(This is a response I gave on Discord concerning the expansion of the Gehenna War to include areas outside the Middle East in V5.)
I think if an ST wants to go that route (centering action on ancient places in the MidEast) that's great, and I think your idea fits into what is written on the page.
The only issue was by not allowing it to be other places in the canon we would be perpetuating a trope that the Middle East is an inherently violent place of unending war. Saying that it's because "old vampires are buried there" would in turn excuse the real reasons violence and conflict is currently happening there. We wouldn't have to talk about the real world reasons why Syria is a shattered country, we could just say a daughter of Malkav lies under the ruins.
That's not an acceptable framework for me.
Because let's be clear... we are accepting this idea that vampires originated in the MidEast because of the 1ed/Rev Caine myth and its Judeo-Islamic roots but the only vampire clans that are culutrally tied to the mideast by canon are the Assamites/Setites, the classic "bad guys" of the vampire setting.
The Ventrue, Toreador, Gangrel... etc... the "good guy" clans have deeply European roots and cultural traditions. If all of them are from there, if their' ancients rest there still, where are their MidEastern traits?
Why are all the stated surviving 4th/5th gens of these clans almost always Greek or European?
Why does the MidEast only enter the conversation when we talk about the mythical past or when we need a place to blow shit up?
And that even discounts the lore that both Lasombra and Tzimsce were 'killed' on European soil during the Anarch Revolt - two Meths end up in Chicago, one in Mexico.
In short, we broaden the scope of the (Gehenna) war and allow for a wider variety of games.
I also like the idea of vampires not necessarily having a single point of creation. That the vampires of Asia or South America don't have to choose between being imports of colonialism or totally alien creatures divorced from the Kindred.