You can’t tell the crises apart without a scorecard. So Bahrain has gotten lost in the shuffle a bit. But as we saw yesterday, Saudi troops have been dispatched to help put down a largely sectarian uprising, with an oppressed Shiite majority seeking greater rights and participation from the ruling Sunni minority. And now, the nation has declared martial law.
The streets of Bahrain’s capital, Manama, have again erupted in violence as the kingdom’s besieged monarch declared martial law and ordered troops – including Saudi forces – to take all measures to quell a festering rebellion.
The clashes had been anticipated since more than 1,000 troops from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states arrived in Bahrain on Sunday, after being invited by the ruling dynasty to help restore order.
Demonstrators and security forces faced off from mid-morning in the Sitra area on the outskirts of Manama. Bystanders reported the sound of gunfire and the scent of teargas by early afternoon, followed by the familiar cacophony of ambulance sirens as they sped casualties towards the city’s two main hospitals.
By late afternoon, there were numerous reports of clashes inside Shia villages throughout Manama that had led to dozens of injuries.
In addition to an extension of the struggle for human rights by the citizens of the Arab world from its rulers, this is a proxy battle, part of a regional jockeying for power between the Saudis and the Iranians. Bahrain recalled its ambassador to Iran after the Iranian foreign minister made a pretty muted statement about Bahrain’s ruler needing to act with “wisdom and caution”.
The US has urged “restraint” in Bahrain while sending emissaries like Mike Mullen and Robert Gates to show support for the ruling regime. They clearly want to hold the Fifth fleet naval base, and will turn a blind eye to the horrific violence that has already occurred. But the sectarian component of this uprising brings up another point. This was essentially predicted by events in Iraq in 2003. That upset the regional balance of power and ended up tipping the nation to the Shiites, expanding Iranian dominance over the region. The Saudis were alarmed at this, and needed to assert their own power as well. That has now played itself out in Bahrain, where you have a regional proxy battle, perhaps the first of several in the Middle East. Back when the Bush Administration invaded Iraq, many talked about destabilizing the region. I think this is what they meant.




25 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
This is the one I figured from the beginning was doomed to fail. Saudi troops invaded courtesy of U.S. Gotta protect that U.S. Fifth fleet base.
The Shiites will start asymmetrical warfare until they get their rights, supported by Iran.
Just as the IRA was supported by the US.
aint Democracy…..great
their tinpot ruler is 22 y o !
Yep. That musta been one of those “known knowns”.
It’s amazing that with all that is going on in the world right now, it’s starting to look like one of those discovery channel programs on Nostradamus’s predictions of the future. Scenes of fire, earthquake, protests, shootings, bloodshed, etc.
US/UK can’t make it’s case for the spread of democracy, when dictators turn weapons they got from us, on democracy demonstrations…
– Balkingpoints / www
Thus the power of prophecy over the public imagination. Those things are always going on to one degree or another.
A response of mine got lost. So here it is again (in case the lost one shows up.
Your scenario would get very bloody very quickly I’d think. U.S. can’t let that kind of thing happen near 5th fleet.
I’m not sure how well trained Saudi troops are. I’m skeptical bc military is often effector of coups. Which is why SH had, Ayatollah & Gaddafi have special guards, with broader militaries poorly trained, poorly led, not given bullets, etc.
OTOH, I have also read that Saudis have gotten very good at suppression of dissent at home.
I guess we’ll learn which in the next several months.
U.S. couldn’t make that case at any time. The only people on earth who didn’t know that are people who live in the U.S.
Yep. Servers experienced a hiccup or something.
Aha. Thought it was me. My computer’s still a bit hinky after my invasion last week.
Nope. Not your hinkiness this time. :)
Thanks for the update. From rumor mill amongst US citizens of ME descent, allegedly Saudi troops have been in Bahrain almost since the beginning of the protests. Just looks like it’s getting more intense right now. No surprises, of course, as US has the interests of our Oil Elites to protect and so forth (plus don’t like the “little people” having a say, etc).
Gotta go ride my bake for a bit and sweat the last of the weekend tequila out. Laters.
Where are the Clintons now. First we have excessive contributions from Saudi Arabia to the so called Clinton foundation. Then we have Bill Clinton making arguments that Libya should have a no fly zone. Then we have complete silence from Bill Clinton about a no fly zone over Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
From Hillary we had support of the Mubarik (sp?) regime and her palling around with son of the Libyan dictator.
Can’t wait for Bill Clinton to call for a no fly zone over Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
US continues to suffer from the Clinton Administation’s commitment to increased dependence on foreign fossil fuels and Bill Clinton’s continuing
irresponsibility and allegiance to Saudi Arabia. Time for Bill Clinton to go far away and stay out of it.
You make some good points, but at this point, I don’t think it matters all that much what either Bill or Hilary Clinton do. This is Bush doctrine, which is being implemented by all concerned, including Obama. The Clintons are certainly complicit and active, but even IF they both went away, we’d see the same thing going on… enabled by others in the cast of characters we have in Dee Cee… just saying…
It was actually the Carter Doctrine that pronounced that the U.S. would use military force to secure ‘its’ ME oil.
Carter Doctrine.
The “doctine” you refer to started as a “practice” with Eisenhower. It is the Clintons who presided over the biggest increase in dependence on foreign fossil fuels during the time they “ran” things. And it certainly is Clinton and no other President since Eisenhower who has spent more time grifting off the Saudis.
To be sure. Just mentioning when it was formalized, as many are unaware that Carter formalized it.
Thought it was the Bushies who held hands with the Saudis, at least according to the several books I’ve read on the subject.
1. It is already bloody. The local Shiites may believe they have noting to lose.
2. The Shiites believe they are oppressed
3. there appear to be no actions to address the Shiites grievances
4. Asymmetrical warfare is inexpensive and effective for the oppressed.
5. It is in Iran’s interests to cause the US more pain, at little expense to itself.
Meeting grievances with violence has predictable results. Ask any founding father. I know the US is not so experienced at world history, but a small study of its own would be instructive.
Far as I know it is the Clintons who have taken the most money directly from the Saudis in the form of “foundation contributions”. Don’t know about the so called “speaking fees” used as another revenue generating device by the Clintons.
The Bush crowd operated through the Carlyle Group with respect to the Saudi game and are not as directly involved with the Saudis as the Clintons, or so it seems, except for the air flights back to SA provided to the Saudis immediately following 9/11 by the Bushes.
You sure it was only hands they held? Or were checks also exchanged?
Not sure what went on underneath those flowing robes the Saudi royals wear.
I know the Iranians are very upset but I also read the Bahrani Shiites are only linked by religion but don’t know if that’s true. I know the Saudis hate the Persians though and imho this could get very ugly.