Bahrain's Smoking Gun (Boat)

For the last three years, the Government of Bahrain has expended no little energy attempting to convince international observers that opposition activists driving political unrest are doing so, not for any desire for democratic reform, but at the behest of Iran and its regional ambitions. Indeed, such was the message of King Hamad's April 2011 apologia in the Washington Times: that the state's crackdown was necessary because "the legitimate demands of the opposition were hijacked by extremist elements with ties to foreign governments in the region."

Unfortunately for King Hamad, few governments outside the Gulf were convinced by his argument, and though Bahrain claimed to have tangible evidence of such Iranian subversion and support for Bahrain's increasingly violent informal opposition, it ostensibly refused to divulge it for reasons of national security. Yet, given that Bahrain's national security is a direct function of Western, primarily U.S., military support, such a response was taken to mean that Bahrain in fact had no convincing evidence.  In the absence of a "smoking gun," then, the resulting dialectic -- Bahrain crying Iranian wolf, the State Department acknowledging its ally's concerns without actually validating them -- has persisted more or less until today.

Consider, for instance, the recent words of Elliot Abrams, who wrote only a week ago to some fanfare,

I am fully aware that there is a deep fear of Iranian subversion in Bahrain, and that some acts of protest can cross the line into actual criminal behavior – in Bahrain as everywhere. But if the government of Bahrain cannot distinguish between genuine protest and foreign subversion, and responds to criticism with jail sentences, one can only expect that 2014 will be even worse than 2013 for human rights and domestic stability.

What Bahrain needed, then, to say it again, was a smoking gun -- to catch Iran red-handed in some act of subterfuge, preferably in association with (Shi'a) Bahraini citizens, that would finally "open the eyes" of its faithless and gullible Western patrons.

Well, at least from the standpoint of the Bahraini government, that day has come.  On Monday, Bahrain claimed to have foiled simultaneously around 34 terrorist activities involving not only Iran but individuals from every Shi'a-majority country on Earth.  As I understand it, the initial operation involved the capture of two separate boats, one located and followed as it approached from "118 nautical miles off north eastern Bahrain, in international waters" [i.e., from Iran, by implication] to the Shi'a village of Karranah. The Gulf News summarizes,

[I]t was seized at 4.50 pm, around two nautical miles away from the coast of the Karranah village. The target was a 29-foot boat with two 200 horsepower engines. Two Bahrainis were on board. ...

The police seized 38 C4 explosives, 31 Claymore blocks, explosive material to be used against individuals, 12 EFP armour-piercing explosives, six explosive devices containing magnets, 30 Nokia mobile phones, with batteries, a Thuraya satellite phone with a SIM card, and 29 circuit boards to be fixed on mobile phones to set off bombs.

The Coast Guard also seized a PK machine gun and 12 cartridges, a large number of machine gun bullets, two boxes containing a large number of ignition capsules, three explosive fuses, 50 Iranian-made hand bombs, 295 “made in Syria” commercial detonators and C4 and TNT explosives.

Apparently, two of those arrested "spoke the Iraqi dialect."

On the very same day, the coast guard also apparently stopped an outgoing boat, again from Karranah, smuggling 13 terrorist "fugitives," including a Saudi national, to Iran for training by the Revolutionary Guard. The BNA tells that "The accused confessed that they had joined the group to ... commit terrorist acts with religious motivations from their points of view."

Separately, police say they busted a weapons warehouse in al-Qurrayah south of Bani Jamra, and also defused a "car bomb" in Manama.  (For even more details, see this lengthy Thursday press conference with Tariq al-Hasan.)

Indeed, the state's success was so great that it even prompted a patented Al-Watan terrorist network flowchart, which is when you know you're definitely dealing with some serious terrorist shit. This particular flowchart identifies 10 individuals, including a top tier of "leaders" said to reside in Iran or Iraq.  Interestingly, included in the descriptions are individuals' employment details.  Many are reported to work in the public sector.  Presumably the message is something like, "Look, the state provides their livelihoods, yet they collaborate with foreign governments."

