text: I'm going to copy-and-paste my Sunni/Shiite rant from another question and then elaborate:\n\nThe split between the Shiite and the Sunni Muslims occured when Ali, leader of the Arab Empire was assasinated in 661 AD.\n\nThe Shiite believe that when Ali was killed he was the last true caliph (ruler) and everybody after him weren't true leaders because they weren't his descendants. Shiite are the majority in Iraq and Iran.\n\nThe Sunni Muslims accepted the Umayyad rule after Ali and make up thr overall majority of thr Middle East. \n\nNow they aren't fighting as much over the rightful kings, but fighting because they were brought up as rivals. Its like Yankee fans vs Red Sox fans. They are just rivals and it isn't as much about the cause of the rivalry anymore.\n\nNew Material Here:\n\nThis isn't the only clashing between Arabs; there are arabs that don't fit into either category and some who are just plain terrorists/ terrorist supporters.  \n\nWith an area so deeply divided it wouldn't work well.  They need to be governed strongly because of how tough the area is.  A democracy or republic isn't very easy to pull off in the Middle East.  It wouldn't last very long because of militant groups trying to attack any form of power.  \n\nThe only force strong enough to keep control over in the present-day Middle East is a dictator.  But that isn't a great thing to have, either.  What they really need is a strong Oligarchy.  This is my random opinion from out-of-the-blue.  \n\nWith an oligarchy they'd have a few ruling people.  This means that they'd most likely be fair because they can argue amongst themselves and as long as none plan to assasinate another, then it'd be like the Middle East version of a republic as long as they got the right to vote on some issues.