In the US, Brazil, Mexico, and Canada in the 18th and 19th centuries federalism took hold not because of any political ideology so much as due to the distances and difficulties in communication from the capital to the regions. A regional military force that could challenge the central government or a state or province that had direct relations with a foreign power were the red lines that could not be crossed in New World federal systems. Now in the Middle East, in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, the extreme federalism is considered a "failed" state because the center can literally only impose it's will on the autonomous regions by military force and entities like Iraqi Kurdistan are only one or two steps away from forming independent nations. Yet, the Kurds have not abandoned representation in the capital nor sought recognition from foreign states or a seat at the UN, so Iraq still means the entire entity on the map. Southern Lebanon under Hezbollah was somewhat akin to that scenario at least until recently. Is there any hope that over generations, this extreme form of de facto federalism will somehow start to work well enough to count as something other than a failure? If after decades of figuring out how to live with this "system" the regions and nations can make this work? Or is this situation too unstable and there is too much risk of renewed civil war and a unitary state with the center controlling foreign relations and the military is absolutely required to create a safe and prosperous country?