As always, it's difficult to know what to make of this.  It seems odd that a group trained by Iran's most elite paramilitary force would attempt to sail into Karranah in the middle of the afternoon -- rather than, say, at night -- and, further tempting fate, launch another even more conspicuous vessel in the opposite direction just as the other was set to arrive.  On the other hand, it's not unthinkable that there should be some attempt to smuggle arms into the country and fugitives out of it, so it would be silly to dismiss the episode entirely.

It must be said, however, that Bahrain's seeming breakthrough after three years of (one assumes) hunting for substantive evidence of Iranian involvement with the opposition comes at a very opportune time for it -- and, notably, for critics of the Iranian nuclear deal everywhere.  Not only does it help Bahrain make its increasingly sweeping legal and diplomatic case against opposition activists -- including, by association, members of the formal opposition like 'Ali Salman -- but it proves that Iran is negotiating in bad faith by continuing its interference in Arab Gulf affairs while claiming to want peace and international cooperation.

Thus, for instance, Elliott Abrams, whose tone has changed markedly from his criticism of King Hamad a week ago. Bahrain's newest terrorist discovery proves that "Iran continues subversion despite the nuclear negotiations." He asks, "Is this just propaganda from the Government of Bahrain? No; I’ve checked with US authorities and these reports are accurate."

Not convinced?  Well, he's also checked with Mitchell Belfer, whose definitely-not-propaganda piece "The 'Who' and the 'Why' of the Plotted New Year’s Eve Massacre in Bahrain" authoritatively confirms Abrams' vague anonymous sources. (Honestly, at this point Bahrain ought to pay Belfer not to write.)

I'll end by noting one additional item, which beyond a tweet by Toby Matthiesen seems not to have garnered much attention.  In an otherwise ordinary "looking forward to 2014" sort of article earlier this week, Reuters offered previously-unreported details of the mysterious July 17  "car bomb" in Riffa.  Though it caused no injuries (and indeed detonated at a time when no one was present), Reuters describes how the incident sabotaged nascent talks between the opposition and Crown Prince Salman:

While the two sides remained apart on many big issues, the talks began and some sort of deal appeared possible.

Then, on July 17, a car bomb exploded in a carpark outside the Sheikh Isa bin Salman Sunni mosque in Riffa, an area where many members of the ruling family and armed forces live.

There were no casualties. But the blast undermined the Crown Prince's efforts to push political and economic reforms, instead strengthening hawks inside the Al Khalifa family who see Shi'ite protests as a threat.

"The Crown Prince was hunkered down. He has to be seen to be tough," said one Western diplomat. "Since then it has been hard going."

Update: Hello, Mitch Belfer! Please share your insights.

Update 2: One thing that won't be smoking in Bahrain is South Korean-made tear gas. Citing "unstable politics in the country [Bahrain], people’s death due to tear gas, and complaints from human rights groups," South Korea has joined the United States and Britain in halting sales. This appears to be a relatively rare if welcome success by Bahrain Watch and other campaigners to change the behavior of Bahrain's economic and political partners. Bahrain's choice of tear gas supplier now is limited to the mere dozens of arms exporting nations unconcerned by such human rights trivialities.

The Arrest of 'Ali Salman: Breaking New Ground in the Wrong Direction

Given the extent of Bahrain's post-uprising security crackdown, approaching now its third year, there remain very few things the state has yet to resort to in its pursuit of political domination and punitive retribution. After yesterday, which saw the arrest of al-Wifaq leader 'Ali Salman for his "incitement to sectarianism" and other non-terrorism terrorism charges, one can tick off another of these. In contrast to previous short-lived detentions, this time actual charges have been filed and the government seems poised to go through with prosecution.

Ostensibly, the arrest was prompted by critical remarks in Sh. 'Ali's Friday sermon. A contact in al-Wifaq says the government was particularly upset by the following bit claiming that Bahrain's ills started "with the arrival of the Al Khalifa" -- i.e., in 1783:

معاناتنا بدأت مع دخول آل خليفة ، جوهر هذه المعاناة هو تهميشنا كشعب والاستئثار بالقرار السياسي والمالي، البحرين كانت غنية طوال عمرها - حتى قبل النفط – وما هذا الفقر والأسى إلا وليد السياسات المجحفة .

