Battle for Bahrain: who will win - Iran or USA?

World mass media consider that the revolution in Bahrain is of the same nature with the popular uprising in Egypt, Tunis and Libya. But experts of the Arab Association of Trader and Investor under Masterforex-V Academy say that is not true.

The difference is considerable and fundamental:
· There are no poverty and social problems in Bahrain. In 2009 the GDP per capita is $40.000 while in Tunis it is around $8-9.000, in Egypt $5.900-6.100. For comparison sake, the same value (GDP per capita) in Moldova $2.3K, in Uzbekistan $2.8K, in Iraq $3.8K, in Georgia $4.5-5.1K, in Ukraine $6.3, in Russia $15.1K, in France $32.5K, in the USA $46K.

· Bahrain faces religious and national problems: Shiite Muslims (70% of the population) have risen against the king and his clan, which belong to Sunnites. The world Shiite center of is Iran, independent from the Western World.
· The small territory of the kingdom, which is rich in crude oil, is the location of the biggest US military base in the Persian Gulf.

The combination of these 3 components makes the revolution in Bahrain differ from the other revolutions seen in Northern Africa. Bahrain is a small island state between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Its population slightly exceeds 1 million people, more than 700.000 of which are Shiite Muslims. There rest is Sunnite Muslims. The latter have been in power so far.

It is sufficient to take a look at the map in order to understand that Shiites constitute the majority only in few states like Iran, Azerbaijan, Iraq and Bahrain.
After the defeat of Mubarak and his political regime in Egypt the center of Sunnites was eventually shifted to Saudi Arabia (the world’s richest and powerful Sunnite state).
It is the US and Saudi Arabia that have always been the Bahrain King’s strategic partners, He may always rely on any help from them. The rebellious Shiite majority, which happens to be the opposition, is supported by Iran.

The main differences of the revolt in Bahrain.

The mentioned factors define the main differences between the revolt in Bahrain and those happening in Egypt, Libya and Tunis, experts from the Arab Association explained:

· This is the first revolution in the region, waged against a monarch, not a dictator. The King of Bahrain is the crown governor. So it is ridiculous to accuse him of any usurpation of power, unlike Mubarak, Ben Ali or Kaddafi. Moreover the monarch is believed to be chosen by God, so any uprising against him cannot be approved by the Almighty. Except for the cases when his subjects are of different religious views.

· The revolution in Bahrain is of religious nature, which makes it different from the popular uprising in other states of Northern Africa. In this small Arabian state the “oppressed” Shiites rose against the “oppressing” Sunnites. The social issues are of little concern there.

· And finally the revolution in Bahrain (the only that is still going on) can be called the consequence of the global geopolitical confrontation. It can be called the battlefield of the region’s two major “players” – the United States and Iran.

As we can see not all the Arab revolts are the same. Moreover it is too early to speak about “the great awakening of the Islamic billion”, as there are different Muslims with different interests.

Why Iran, Saudi Arabia and the US are interested in Bahrain?

Iran. First of all, let’s consider this relatively young religious power:

1. The upsurge of the Iranian power was provoked by the Americans themselves, when they incinerated “Saddam’s Iraq”. Until Iraq remained under the rule of Saddam Hussein, Iran new that apart from the main enemy (US) there was a local threat (Iraq). When the US troops captured Baghdad, eliminating the Iraqi army, Iran (paradoxical as it may seem) found itself standing on solid ground and started expanding its “populated universe”.

2. Soon after that the US gave Iran another present. As they continued fighting Saddam’s henchmen (mainly Sunnites), they helped Shiites to constitute the majority in the country’s new parliament and government. Thereby, there used to be only one Shiite state in the Middle East. Now there are 2 of them.

3. Shortly after that Lebanon nearly joined the company as the radical Shiite organization called “Hezbollah” was 2 steps away from coming to power in the country. Yet, it is the “American experts on the Middle East” who should be blamed for that. It was the US Department of State that didn’t let the Israeli army to destroy the armed squads of Hezbollah in 2006. As a result, the leader of the party Hassan Nasralla informed the entire world that his partisans won a victory over Israel, which certainly lifted Hezbollah in the Arab World's eyes.

4. And finally, we have Bahrain stricken with a Shiite revolt. If it succeeds and ends up with dethroning the king (which is unlikely), that will be a great victory of Teheran over Washington. If there is some compromise meaning that the authorities are going to make concessions to the Shiite majority, it will also mean that Iran has reached considerable success. In any case Iran will be on the winning side as in this particular situation it is “the offensive side”.

Saudi Arabia is very sensitive about everything that happens in the neighboring country.
· In Riyadh they consider Bahrain to be located in the region of their interest.

· After the “downfall” of Egypt, Saudi Arabia is currently aspiring to the position of the Arab World’s leader. So the Saudis cannot stand their main rival’s intrigues near the country’s borders.

· Saudi Arabia is the place of numerous significant sacred objects for all the Muslims and the spiritual center for Sunnite Muslims. So it is automatically contrasted with Iran, the biggest Shiite state.

· Saudi Arabia is the world’s biggest crude oil producer and exporter. Iran comes second. Thus they are the closest rivals.

· Kuwait may follow the example of Bahrain, another country under the patronage of Saudi Arabia, with Shiites constituting 30% of the population.

· There are Shiite settlements in Saudi Arabia as well. They are located in the East of the country (not far from the rebellious Bahrain) in the provinces rich in crude oil. The uprising of the Saudi Shiites is what the Saudi King would want to see least of all.

The USA is among those countries that are concerned about the situation in Bahrain most of all. The thing is that:

1. Bahrain is the location of the 5th Fleet of the U.S. Naval Forces (over 30 large ships), through which Washington exercises control over the entire Persian Gulf. Not so long ago the White House allocated $580M to expand the military base in Bahrain.
2. The base is the center of monitoring the situation in the hostile Iran.
3. Moreover, the presence of the US troops in Bahrain ensures the uninterrupted supplies of oil through the narrow Strait of Hormuz: every 5th gallon of oil consumed around the world goes through it.
4. The US cannot leave such a strategically important area. Firstly, they won’t leave the straight uncontrolled. Secondly, they won’t have another chance to find a better place for the military base (By the way, Bahrain is the only Arab country where selling alcohol is allowed). Thirdly, they just cannot let Iran win. Otherwise the consequences will be terrible.

That is why Washington is not going to react to the situation in Bahrain the way they did with other revolution-stricken countries. In Bahrain the US will never support the oppositions and will never blame the leader for the usurpation of power. The least the US Department of State can do is to offer its own solution, implying bilateral talks resulting in a series of concessions.

Analysts for Market Leader offer you to participate in a survey held at the forum for traders and investors. To do it just follow the link and answer the following question:

Do the popular revolts in the countries of strategic importance to the US have any chances to succeed?

Yes, they do. Washington is helpless to do anything about it.
No, they don’t. The revolts will be crushed as the “democratic world” will silently approve it.
Yes, they do, if the US Department of State is quick enough to change its external policies during the revolt to take the winning side.