Saudi Arabia Strikes Back

The House of Saud's intervention in Bahrain is a slap in the face of the United States, and a setback for peace on the island.

BY JEAN-FRANÇOIS SEZNEC | MARCH 14, 2011

One thousand "lightly armed" Saudi troops and an unspecified number of troops from the United Arab Emirates entered Bahrain on the morning of March 14, in a bid to end the country's monthlong political crisis. They are reportedly heading for the town of Riffa, the stronghold of the ruling Khalifa family. The troops' task, apparently, is to protect the oil installations and basic infrastructure from the demonstrators.

The Arab intervention marks a dramatic escalation of Bahrain's political crisis, which has pitted the country's disgruntled Shiite majority against the Sunni ruling family -- and has also been exacerbated by quarrels between hard-liners and liberals within the Khalifa clan. The clashes between protesters and government forces worsened over the weekend, when the security services beat back demonstrators trying to block the highway to the capital of Manama's Financial Harbor. The protesters' disruption of the harbor, which was reportedly purchased by the conservative Prime Minister Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa for one dinar, was an important symbolic gesture by the opposition.

For the United States, the intervention is a slap in the face. On Saturday, March 12, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Bahrain, where he called for real reforms to the country's political system and criticized "baby steps," which he said would be insufficient to defuse the crisis. The Saudis were called in within a few hours of Gates's departure, however, showing their disdain for his efforts to reach a negotiated solution. By acting so soon after Gates's visit, Saudi Arabia has made the United States look at best irrelevant to events in Bahrain, and from the Shiite opposition's point of view, even complicit in the Saudi military intervention.

The number of foreign troop is so far very small and should not make one iota of difference in Bahrain's balance of power. The Bahraini military already total 30,000 troops, all of whom are Sunnis. They are under control of Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa and supposedly fully faithful to King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa. Bahrain also has a similar number of police and general security forces, mainly mercenaries from Baluchistan, Yemen, and Syria, reputed to be controlled by the prime minister and his followers in the family.

At this time, therefore, the Saudi intervention is largely a symbolic maneuver. It is so far not an effort to quell the unrest, but intended to scare the more extreme Shiite groups into allowing negotiations to go forward. The crown prince recently laid out six main issues to be discussed in talks, including the establishment of an elected parliament empowered to affect government policy, fairly demarcated electoral constituencies, steps to combat financial and administrative corruption, and moves to limit sectarian polarization. He notably failed to mention one of the opposition's primary demands -- the prime minister's resignation.

The Saudi move, however, risks backfiring. It is extremely unlikely that the Saudi troops' presence will entice moderate Shiite and Sunni opposition figures to come to the table -- the intervention will force them to harden their position for fear of being seen as Saudi stooges. The demands of the more extreme groups, such as the Shiite al-Haq party, are also likely to increase prior to negotiations. These elements, having seen job opportunities go to foreign workers and political power dominated by the ruling family for decades, have grown steadily disenchanted with prospects of talks.

JAMES LAWLER DUGGAN/AFP/Getty Images

 

Jean-François Seznec is a visiting associate professor at Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies.

RPC1987

2:10 AM ET

March 15, 2011

Deeply alarming

The Gulf Cooperation Council's (GCC) decision to send troops from its Peninsula Shield Force into Bahrain is incredibly significant for a few reasons. One, it will only heighten sectarian tensions in Bahrain. As Kristin Smith Diwan reported on Foreign Affairs site:

"If the Gulf’s first attempt at an Egypt-inspired democratic revolution ends in sectarian strife and violent suppression of the Shia majority, the unrest will not be restricted to the tiny island. And the government in Iran will find a much more receptive political environment across Arabia for its hard-line message."

Indeed, it does appear to be ending in sectarian strife and violent suppression. The decision to send foreign troops into another country experiencing political unrest is also, intended or not, a decision to go to war. Hence, the extreme apprehension the US has in establishing a no-fly zone in Libya right now. If the situation in Bahrain deteriorates due to some unforeseen event, many of the Gulf states may unexpectedly find themselves in a war they did not anticipate nor desire. This is a real possibility. Nearly 70 percent of Bahrain's population is Shia. All it takes is one Shield troop to shoot a Shia to send this situation into a tailspin that will prove relatively unsalvageable.

And let's face it: Iran will be the real winner no matter what the outcome if that happens. They will argue that Sunnis are collectively working together to suppress Shias. And considering how Bahrain's 30,000 strong military does not have a single Shia Bahraini in it, it is hard to deny that narrative.

And let us not forget that Saudi Arabia's Shia population, roughly 15 percent of its total population, populate the country's eastern region, where oil production is concentrated. Unrest in Bahrain is not necessary to stimulate an uprising amongst Saudi Shias: they can do what they wish regardless of what happens there. But there is little doubt that a traumatic turn of events due to the presence of Shield troops in Bahrain could inspire unrest in Saudi Arabia. Such unrest may not bring down the Saudi kingdom, but it could throttle the global economy's recovery by forcing a surge in oil prices and, hence, global food prices, killing global demand for other goods and services.