As always, the political message of Sh. 'Ali's arrest has multiple intended recipients, corresponding to the state's various core constituencies. The most important of these two are Bahraini Sunnis and Western governments. As I've written elsewhere, the first can be divided further into two basic groups: Sunnis with a primary security orientation, and Sunnis with a potentially oppositional political orientation.  One can connect the timing of the arrest to present developments relating to all three constituencies, in addition to al-Wifaq itself.

More Concessions to Security-Minded Sunnis

The arrest and prosecution of top al-Wifaq officials, including not only 'Ali Salman but also 'Isa Qasim, has been the primary demand of the state's security-minded supporters since the beginning of the uprising.  Until now, the state has resisted taking this step, and these citizens have had to content themselves with the imprisonment of Nabeel Rajab and other high-profile activists generally from outside al-Wifaq. Why this policy has changed now is difficult to ascribe to a single cause.

It may simply be, for instance, that security-minded figures within the Al Khalifa continue to gain influence and strength at the expense of more moderate officials.  It is also possible that the recent spate of improvised explosive devices being used against police -- two of whom were severely injured in Maqsha'a on the very night of 'Ali Salman's sermon -- has led to more pressure to act from within and outside the government.  (According to my 2009 survey, around 1 in 8 Sunni households has at least one member employed in the police or military.)  Perhaps coincidentally, Bahrain also announced on Monday its most recent acquittal of police officers accused of torture, including in this case one Al Khalifa princess.)

Certainly, the Arabic-language press in Bahrain is making a clear connection between Sh. 'Ali's arrest and the "terrorist violence."  Consider the screenshot above of today's Page 1 in Al-Ayam, which has an article of the arrest flanked by two others: one reporting on a grenade attack in Dumistan and thwarted "car bomb" in Manama; another on Hizballah's "assassination" of Sunni politician Mohamad Chatah in Lebanon.

Whatever the case, the arrest seems to have done the trick for at least some Sunnis in Bahrain.  A thread on the main pro-government forum contains this celebratory GIF of a dancing 'Ali Salman:


Others, though, were less satisfied. "Too bad Bahrain isn't part of Saudi Arabia [i.e., as part of a Gulf Union/federation]," remarked one commenter, "since then we'd have the death penalty."

Political Distraction?

Alternatively, one could proffer another explanation entirely, which is that the arrest comes as a useful distraction from another notable political event: a looming parliamentary battle over a government plan to reduce fuel and other subsidies that threatens to expose a range of economic-cum-political grievances. (One will recall, of course, that following al-Wifaq's resignation the present parliament is composed of nominally "pro-government" (mainly Sunni) politicians who are not looking so pro-government at the moment.)

Whereas Al-Ayam leads with the story of 'Ali Salman's arrest and continuing violence, the front page of the Gulf Daily News dedicates most of its real estate to the legislative "showdown":

The arrest of the al-Wifaq leader, by contrast, barely makes the front page.

U.S. and Europe: Stop Talking to Al-Wifaq

Additionally, a contact in al-Wifaq points out one important element of Sh. 'Ali's detention, which is a foreign travel ban.  This is notable because he had been "due to embark on a major European tour in January, meeting officials, think tanks, civil society leaders, academics, and media professionals." Thus, the person suggests, "[h]ardliners in the regime are annoyed with Al-Wefaq's out reach to the outside world. Also, the move is partly meant to send signals to foreign diplomats to limit their contacts with the society" in line with the Justice Ministry's decision in September.

It goes without saying that all this takes place in the context of fragile US-Gulf relations amid discord over (relative) Western détente with Iran.  Secretary of Defense Hagel was keen to stress continued and even expanded American military cooperation with Bahrain in recent remarks at the Manama Dialogue; while the New York Times reported earlier this month possible concessions to Gulf states demanding early access to advanced military hardware -- airplanes, in this case -- normally withheld to preserve a strategic advantage for Israel.

Under such circumstances, the present political leverage enjoyed by Bahrain and especially patron Saudi Arabia may also play into their willingness to risk a potential diplomatic encounter over heightened persecution of the formal opposition in Bahrain.

