The goal would appear to be to foment greater anti-Americanism in the Arab world and create an atmosphere where the Islamic Republic can be a bigger player.
The United States and the Islamic Republic are each accusing the other of meddling in the turmoil,
In Bahrain, the United States has publicly and repeatedly advocated dialogue between the government and the opposition. The crown prince has been in the forefront of trying to organize a dialogue. US officials, however, have asserted that Iran is advising the rebels not to engage in any peace talks, and the leading Shiite party, Wefaq, has said it will not join any talks.
In Libya, Iran has warned the rebels not to deal with the Americans since the main American goal in advocating military involvement is to take over Libya’s oilfields. But before the US military action there, some Libyan rebels complained the Americans were refusing to help because they only wanted to preserve their access to Libyan oil through strongman Muammar Qadhdhafi. Actually, almost all Libyan oil has always gone across the Mediterranean to southern Europe, and the United States has never bought much oil from Libya.
Anti-regime protests erupted last week in five cities in Syria. Iran has said nothing about those. And those disruptions have not been reported in the Iranian media.
In a speech Monday, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenehi listed the countries where Iran supports uprisings. He named “Gaza, Palestine, Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.” In addition to Syria, that left out Algeria, Sudan, Oman and, surprisingly, Jordan and Morocco. But in none of those countries has a rebellion reached the extent of those in the countries Khamenehi named.
Still, the vast bulk of Iran’s rhetoric is expended on Bahrain, where the rebellion is essentially by the Shiite majority against the ruling Sunnis.
In his speech Monday, however, Khamenehi was concerned to rebut that interpretation. “Do not turn the anti-despotic movement into a Shia-Sunni problem,” he said. To do so is to do the Americans “a great service.” He denied that Shiism had anything to do with Iran’s support for Bahrain’s rebels and said the proof of that was that Iran supported the Palestinians, who are largely Sunni, against Israel.
Khamenehi said the West was being inconsistent by refusing to call the stationing of Saudi tanks in Bahrain an intervention while labeling calls by Iran for Bahrain’s rulers to cease killing people as intervention. But he didn’t cite any Western ruler who has termed Iranian calls for an end to killing intervention and the Iran Times has not seen any official say anything like that. Furthermore, the United States publicly opposed the Saudi intervention.
Bahraini Shiites, it must be noted, have not been asking for Iranian help. In fact, many have disdained Iran and said they want nothing to do with it. Iran’s form of clerical government does not appear very attractive to the laid-back Bahrainis. In fact, when Bahraini Shias sought some foreign help, it was from the United States. On Sunday, all 18 Shia legislators in the Bahraini Parliament joined in a brief protest outside the UN offices in Bahrain and specifically asked he United States to pressure the Saudi, UAE and other foreign troops to leave Bahrain.
Ali Salman, a senior Shia leader, said the opposition does not want either Saudi or Iranian involvement in Bahrain. “We don’t want Iranians to come,” he said. “We don’t want a big problem in this small country.”
While Khamenehi may deny it, much of the friction is clearly sectarian. A number of Bahraini Shiites who reported being beaten last Wednesday as Pearl Square was cleared said their attackers had linked them to Iran. They reported being told such things as, “You’re Shiite, so go back to Iran” and “Shiite dog! Go back to your home. And let Iran help you now.”
US officials have stated repeatedly and on the record that Washington does not believe Tehran had a hand in the Bahraini uprisings—but say they are convinced Iran is trying to involve itself in Bahrain and looks for ways to bend events to its benefit.
With regard to Libya, Khamenehi said the Islamic Republic condemns in the strongest terms both the Qadhdhafi regime’s suppression of the people and the West’s military intervention. He didn’t say how he expected the rebellion to prevail without the UN-authorized intervention.
Khamenehi asked why the West had waited a month before intervening and thus allow Qadhdhafi to massacre his own citizens. He answered his own question, saying: “You want Libya’s oil. You want a foothold in Libya in order to monitor the future governments of Tunisia and Egypt.” He didn’t explain how the West could monitor developments in Tunisia and Egypt better from Libya than from Tunisia and Egypt where there are many Western diplomats.
He also didn’t say how Washington would grab Libyan oil and monitor events next door given that President Obama had already said he would not send American ground troops into Libya.
Khamenehi also emphasized that the uprisings across the Arab world were “a sign of the awakening of the Islamic ummah,” although few of the protesters in any of the countries Khamenehi named have shouted for an Islamic government. The loudest calls have been for more democracy and less corruption.
Bahrain launched a major attack on the rebels in Pearl Square last Wednesday. Since then, the street protests have stopped, although the tension is still palpable. Al-Alam, Iran’s Arabic language television outlet, said that the Bahraini police and troops who attacked Pearl square last Wednesday were firing live ammunition. Four people died. Doctors in local hospitals said the vast bulk of the injuries they treated were buckshot wounds. It was clear the Sunni rulers of Bahrain wanted to maximize minor wounds and minimize deaths so as to discourage future protests. It will be interesting to see if the Islamic Republic now stocks up on shotguns with which to confront future protests.
After the Pearl Square protesters had been scattered, King Hamad said the action had successfully foiled a foreign plot. He sounded much like Iranian officials after confronting street protests in Tehran. Everyone understood Hamad was referring to Iran, although he was careful to name no names. However, he spoke after Bahrain had expelled Iran’s Number Two diplomat. In the norm of diplomatic relations, Iran responded by expelling Bahrain’s Number Two diplomat from Iran.
Meanwhile, in Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez condemned the United States for seeking to overthrow Qadhdhafi and seize Libya’s oil. Chavez compared Qadhdhafi to Simon Bolivar, the man who led the liberation of much of South America from Spanish colonialism and is often called Latin America’s George Washington.
In the United States, the focus has been largely on the question of Iranian intervention in Bahrain, while in Iran the focus has been on American intervention.
The real focus might better be placed on Saudi Arabia, which made the decision to send its troops without consulting the United States and after giving Washington only a few hours notice of its decision. Washington did not approve. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly labeled the deployment “alarming.”
The New York Times reported last week that Saudi-American relations have “chilled.” It quoted an unnamed Arab official as saying King Abdullah’s willingness to listen to the Obama Administration “evaporated” when Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was ousted from office at US urging.
Both Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have been forced to cancel trips to Saudi Arabia in recent days because King Abdullah refused to meet with them.
As for Bahrain, that Arab official said, “King Abdullah has been clear that Saudi Arabia will never allow Shia rule in Bahrain—never!”
What the United States wants to see is reforms in Bahrain that will end the repression of Shiites and provide them with more jobs and more say, though Washington is not advocating strict one-man, one-vote elections that could give Shiites two-thirds of the seats in Parliament. The Saudi government is not entertaining any talk of any reforms and seems to prefer a Bahraini government that will sit on the Shiites and keep them muzzled.
Washington believes that reforms can ease social and political pressures and avoid a future explosion. The Saudis believe that reforms will only open the doors wide to more Shiite demands.
And right now, it is clear that the Saudi approach is the one being applied.