Argument

State of Emergency

Bahrain makes a desperate attempt to charm Washington -- while it declares war on protesters back home.

Bahrain's diplomatic charm offensive has run aground due to the government's brutal crackdown on its own citizens. Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, who is seen as one of the leading reformers within the ruling family, was due to meet with U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington on June 7. But the crown prince's tête-à-tête was derailed by news reports on June 6 that the trial of 47 doctors and nurses who treated injured protesters would begin in a special security court in the capital of Manama.

The court's next hearing ended up being delayed for a week, but, unsurprisingly, June 7's meeting with the president was reduced to a "drop-by" during the crown prince's sit-down with Obama's national security advisor, Thomas Donilon; and that afternoon's conversation with Clinton did not include a joint press conference afterward.

Once again, the tiny Persian Gulf kingdom has stumbled in its bid to depict itself as a plucky U.S. ally on the front line of a brewing conflict with Iran.

It had looked like such a great piece of diplomatic choreography. On June 1, the country's Sunni monarchy lifted the state of emergency imposed in mid-March after Saudi forces intervened to counter widespread protests by Bahrain's Shiite majority. That same day, Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa announced further rounds of talks, which are intended to heal the country's sectarian rift, would be held in July. And last week, Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid Al Khalifa arrived in Washington to prepare the ground for the crown prince's visit.

Bahrain also celebrated the announcement that the country's Formula One race, canceled in March, had been rescheduled for October. An internal human rights report by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, which made the decision to reinstate the race, painted a rosy picture of the political situation in the kingdom, saying that "Life in Bahrain is completely normal again" and that security is "guaranteed."

But Bahrain's diplomatic charm offensive was unraveling even before the announcement of the Manama court hearing. On June 1, U.S. chargé d'affaires Stephanie Williams was roasted for more than an hour on Bahraini state television, often not able to get a word in edgewise. The interviewer accused the United States of "not deal[ing] in a fair way with all the sects" of Bahrain and hoped that the international community "leave[s] the Bahraini people to solve their problems by themselves."

The hostile interview was accompanied by an anti-U.S. media offensive. On June 4, a local newspaper accused Williams of colluding with the moderate Shiite opposition group Al-Wefaq. And on June 6, a government-run paper published an editorial that argued, "American black fingers are aiming to weaken the Gulf."

These attacks seem to be part of a trend. Last week, it emerged that a junior U.S. diplomat who had dealt with human rights issues, Ludovic Hood, had returned to Washington after threats against him and his wife, who had been identified as Jewish on a local blog. Per the requirements of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Bahrain was obligated to give Hood his own personal security detail after Clinton complained about the harassment to Bahrain's foreign minister in May.

Renewed protests on the island also threaten to derail the newly reinstated Formula One race. The event might seem trivial to finer diplomatic minds, but in the Bahraini government's psyche, it has been a key measure of the kingdom's international acceptance, rivaling only the state of the island's financial services industry. Now, Formula One's chief executive, Bernie Ecclestone, reportedly is having second thoughts as to whether it will be safe to arrange an event in Bahrain.

How did Bahrain's diplomatic push go so wrong? By scheduling the opening of the sedition trial for June 6 and launching incendiary media attacks against the United States, it appears that the ruling family's "dark side" has undermined the reformers -- represented by the crown prince and foreign minister -- in a very publicly embarrassing way.

Overall responsibility for this dismal state of affairs belongs to the vacillating King Hamad, whom one local diplomat described as too easily swayed and lacking strategic vision. With Crown Prince Salman and Khalid in Washington, he was thus vulnerable to the advice of the hard-line head of the royal court and Interior Minister Sheikh Rashid. King Hamad was also blocked by the White House from coming to the United States a few weeks ago for the graduation of one of his children -- a snub that may have also raised his anger at the Obama administration.

What now? Washington should not hold its breath for the withdrawal of Saudi forces from the kingdom. The current plan is for the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) -- which includes Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, as well as Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates -- to spread its joint "Peninsula Shield" military units across all member states. For years, the sole base of the grouping has been the Saudi military city of Hafr al-Batin. 

Basing "Peninsula Shield" elsewhere in the Gulf would, in the minds of the GCC royals, legitimize the presence of 1,000-plus Saudi National Guard soldiers and 600 UAE police in Bahrain. At present, the forces are stationed at the Sheikh Isa air base, which lies in the far south of Bahrain's main island, at another military facility also in the south, and around the oil refinery close to the capital. Their mission is to support the government against its domestic challengers and deter Iran from becoming embroiled in the conflict. If there is going to be another round of head-cracking on the island, the task will probably fall again to the police, whose ranks have been bolstered by former soldiers recruited from Pakistan and offered Bahraini citizenship (another grievance of Bahrain's Shiites).