Holding Al-Wifaq Responsible

Finally, it is worth considering the authorities' message to al-Wifaq and 'Ali Salman itself, beyond the obvious "stop slandering the government and inciting violence."  This is important especially in the context of a potential political bargain in the short or medium term.

The message would seem to be that al-Wifaq must take responsibility, and will be held responsible, for actions even of those activists nominally outside its control.  This question -- the matter of al-Wifaq's sway over the "Shi'a street" -- is a critical one for any possible political solution.  For if the group cannot credibly promise to end opposition protest and violence, even by (at least a majority of) those who do not subscribe to its political program, then the government has no incentive to negotiate in the first place, since in any event its interlocutors cannot deliver what it wants.

Update: Al-Wasat reports that 'Ali Salman has been released from detention, though his travel ban will remain pending trial.

Update 2: A contact who met with Sh. 'Ali on Sunday tells that he had this to say about the arrest:

1. The authorities "want to apply [the] brakes on opposition" activities inside and outside Bahrain.
2. Plans "were underway for travel to several places, including EU, US, GCC and Russia."
3. "Officials overlook [the] consequences of their actions," the questioning having "brought Bahrain again under [the] international spotlight."

Update 3: The Gulf Daily News reports on the state's latest "anti-terrorism" coup, authorities purportedly having captured a boat "3.2km north of Karranah" carrying "Iranian-made explosives, Syrian bomb detonators," and offering secret transport to fugitives.  Also, those individuals captured were "trained in Iran and Iraq."  No word how the Huthi rebels of northern Yemen were involved.

Update 4: No story is complete without a pseudo-academic analysis from Bahrain's most noted Czech-based pseudo-academic slash obscure journal editor (who may or may not exist) Mitchell Belfer, who brings his usual gravitas and linguistic precision to "The 'Who' and the 'Why' of the Plotted New Year’s Eve Massacre in Bahrain."

Collective Frustration, But No Collective Action, in Qatar

I am currently traveling in Germany and the U.S. for conferences, but thought I would post a link to this article on Qatari domestic politics recently published in the Middle East Research and Information Project. Based on insights from new survey data collected earlier this year, it discusses the political road ahead for Qatar following the unprecedented leadership transition of late June. In this sense it is notable not only for its basis in empirical data, but also for its treatment of domestic politics rather than the standard concern for Qatar's international policy and strategy.

Terrorists, Not to be Confused with "Terrorists," Arrested in Bahrain

I recognize that I've been slacking a bit in posting over the past weeks and months, mainly owing to growing writing commitments.  Primary among these is a book manuscript for a university press based on my dissertation, which feels not a little like déjà vu.  The book will make use of the data from my Bahrain survey of 2009, as well as more recent data from projects in Qatar, to probe the individual-level assumptions of the rentier state framework.  Theoretically, this can be summarized in two main questions:

1. On what basis do citizens actually qualify for the material benefits distributed by Gulf governments?
2. To what extent are citizens' political behaviors and orientations actually a function of (their degree of satisfaction with) these material benefits?

Now, you may not find these questions particularly interesting, but then again neither are recent political developments in Bahrain, which as elsewhere in the Gulf have been overshadowed by last week's Iranian nuclear deal.

Far from a similar political deal in Bahrain, the main news item seems to be public outcry -- and official embarrassment -- over the effects of what was by local standards a big rainstorm last week.  While there were no resulting deaths as in Saudi Arabia, still residents were sufficiently annoyed to post photo evidence of the country's poor drainage infrastructure to social media.  Among those affected were schools, some of which had to close as a result of flooding, and these joined in the fun by posting their own flood photographs to Instagram and elsewhere.  As a result, the Education Ministry has now banned schools from publishing their own news and images, which now must be submitted to the ministry beforehand. Brilliant.

The other notable story is the arrest of two former Guantanamo inmates who attempted to cross into Bahrain with cash and forged passports in order, the Interior Ministry claims, to carry out terrorist attacks. Now, since we're dealing with actual terrorists in this case rather than tire-burning "terrorists" (or terrorists who upload photos of flooding to the Internet), the ministry has not identified the suspects nor released further details, including their nationality.  Certainly, it would not be the first time that Salafis released to Saudi Arabia's custody from Guantanamo returned to the trade. The more interesting question, of course, is whether those arrested were planning to attack actual government (or U.S. government) targets, or Bahrain's Shi'a heretics.

