Two Paragraphs: Zakharia Interviews, Also Iraq and Syria

This morning I watched Fareed Zakharia GPS on CNN. There were 2 interviews that particularly interested me, Hassan Rouhani, the president of Iran, and Shimon Peres, the former president of Israel. The contrast was striking. Although in fairness, there is a difference between being a former official and a sitting official. I think the difference would have been obvious even if both were still in office. When asked difficult questions, like why people were being detained and put on trial in Iran for foolish or unknown reasons, Rouhani avoided answering the questions. When Zakharia said to Peres something to the effect that an Arab statesman would promote the cause of a Palestinian state, Peres said unequivocally that he also would like to see a Palestinian state. It illustrates that although one might disagree with some steps taken by the Israeli government, Israel is a democracy in which a significant part of the population is looking for a way to come to terms with the Palestinians and the Moslem world and has the freedom to say it openly and without hesitation. On the other hand, Iran is a country ruled by fundamentalists where the part of the population that is craving modernity is suppressed.
I am a fan of Fareed Zakharia GPS and more often than not agree with Mr. Zakharia's ideas. But Mr. Zakharia says something to the effect that we need to come to terms with Iran in order to fight ISIS. Maybe, but what does that entail? If it means saying it is OK for Iran to develop nuclear energy to the point where it can make a nuclear bomb, there might be more danger from that than from ISIS. And is it really necessary to put together the Humpty Dumpty state of Iraq to defeat ISIS? Unfortunately, the Bush misadventure in Iraq put us on that road years ago, but if the predominantly Shiite Iraqi government can't or is not willing to include the Sunnis and the Kurds, then perhaps we should allow Iraq to split up. We certainly should support a strong Kurdistan in the North including as many oil fields as possible. If Iran wants to keep the Shiites in the South safe from the Sunnis and ISIS, let them take on the fight. Why should the USA fight for their interests? As for ISIS, if they want to continue plotting against the USA, they can continue to be bombing practice targets for the US Air Force. As for their lack of humanity, their neighbors and possibly some local Sunni tribes will have to do the ground fighting. As for Syria, like Iraq it is a nation of various tribal groups hobbled together by Europeans which somehow came under control of the Alawites who are a minority there. After the terrible massacres which the Alawites did to the other Syrians, they can not submit to a Syria ruled by the majority without being massacred themselves. So perhaps they should be allowed to maintain a shrunken Alawite Syria in whatever part they can maintain a majority. As for the rest of Syria, I don't think it makes a difference to us who rules it as long as it isn't ISIS. So maybe a non-ISIS Sunni nation in what used to be Eastern Syria and Western Iraq might be OK. The question is would and could the local Sunni tribes there take on ISIS with the help of US air support? Maybe it would be possible if the US and Europe gave up the idea of propping up the old Humpty Dumpty nations of Syria and Iraq.