polities from entering their lands. The reason I'm stating this is that, as Islam appears to be taking on a much larger political role in the Islamic world, particularly with militant Islamist groups, people supporting Islamist policies will view national boundaries as something essentially Western and against Islam. This last point is relevant now as we are seeing Islamist groups in Iraq and Syria gaining power in certain areas. Groups like ISIS will never accept the validity of national boundaries - even if you create a state just for them, their own beliefs would lead them to continue expanding their territory. Something people need to realize is that the actual name "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is only temporary, as they seek to create an Islamic state that dominates all Muslim-majority areas, and then the rest of the world. So if we consider the increase in global-jihadism a relatively recent phenomenon, redrawing boundaries now would probably be pointless.

Nope. The current biggest trouble in Middle East is the religious extremists and it has nothing to do with borders. Religious extremists do not just stay in their country but also go to other countries to bring sharia law and take over the control. Change the borders and you will be just changing the name of country they will attack. As for the conflicts about borders, new borders would bring the same conflicts and only the argument would change. And don't forget the oil factor. The conflict about states partially goes around oil; if you give a part of one country where there is oil to the group X and an oil-less part to Z group, it's very possibly Z group will want to get a part of X too and bring historic arguments to claim a right on the land. The only way to reduce (and hopefully destroy) the conflicts in Middle East is, Clearing the region from extremists. Quality, scientific education. Secularism. I'm sorry this upsets some people but it's just the truth. There is no freedom without secularism and there is no non-conflict if people are not free. Stable economy. Providing human rights.

Religions in Middle East are a heritage that cannot easily be extracted from its societies, I think we need to live with this heritage in a way different from today. I think that religions in Middle East, mainly Islam, are causing mess in the region because of the religious leaders (shaikhs, mullas, etc.) People here do not read the scriptures, they do not understand it, they read what their leaders say and understand the leaders' understanding of religion. Religious clerics restrict religious interpretation to themselves and eventually society members end up to be sheeps in different herds. To simply put the idea: to transcend the religious obstacle we need to make religion something individualistic not cultic but still consider common Islamic teachings in the constitutions.

The problem is this: who would redraw the borders? The USA? The UN? It's not as easy as that and it's difficult to "draw" borders since you need somehow to justify how to draw it. It might be easiest to do this in the case of the kurds, since they are somewhat an "entity" but that's almost impossible to create a "sunnistan" since sunnis are a bit everywhere. The same goes for shias. Things have to develop naturally and there shouldn't be once again a drawing of borders. I think the best solution is to create autonomous regions in the borders of a country.

Who has a right to draw borders to countries which other people live on? United Nation? NATO? Radicals are not real groups, they are militia forces which used by different powers like Russia or US. In example IS (ISIS) don't represent sunni people at all, it's a tool. Actually no one wants sharia rules. This is a concept:"If you are radical islamist group, you want sharia". They trying to fit that definition to look like they are a native local force. But they are just subcontractors, they are proxy killers. Middle east problem isn't about religion or ethnics. There should be war to prevent muslims to union their power and became ruler in the region. Well, new borders helps to achieve this aim too.

No. They were drawn badly enough nearly a hundred years ago.