Oh, and the neverending dialogue continues, though still without opposition participation. So there's that.

Update: The Bahrain Mirror reports that, notwithstanding early statements by the Interior Ministry, Bahrain's public prosecutor seems to have dropped references to "terrorism" in regard to the former Guantanamo prisoners arrested on the causeway last week. The individuals apparently were Salafi fighters/intermediaries bound for Syria, which would explain their money and forged passports.  The Bahrain Mirror noted that the public prosecution is headed by the brother of the former leader of al-Asalah, prompting a statement from the latter to the effect that "We are honored to send aid to the Syrian revolution."

Movement at Last? Rumors of Change in and Outside Bahrain

I've recently returned from a very enjoyable weekend in Norway, where I had a chance to meet new and old acquaintances as part of the 2013 Rafto Prize ceremony. (Click here for a frightening photo of a Molotov cocktail-wielding Bahraini Shi'a mob terrorizing the streets of Bergen.) At the same time, I have managed to acquire some interesting pieces of (secondhand) information about some potentially significant domestic and international political developments concerning Bahrain. And, no, the rumors do not originate from the angry Shi'a mob.

The first item relates to everyone's favorite subject: the U.S. Fifth Fleet, and whether or how long it's likely to remain in Bahrain.  As readers will know, until now the status of the base in Juffair has not been called into question by American defense officials, who claim instead (and one hopes disingenuously) to have no contingency plan in the event the political situation devolves even further.  Thus, the question of the Fifth Fleet outwardly at least has failed to realize its potential as a political pressure point, precisely because the U.S. government has sent no costly signals to the effect that a re-evaluation of the base is even under consideration.

The rumor, then, originating from journalists at leading Western newspapers, is that one or more publications is preparing to publish in-depth feature article(s) recasting the Fifth Fleet in a new strategic light.  Rather than an essential pillar in the fight to contain Iran's maritime belligerence, and of Gulf security generally, the role and importance of the base is described in more modest terms: as a mere "support" station (that is its name after all) rather than a lynchpin of regional security. To what extent these stories come at the direct instigation of U.S. officials was not made clear, yet it was said that the shift in tone and substance is justified in the articles as reflecting perceptible changes in the government's own language.

Of course, given the fluid strategic landscape of the Gulf, any potential change in policy or even tone regarding the Fifth Fleet may have less to do with Bahrain than a desire to moderate U.S. military posture vis-a-vis Iran.  Yet it would in any case still serve the useful purpose of reinstating the question as a functional lever of American diplomacy.

The second item is, if possible, of even more potential significance, and one could speculate not unrelated to the first.  This is the rumor of an impending political bargain, allegedly brokered by the British, between the mainstream opposition societies (i.e., al-Wifaq) and the Bahraini government.  The announcement, again allegedly, will be made sometime in December, and the terms would be something like the following: revision of the country's gerrymandered electoral districts, along with a few junior ministers from the opposition, in exchange for al-Wifaq's return to parliament and a commitment to (put pressure on activists to) end protest activity.  Whether the opposition ministers would be elected or appointed I have no information.  The prime minister's position, reportedly, is not under question.

The possibility of a government-opposition bargain puts in a new light the unprecedented persecution of top al-Wifaq officials, including Khalil al-Marzuq and 'Ali Salman.  As of Sunday, when the latter was charged with the heinous crime of "insulting the interior ministry" for his group's display of items and images from the uprising (in what was billed a "museum") at an al-Wifaq office in Bilad al-Qadeem, both individuals have been charged and subsequently released, and one presumes they are now awaiting trial or adjudication. For Salman, this is the first time he has been summoned, much less charged, since the uprising began.

As always, we have the conspiracy interpretation and the non-conspiracy interpretation.  The latter would note that the government is likely using the court cases -- not only against individuals but against al-Wifaq as an organization -- as a way to pressure the group's acceptance of what are ultimately probably hard-to-swallow political terms, especially compared to what they might have gotten from the crown prince in March 2011. This would perhaps help clarify al-Wifaq's description of Salman's summons as "political extortion."

