In Egypt or Turkey, tribes ceased to be of any real importance a very long time ago. Don't think they're much of a factor in of Lebanon or (most of) Syria anymore, either - religious factions, yes, but not tribes. But in Libya they're a huge part of the problem, and in Iraq, Jordan and many Gulf countries - not coincidentally the desert countries - they're also still a big factor.

Yeah. Though of course it's not as if there's just those two denominations in Islam - both are split into so many groups, I don't think Assad's Alevi Shi'ites in Syria really identified with Iran's Twelver Shi'ites in any meaningful way until politics forced them to become allies. That's one of the reasons why, despite what Tom's friend says, I think most of the Sunni-Shia enmity in any generation is politically motivated more than religiously. But then again, they have been fighting or repressing each other due to these political factors for a rather large part of the last 1400 years, and their leaders have every interest in continuing to stress the religious factor in looking back at their history - so that certainly adds to the tension.

It's funny to be arguing that nationalism would be a good thing - all those corrupt dictators were plenty nationalistic, after all, and if you look at the sickening way in which Egyptians for instance admire and take pride in the Egyptian army while it represses them and curtails their freedom, you'd certainly not be inclined to call that a good thing. Same for Algerians, Turks (the Atatürk-worship of many secular Turks is truly scary) and various other countries. But yeah, compared to tribal and/or factional infighting, it's certainly a step up.

As for peacemaking, in fairness, most of today's problems ultimately go back to Western interference in a time when peacemaking really wasn't the primary concern.

It does look particularly nasty and hopeless right now, yeah...