Yeah, the United Arab Republic turned out so well...

For the countries you list, the only time in history that they ever were all in the same country was a brief period during the Abbasid Caliphate, which quickly broke apart. There is a lot of bad blood between Persians and Levantine Arabs that is going to prevent any sort of stable long-term stability.

If you're trying to project the future of the Middle East based solely off of knowledge of the last 20 years, you are very well out of your depth. The Middle East is a region of immense history--we can count back over 5000 years of recorded history--and people can nurse grievances accumulated over that span of time, especially as they are emphasized and deemphasized in mythmaking.

Ever since the rise of nationalism in the Long 19th Century, and the collapse of the multiethnic empires that ended it, the ability to forge a common national identity has been the key to state survival. There is no hard and fast guideline to how to do so, and so it can be perplexing as to why Languedocs and Bretons can feel affinity in a French state whereas Serbs and Croats cannot feel affinity in a Yugoslav state--especially since, I will note, the first two groups do not speak the same language (at least, pre-French Revolution) but the latter two do!

There's a language they all would have spoken just fine, had America not meddled in its implementation: the African Dinar.

The idea that those countries could get along is hilarious.

And by Asian do you mean Pakistan as per British terminology?

If that's so clear could you provide sources to sustain that claim (with which I disagree strongly)?

Coddling their local allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia?

Two ultra-xenophobic states, yeah..