An alternative version, which one often hears when al-Wifaq is involved in some controversy, is that the arrest of the leadership is part of a deliberate effort to make the mainstream opposition appear more "radical" and thus in tune with the "Shi'a street."  The latter, the argument goes, are assumed then to be more likely to accept the legitimacy of an eventual political deal.

Assuming for a moment that a compromise such as this is in the works, it will be interesting to see the relative importance of political ideals and political fatigue in shaping the response of various constituencies in Bahrain.  Has nearly three years of daily fighting taken its toll on youthful activists such that they are now ready for peace or at least a ceasefire?  Will Bahrain's Sunnis fall in line behind yet another compromise with the opposition brokered behind closed doors and ultimately at their political expense? Will security-minded royals in the royal court and defense ministry give up their campaign to deliver punitive justice to all those deemed traitors? One hopes that we will have the opportunity to find out.

Update: It have been told that Iran's English-language satellite station Al-'Alam is presently phasing out its daily hour-long program on events in Bahrain. Perhaps a coincidence, but also perhaps a bid to foster a calmer political environment.

Al-Wasat reports an "agreement" to resume Gulf Air flights between Bahrain and Iran, which have been suspended since 2011, beginning on December 15. More coincidence?

Update 2: Sh. Nasr demonstrates brilliant "leadership abilities" in leading Bahraini princes to an "honorable placing" in a Florida Ironman triathlon.  Watch out, Crown Prince Salman!

Update 3: Over the weekend I happened to speak with a Western source familiar with political discussions in Bahrain, who confirmed efforts toward a December deal.  Interestingly, however, he was not so sanguine about the political position of the prime minister, who the person said would be unlikely to retain his post even in the short term.

Fallout with Saudi Arabia Affords U.S. Even Less Leverage in Bahrain

Akhbar al-Khaleej: The Obamaman's new clothes
It will come as no news to those who follow events in Bahrain when I say that little has changed since I last wrote here. Some sense of this may be gleaned by the fact that I was yesterday contacted by a journalist seeking permission to use a quotation proffered over a month ago(!), since nothing had changed essentially on the political front such as to make it outdated.

The remarkable thing, then, may be exactly this, the extent to which things have remained depressingly static particularly since the launch of the Neverending Dialogue, Part II. On the other hand, this is of course the entire point of the exercise from the standpoint of the government: to buy time indefinitely, picking off in the meantime all those whose frustration with the lack of progress causes them to transgress the line of what is tolerated. (Witness, e.g., Khalil al-Marzuq.)  In a recent writing that takes a long view of events since the uprising, Mansoor al-Jamri has termed this Bahrain's political "cul-de-sac," an image that seems to fit the case nicely.

Beyond the intractable nature of Bahrain's underlying political conflict per se, this stagnation reminds one also of the central role of outside forces.  Consider, for instance, the case of Britain, which continues to play an important (and critics would say unhelpful) part not only in backing and facilitating the national dialogue, but also in other post-BICI "reform" efforts such as those in the Interior Ministry.  I am told that the British, whose praise for the capable and well-intentioned Justice Minister Sh. Khalid bin 'Ali I once heard first hand, have now come to recognize the purposeful futility of the dialogue process, but have little choice but to continue with it. (If this discouraging BCHR report about the new Ministry of Interior Ombudsman position is any indication, British efforts with that ministry also have seen uneven progress.)

More generally, both the British and United States appear to lack the leverage required to force the hand of the Bahraini government, which is to say the hand of Saudi Arabia. British interests in Bahrain are rooted in the economic, and the former colonial master seems content to take a cautious and non-confrontational tack on the political front. With regard to the U.S., despite sustained calls by academics and policymakers to play the ultimate diplomatic card -- the matter of the Fifth Fleet in Juffair -- the Defense Department has admitted to not having even a contingency plan in place in the event basing at Bahrain becomes untenable. So the Bahrainis and Saudis need not even call the U.S. bluff, as there is none to be made.

