The Iraqi Disaster Keeps on Unfolding

According to the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),  2 million Iraqis have fled Iraq and now are refugees in  Jordan, Syria and Lebanon amounting to " the Middle East's largest refugee crisis since the Palestinian exodus  in 1948." Now, Jordan along with the rest of the receiving countries are putting tighter controls and refusing to take more refugees because of the fear from sectarian violence spilling into their own backyards, the economic burdens and, of course, because “the Iraq story has to be a success story.” I have a question about the role  and level of commitment of Gulf Countries (i.e. Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, etc.). Is any one of these big-mouthed big-hearted countries interested in providing shelter to fleeing Iraqi families?

Comments

[Abu Sinan]

No, they dont want to help take refugees, especially the Shi'a variety. But, the Saudi establishment has no issues about working with Israel and the US to help push forward their idea of a military strike on Iran, thus creating more death and destruction.

[Northern Shewolf]

I absolutely do not believe for one minute that either the Us or Iran are serious about getting down to 'war mode'. Rather, this is all bluster in the manner of the mad Korean in platform shoes and bouffant hairdo. Truth is neither can afford such a foolish thing; the US will eventually have to sit down with both Iran and Syria and hammer a deal that sticks. The Saudis are quite right to be nervous at this point they are caught in a pincer-like axis of war and assorted ills: Iran to the east, Syria and the outrageously volatile Lebanon with the angst that Hezbollah's militia inspires. If war breaks out of Iraqi borders, it will more than likely be over sectarian and territorial disputes. A bleak outlook at any rate.
And I do not envisage the Saudi opening their borders to refugees, rather they will send cash to buy themselves off duty. They firmly believe that charity is best done at home.

[Abu Sinan]

I believe that the US is very serious about Iran. The same neo-cons that pushed for the war with Iraq are now pushing a war with Iran.

Keep in mind that US has recently sent a new carrier task force to the Gulf, and has appointed a Navy Admiral as leader of troops in the Middle East, making it pretty clear that the next round of conflict will have a huge naval aspect, ie a massive arial campaign on Iran based largely from naval forces. Odd for a naval guy to get appointed to a position overseeing Army troops in Iraq, unless Iraq isnt going to be the sole picture here in the not so distant future.

I know it doesnt make sense, I know it isnt rational, nor based on history or reality, but that didnt stop them in Iraq, it wont stop them here.

The talk about Iran in the US media, and by those in the administration sounds almosty exactly like the talk they made about Iraq before they invaded.

I think the US is trying to goad Iran into attacking US forces first. Baring that, the US will attack Iran, or give a "green light" to Israel to do so.

And, of course, we have our loyal allies in the Saudi government, especially Prince Bandar, openly braying (homar like) for Iranian blood.

[Northern Shewolf]

You are right when you say it defies rationality, which is why I still cannot imagine that at all. My reasonning is based on the dire economic conditions in Iran: double digit unemployment and inflation does not make for ideal conditions in which to sell such a venture to the real "capo di tutti capi" Grand Ayatollah Khameni. So far the great bearded one has kept his peace, but he knows more than anyone the mood of the Iranians, exhausted and mostly disgusted by the turn of their revolution.
I really do believe, by all reckoning, that Iran has already solidly planted their feet under the Iraqi table, thus there is no need to get into a costly fracas that would destroy all the accumulated good will they have amassed over the years with the Shia of South Lebanon and elsewhere... No, Ahmedinejad is the tool of a policy aimed at harnessing the Shiites of the Muslim world into a political force that cannot be ignored and can stand up to Sunni influences everywhere.
It bodes ill for the Saudis though, and that is why they are fanning the flames of sectarian hatred. The fact that they are agitating and pushing for a larger conflict says only one thing: they have acquired the illusion that the Western world will always rush in to save their bacon: Desert 1. & Desert 2. They may be disapointed.
The Israel angle remain a wild card, but by and large they tend to calculate their vested interest very shrewdly and to play proxy for the US would require massive provocation. So....

[Aya]

I hope that with Bush's low ratings and the American publics discontent with the Iraq war, this administration is not going to go to another war. But who said that this administration cares about anything but its own interests.

[Abu Sinan]

Indeed Aya. But I worry the thought may be that their ratings are so low and they will probably loose the next election anyway, so why not attack Iran? It may be their last chance for 4-8 years to come.

With Bush's faith based end of times view, I dont see him much different than the other religious radicals out there. Reason doesnt mean much to these types.

[Northern shewolf]

Bush has a heck of a hard row to hoe with both congress and senate firmly set to contest all White House policy. I do not at all believe that an incursion into Iran is in the cards. The American public, as it is, is loath to send more troops into combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The next few months will be telling: 21000 troops are due to set foot in Iraq, this will be done in spite of strong opposition both from democrats and republicans the president exercising his executive privilege (in the context of the original approved act of congress for the Iraqi war), and nobody in his right mind imagines that it will make one iota of difference in terms of pacifying the country. Rather this will create more opposition, and any other 'grand notions' that Bush may cultivate, will have to be vetted by both houses: a totally impossible sell. You seem to think that the US president can launch a war without a 'by your leave', and that is not so. Shall I remind you that both the Afghan and Iraq wars were, as per rules of governance, read, voted and passed by both houses before a single boot hit the ground. This time, no such nod will be given: no cigar!