In order to understand why balkanization wouldn't work in the ME we have to see

why it relatively worked on the Balkans.

In the balkans the post-Yugoslavian countries weren't just created out of nothing.
All the countries that were created both existed for longer periods of time in
history, and they had strong nationalistic movements that existed even when the
countries themselves didn't exist, even in Yugoslavia there were Socialist
republics which exited in the same way as in the Soviet Union, those socialist
republics each had their borders and their own system, nationalism was present
in the Balkans even in the Yugoslavian times. Even after all the wars the [borders]
(http://pasteboard.co/1ot8yYVv.png) closely matched the [pre-war]
(http://pasteboard.co/1osTs2ie.jpg) ones.
The existing borders weren't the only thing that enabled the relatively successful
transition in the Balkans, the foreign powers were actively pushing for the peace
deal as well. Western powers during operation Deliberate Force pushed back the
Serbs, but they also stoped the attempt of Croatian and Bosnian armies to
capture Banja Luka by threatening to strike them if they tried to do it. It was one
of the key moves in stoping the possible revenge massacres and ethnic
cleansning of that largely Serbian city. Balkan is also close to the center of
Europe, and Europe doesn't want a ME-like warzone on it's southern border.
Now let's see why blakanization wouldn't work in the ME without huge western
involvment. I will talk about Syria and Iraq separately because the situations are
very different.
1.) Iraq
I am talking about Iraq without the Iraqi Kurdistan which is a de-facto
independant state, I will mainly talk about the problem of the Sunni population of
Iraq and the possibility of the Sunni state.
The first problem on the line are the borders obviously, the borders are usually
the product of long line of historical events. Drawing borders along
religious/ethnic lines is not something that can be done so easily, there are a lot
of cities and areas which would be claimed by both sides, and a lot of reasons for
future conflicts as well. On the other hand if you decided to use the governorate
borders what's the difference, the borders are still unnatural.
The Iraqi Kurdistan is the result of a number of decades of active Kurdish
nationalism and the fighting for it, we will not even talk about the long history of
Kurdish nationalism, in the Balkan the same key components were present, the
Iraqi Sunnis just don't have these key things, you can't just create a state in a
couple of years like some people think. Even if such state was created it would be
extremely fragile and unstable, a perfect breeding ground for the likes of Daesh
and similar terrorist organizations. Since a large part of the ISF and it's equipment
would withdraw to the Shia state the Sunni state would be left without
anything, even worse it would lack the support of the people because it's
fabricated. Even today we see that Daesh has huge support in the Sunni circles,
you think it would be different if a new, weak and unpopular government was

installed? Yeah the support of the Sunni people will be a big part of the antiDaesh struggle in Iraq, but in the end Daesh and it's hardcore supporters have to
be crushed with brutal force, something that only the Iraqi state is capable of
doing.
One of the end problems is that even if that Sunni state managed to survive it
would probably have serious problems with the Iraqi Kurdistan and the Shia
state, even today we see tensions between the Baghdad government and the
KRG over Kirkuk, at the moment these tensions are trivial because of the
common enemy of Daesh, but it's a problem that will come to light sooner or
later, these kind of situations would be even worse with the three state solution.
Just splitting up won't result in peace and stability, wars between these states
would still be a realistic posibility without serious foreign effort.
2.) Syria
Syria is a much bigger problem than Iraq because of even bigger ethnic and
religious diversity and it's even more sucidial option, the regime has significant
support among the Sunni population. Even if we disregard the pro-regime Sunnis
a look at an ethno/religious[map](http://pasteboard.co/1owfKhOa.png) of Syria is
enough to see that it's virtually impossible to create a ethnically/religiously
clean state that would have practical borders.
Another problem that's present in Iraq too is the lack of national identity among
the Sunni Syrians. Even the Sunni rebel groups want control over entire Syria, not
only a part of it because they know that propagating only a part of the state
would be unpopular among the people. There is no way the sides would be able
to work out a deal with which both sides would be happy since there is significant
Sunni population in the coast areas, and there are significant minorities in Sunni
areas, such as Fua and Kafraya in Idlib, Nubl and Zahraa in Aleppo, the Christian
minority in Aleppo, the Alawis and the Druze in Damascus, all these people would
face opression if they ended up under countries that are based on religion.
We also have to consider the already mentioned pro-regime Sunnis who wouldn't
be happy with the rebel ruled Sunni state, they probably wouldn't accept the
new government which would be highly influenced by religion. The rebels would
hardly satisfy themselves with only a part of Syria, rebels are also nationalistic
and their members and leaders want control over entire Syria, not only it's Sunni
parts, and that's not a good attitude to have if you are splitting a country, that's a
good ground for a war in near future, the same could be said about the Alawi
state, they might also want to spread their rule on the Sunni part.
In the end I think that spliting Syria and Iraq is definitely not a long term solution
for the problems, it probably isn't a short term solution either. In my experience
creating ethnicaly/religiously clean countries usually means a lot of blood spilled
for nothing and a lot of repression over other religious/ethno elements in the
country. Lebanonization is a much better option than Balkanization, even more so
because of the overall lack of nationalism among various groups (other than the
Kurds) in these countries. A Lebanon-like system forces different leaders and

people to work together to get a better country, maybe Lebanonization would

result in a weak country, but the newborn countries would be a lot weaker. If it
was possible to institute a bit stronger government than the Lebanon one it
would be a solid system where all ethno/religious groups would be able to be
satisfied and live by their own rules while not being able to fight eachother.