Yet American leverage in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia may be waning even more than we know.  A very interesting Wall Street Journal report today offers new insight into the much-analyzed Saudi decision to reject a seat at the UN Security Council that it had worked for some two years to secure.  The article claims that the Saudi decision aimed to send a message not to the UN but the U.S., and cites two previously-unreported events that occurred at the height of Western preparations to take military action against Syria in August. It tells,

Diplomats and officials familiar with events recounted two previously undisclosed episodes during the buildup to the aborted Western strike on Syria that allegedly further unsettled the Saudi-U.S. relationship.

In the run-up to the expected U.S. strikes, Saudi leaders asked for detailed U.S. plans for posting Navy ships to guard the Saudi oil center, the Eastern Province, during any strike on Syria, an official familiar with that discussion said. The Saudis were surprised when the Americans told them U.S. ships wouldn't be able to fully protect the oil region, the official said.

Disappointed, the Saudis told the U.S. that they were open to alternatives to their long-standing defense partnership, emphasizing that they would look for good weapons at good prices, whatever the source, the official said.

In the second episode, one Western diplomat described Saudi Arabia as eager to be a military partner in what was to have been the U.S.-led military strikes on Syria. As part of that, the Saudis asked to be given the list of military targets for the proposed strikes. The Saudis indicated they never got the information, the diplomat said.

I will refrain from Photoshopping this...
There would seem, then, to be little hope of any effective outside pressure interested in or capable of moving along the political situation in Bahrain. Speculation earlier this year that new Saudi Interior Minister Muhammad bin Nayf might be more amenable to political compromise with the Shi'a opposition has so far received no tangible evidence, and in the current regional climate one imagines that whatever political window existed then has now passed.  To be sure, one would rather suspect that Saudi Arabia views strong "security" measures in Bahrain (to say nothing of a new GCC security architecture generally) as more necessary than ever, particularly if the WSJ is correct in reporting that the U.S. was unwilling or unable to protect the Eastern Province from feared Syrian aggression in August.

Bahrain's double-life will continue, then -- new shipments of tear-gas and stun grenades to go along with a National Dialogue successful precisely in its failure.  In December "national security leaders" will once again arrive for the annual IISS-hosted Manama Dialogue; April 2014 will see the annual Formula 1 circus; and, if Bahrainis are lucky, by 2016 the island will have its very own $51M indoor ski slope. What more could citizens ask for?

Bahrain Grips for Pax Americana-Iranica

Presidents Obama and Rouhani deliver "the same speech on Bahrain"
For one living in the Gulf region, the existence of an unspoken alliance between the United States and Iran aimed at undermining the Arab Gulf monarchies is a fact taken for granted. Indeed, how else does explain the U.S.'s systematic post-2001 program of overthrowing Iran's enemies, to say nothing of late-night phone calls between Presidents Obama and Rouhani?  In Bahrain, Defense Minister Khalifa bin Ahmad knew as much way back in July 2011, when he told Al-Ahram that the uprising was "by all measures a conspiracy involving Iran with the support of the United States," the latter aiming "to draw a new map" of the region. "More important than talking about the differences between the U.S. and Iran," he insisted, are "their shared interests in various matters that take aim at the Arab welfare."

Yet for all this, there is still a misconception by many, especially those who've not spent much time in the region, that this idea of a U.S.-Iranian alliance is a view held only by a marginal, conspiratorial minority.  So let me say this clearly: it is not.  While I haven't spoken with enough non-Bahraini Shi'a around the Gulf to generalize, I can say based on extensive experience that GULF SUNNIS DO NOT TRUST U.S. INTENTIONS IN THE REGION. A prominent article in the weekend New York Times offers some indication of this in the context of the Obama-Rouhani phone call, but even here it is framed in a way that downplays the seriousness of the concern.  Jamal Khashoggi is quoted as saying, for example, "There is a lot of suspicion and even paranoia about some secret deal between Iran and America," which again leaves one thinking, "Wow those crazy Gulf Arabs, always with their conspiracy theories!"