The Saudi government, and other GCC countries, undoubtedly believe that saving Bahrain is the equivalent of saving themselves. They fear Shia political dominance, or merely empowerment, in Bahrain will bring Iranian influence closer to their borders and view this latest action as a means of preventing that possibility. If anything, for the reasons I have just stated, it appears their decision can, and quite possibly will, backfire on them. If they were really interested in preserving their regimes and trimming Iran's potential influence, they would urge the al-Khalifa regime to make necessary changes and get rid of the Prime Minister immediately. Not doing so, as Diwan states above, will only make Shias across the region more receptive to Iran's message.

 

MARTY MARTEL

7:48 AM ET

March 15, 2011

Bush Senior and Junior - Where are you?

Where O’ Where is Bush Senior when Bahrain needs him?

Where O’ Where is Bush Junior to uphold his cherished ’democracy’ in Bahrain?

 

KHALID RAHIM

9:02 AM ET

March 15, 2011

On Behalf of Israel!

Saudi forces entered Bahrain to draw Iran's attention and force her to
retaliate by countering Wahabi forces in Shia majority Bahrain. If Iran
makes the mistake, Tel Aviv will come to the rescue of gulf States.

 

AGRICOLA

9:06 AM ET

March 15, 2011

Boogie man

Wow, your people are really scared of the Israelis huh?

Looks more like Israel is getting surprised by the events rather than orchestrating them all through some unseen means of influence over states that are open hostile to it.

 

NOMAD7

12:56 PM ET

March 15, 2011

on behalf of Israel

Spot on. There is now an objective alliance between Saudi Arabia, Israel, Algeria, and Syria whose aim is to stop the tide of Arab revolution from spreading. One way to do this would be dragging Iran into war. Fortunately for the Arab people and for the future of freedom and democracy these ploys will not succeed, first because Iran will not be as dumb as to walk into such a trap, secondly because this time, the Arab genie is really out of the bottle and no manipulation will succeed in forcing it back in.

 

MUTT3003

3:50 PM ET

March 15, 2011

You scratch my back and.........

Don't believe that the US did not know about the Saudi move. The US gives the GCC the nod to intervene Bahrain and the GCC gives the US the nod for a Libyan intervention.

 

GRANT

8:04 PM ET

March 15, 2011

If that were true we wouldn't

If that were true we wouldn't have spent so much time publicly trying to push Bahrain towards a reformist mind. Besides, the Arab states aren't really giving the U.S that much. At most they'll help convince the U.N to set up a no-fly zone which won't be nearly enough to sway things.

 

GRANT

8:02 PM ET

March 15, 2011

I really have to pity

I really have to pity international leaders right now. Unrest in the Middle East of the sort that hasn't been seen for decades, major problems in the rest of Africa hitting at the same time and fears of a Japanese nuclear meltdown (and an economic one). There's no such thing as a quiet year but this is definitely one of the noisier ones.

 

FAMULLA

4:22 AM ET

March 16, 2011

Saudi Arabia Strikes Back

Saudi Arabia Strikes Back
The House of Saud's intervention in Bahrain is a slap in the face of the United States, and a setback for peace on the island
When I was in Saudi for Hajj, I was cheated by the vendors of the cheap watches etc. The vendors knew that we were there for some days only and would find the cheat after we had left and that is truth. Who will complain then?
Is Saudi doing anything on the internet? No. It is not allowed. All is hush hush hush . Is that living for the youths these days? I doubt. I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

 

LUIS DE AGUSTIN

2:24 PM ET

March 16, 2011

Helpless U.S. Puppy

It’s an astonishing supposition the article has readers believe, that the Saudi’s acted in direct contravention to US wishes by crossing into Bahrain with troops and tanks. When did the Saudi’s stop being American stooges? Their military action with GCC cover has been expected for weeks. The good professor calls the intervention a major slap in the face to the US. Only if one gets one’s information from US government press releases could one posit such a belief. Even so, that that foreign troops patrol Bahrain, where is US condemnation or even criticism from Mrs. Clinton. There are the meaningless words asking for restraint, but from whom? From the hundreds of thousands who for weeks engaged in peaceful demonstrations against the US backed oligarchy?

The GCC announced they entered their neighbor’s territory to protect the safety of citizens. Is this the kind of press future State Department operatives graduating from Georgetown are being taught to take as what is behind statecraft? This military attack, as the overwhelming majority of Bahrain citizens cry out that they don’t need or want foreign troops in their country. Their county, not the country of one royal family and a religious minority.

The Saudi’s act as American proxies, and anyone who doesn’t see what’s occurred here for what it is, maybe has a dog in this fight. If things were as the author suggests regards the US haplessness, all Mr. Obama need say is the Saudi’s and foreign units should return home. Until then, there is an occupation force in Bahrain attempting to keep a dictatorship in power.

What is more likely to occur, baring the high probability of all out civil conflict on the part of the citizens of Bahrain, is for the US to conveniently enter the picture as peacemaker and honest broker to play good cop opposite the Saudi bad cop. It might all smell like roses to the article’s author, but should more like corpses smell.

Luis de Agustin