Fresh elections are now being promised in September for Bahrain's lower house, an almost completely powerless legislative body. The members of the upper house are appointed by the king and are only marginally more influential. The day before Saudi Arabia sent forces into Bahrain, the crown prince, who was then in charge of the national dialogue, had accepted the principle of "a government that represents the will of the people." This contentious notion probably gave Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, as well as Bahraini hard-liners, heartburn. It is notable that the concept of representative democracy has not been mentioned as part of the revived dialogue. Meanwhile hundreds of protesters remain detained, including people not involved in violence. Small protests in the last few days have been dispersed with tear gas, rubber bullets, and birdshot.

In his May 19 address on the Arab Spring, Obama said Bahrain's government "must create the conditions for dialogue." However, it's going to take more than a polite request to pry Bahrain from the grip of Saudi Arabia and the most intractable members of the island's royal family.

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

Argument

Giving Away the Farm

The Obama administration is freely giving Russia sensitive information about missile defense that weakens U.S. national security.

President Barack Obama's administration recently threatened to veto the defense budget, citing "serious concerns" over provisions that limit the U.S. missile defense know-how that the White House is permitted to share with Moscow. This is the sort of information that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, in his earlier days, would have assigned his spies to steal. Through its single-minded pursuit of "resetting" relations with Russia, the Obama administration may simply be willing to hand over this information and, in doing so, weaken U.S. national security.

Only two days after issuing the veto threat -- and as Obama tried to warm Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to U.S. missile defense plans at the G-8 Summit in Deauville, France -- the House of Representatives passed the defense bill. It included the provision that the president's team finds so offensive: Section 1228 requires that no funds can be used to provide the Russian Federation with sensitive U.S. missile defense technology.

This act of congressional prudence did not come out of nowhere. The Senate debate over New START raised questions about what the Obama administration may have promised Moscow regarding U.S. missile defense plans. The debate stemmed from the treaty's preamble, which linked offensive and defensive weapons, and a Russian unilateral statement that stated ratification of the treaty was conditional on whether the United States made improvements to its missile defense systems. In a treaty about reducing offensive weapons, it was clear the Russians required the Obama administration to include U.S. defenses in the bargain.

With that issue still unresolved, Congress discovered that the administration has been working on a missile defense agreement with the Russians and that Moscow had requested that the United States share with it loads of sensitive U.S. missile defense technology and operational authority as part of that deal. In the administration's eagerness to please the Kremlin, it may just oblige.

The House of Representatives has given a firm "no" to that prospect through its decision to ignore Obama's veto threat and approve the defense appropriations bill by a veto-proof vote of 322 to 96. The Senate may act similarly. On April 14, 39 Republican senators sent a letter to the president expressing their concern over the administration's consideration of granting to the Russians sensitive U.S. technology and "red button" authority to prevent the interception of incoming missiles headed for U.S. troops or allies. This would allow Russia to deny the United States the ability to intercept a missile Washington had determined to be a threat.

The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), requested the administration provide the Senate with assurances that it will not share sensitive information with Moscow. The senators cited the problem that sharing this information with Russia poses in light of its history of espionage and technological cooperation with Iran and Syria.

They're right to be concerned. Tehran is thumbing its nose at Washington and doubling down on its missile program. The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, told a congressional panel in March that Iran "would likely choose missile delivery as its preferred method of delivering a nuclear weapon" and that the Islamic Republic "continues to expand the scale, reach and sophistication of its ballistic missile forces, many of which are inherently capable of carrying a nuclear payload."

Russian assistance has contributed to the progress made by Iran's nuclear and missile programs. Should the United States share critical information about its missile defenses with the Russians, a Russian entity -- official or otherwise -- could pass that information along to Tehran, enabling the Iranians to capitalize on the weaknesses in the U.S. system.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration continues to demonstrate its penchant for bargaining away missile defense, and the United States is not currently developing and deploying missile defense technology at the rate and quantity the threat demands.

The proliferation of missiles, especially short-range devices, continues to accelerate. As a result, the United States has a greater need than ever for short-range defensive systems like the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and the Patriot air and missile defense system. The United States, its forces abroad, and its allies are also vulnerable to short-range missiles fired from ships at sea and long-range missiles fired in large quantities. The only system the United States currently has to defend against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is the ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) system, which is limited in its ability. The sea-based Aegis system is supposed to complement the GMD system in defending the homeland against long-range missiles by 2020, but the intelligence community continues to estimate that Iran will have an ICBM by 2015.

Leaders in the House, and particularly the Armed Services Committee, deserve commendation for trying to address these weaknesses. The House defense bill added funds for short-range defenses, the GMD system, and Aegis; and perhaps most strikingly, it mandated the administration to conduct a study on the technical and operational feasibility of space-based interceptors -- the ideal type of system to intercept missiles at the optimal point, during their boost phase.

But as the administration's veto threat demonstrates, the future of U.S. missile defense requires more than Congress alone can provide. Here's hoping that the White House comes to its senses and stops trying to use a degradation in U.S. national security to purchase a Russian "reset."

Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images