Indeed, it is ironic that the New York Times chose also to publish in this weekend's Sunday Review an interactive Middle East map imagining "how 5 countries [Iraq, Syria, Saudi, Yemen, Libya] could become 14," i.e. as a result of the ethnic and sectarian pressures wrought by the Arab uprisings:

The map is ironic in that it resembles closely another (in)famous map depicting a "New Middle East." Prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters and published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, it aimed to illustrate a potential outcome of the so-described "New Middle East" project initiated by the Bush Administration with the Iraq War.  The implication was that the United States was not simply witnessing the balkanization of the region but contributing to it and shaping it for its own ends. That such a map should reappear now, then, and with much greater geopolitical plausibility, will recall for many these fears of a decade ago, and the question of whether the U.S. has not perhaps succeeded in its principle of "constructive chaos" in the Middle East.

The reaction in Bahrain to the tentative rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran, accordingly, is not one of hysteria, but rather a calm "I told you so." Taking place within the context of what is already a heated debate over U.S. policy toward the country (as symbolized by the U.S. Embassy and more particularly the U.S. ambassador), this development represents but one more piece of ammunition in an already-full magazine carried by the U.S.'s Sunni critics.  Beyond his phone call with Rouhani, Obama's explicit reference to "sectarian tensions" in Bahrain during his speech to the UN also is seen as having emboldened the opposition, which held a large (and authorized) march down al-Budaiyi' Road on Friday attended by 'Isa Qasim, 'Abdullah al-Ghurayfi, and other senior religious figures.  It was a clear day yesterday (I was at the beach!), and the picture is somewhat neat:

For government supporters, of course, Obama's remarks were interpreted somewhat less positively:



Indeed, even former U.S. Ambassador to Bahrain Adam Ereli got in on the action, "attack[ing] his own country over its attitude to the kingdom." The Gulf Daily News tells, "He sounded an alarm over deteriorating relations with Bahrain and other Gulf countries, and warned that the US 'neglects its allies at its peril.'" Ereli continued,

As one senior member of a ruling family asked me, 'Why can't the US stand by us the way Russia stands by Syria?' We should. America must state clearly what it stands for and who it stands with. The unease we have sown among our allies is damaging to our national security and economic future.

Sooner or later, a crisis will strike this part of the world. It could be conflict with Iran or the bloody hand of terror. Domestic upheaval threatens the very foundation of states. And make no mistake - American jobs and financial stability will be at stake.

Now is the time to mend fences and rebuild frayed ties with our friends in the Gulf. President Barack Obama should take a page from President Clinton's play book. He should tell our friends in the GCC that we feel their pain. He should travel to the region and reassure troubled allies that America is on their side and will work with them in a spirit of common purpose to manage the challenges of a turbulent time. The administration must reverse this troubling trend of neglect. Our future prosperity depends on it.

I wonder if Ereli's remarks are colored at all by his recent (early September 2013) exit from the State Department in favor of the private consulting firm Mercury, which "represents several foreign governments in Washington"?

Whatever the case, Ereli along with many Bahrainis may soon have more to complain about.  A report yesterday in Lebanon's (admittedly pro-Hizballah) Al-Akhbar claims that President Obama recently delivered a letter to King Hamad via Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, in which he demands, inter alia, that Crown Prince Salman replace Khalifa bin Salman as head of government. It is not clear whether the directive came from President Rouhani, or from 'Ali Khamenei directly.

Update: Silly Obama thinks he can join a hawza without Bahraini Sunnis noticing:

Update 2: Front page story in yesterday's Al-Watan: "Krajeski Asks Al-Wifaq for a Mass Rally in Support of Obama." Cites a meeting between the U.S. ambassador and 'Ali Salman.

Update 3: Here's one for you: The Editor-in-Chief of Akhbar al-Khaleej Anwar 'Abd al-Rahman published an "expose" this weekend about a U.S. conspiracy against Bahrain and Egypt. "That sounds about right. So what?" you say. Well, this one claimed to be based on an "interview" given to Fox News by retired chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton, in which the latter has all kinds of crazy things to say. Following denials by the U.S. Embassy and Defense Department, which pointed out that Shelton had not been on Fox News since 2010, Akhbar al-Khaleej and English-language sister publication Gulf Daily News have doubled down, affirming they "stand by the story."