Saudi Arabia sends troops to Bahrain
So, like you all, I hadn't really heard much about Bahrain prior to their uprising in the wake of the Tunisian revolution, and it has gotten far less attention than Libya or Egypt, because after some initial turbulance, it had been generally peaceful.
However, recent crackdowns by the police broke all that, and through the mechanisms of a military alliance known as the GCC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperation_Council_for_the_Arab_States_of_the_Gulf
And as such, Saudi Arabia is sending 1000 troops to Bahrain to quell the uprising, the UAE 500. This is being done on the grouds that the GCC military alliance, initially set up in the wake of the Iran/Iraq war to protect against foreign threats, can be used to protect against domestic threats to stability as well. Essentially, Saudi Arabia has a military mechanism through which it can enforce hegemony in the region, in the name of security, when any of its puppet allies get threatened. An equivalent would be, say, if Greece had asked America to send in a unit of soldiers to quell its protests under the NATO convention, and America had done so, because it supported to policy leanings of the leader over their people.
So, its hard to say bad things about the Saudi guy, but that is only because he doesn't come off like a lunatic. The jist of what he is saying is that, whenever popular revolt threatens a nation, the leader has a right to quell it, in fact, Saudi Arabia has a right to quell a revolt in a neighbouring nation, because it is unstable. This is clearly anti-democratic, etc. He obviously isn't an extremist, but he strikes me as a very well selected foreign ambasador for the Saudi state (I mean metaphoricly) who knows he is going to be speaking to a Western, English speaking audience. His position is as oppressive as any type of authoritarianism, he just knows how to look like he isn't an evil person.
I think it is very strange that he says people in the Gulf states deserve political reform, yet he is in total favor of internaitonal military action against those who are doing the only thing possible to achieve that. at the 14-16min mark, he gets wtfpwnd by the Bahraini guest.
There seems to be a general cold war mentality in the decision makers at the head of the Saudi state. They see Iranian hands in everything, and the idea of a Shia majority nation on its doorstep terrifies them, because they think it will become a proxy for Iran. However, this sort of fails to take into account that the protests themselves aren't making sectarian demands, a truly democratic Bahrain is not going to support Iran, and Iran wouldn't have the same military option to enforce any hegemony within Bahrain as the Saudis do, or as Iran does in Iraq. By extension, Iran has no way to defend Bahrain against Saudi influence.
This does give interesting perspective to the Iranian nuclear program. It seems, pragmaticly at least, that they would be far more likely to use it as a way to spread influence across the Gulf than to attack Israel. Also, Wikileaks revealed a huge number of cables where the GCC states were urging immediate military strikes against Iran...
is this oportunism on the king of Bahrain's part, or some calculation by the saudis, and does it matter? set precidence?
If the world doesn't step in now, which I don't even know if they should, does this justify the use of foreign military force to protect dictators? Could the Americans use this to justify sending troops into nato allied nations that might be at risk of being overturned by public action? could they request intervention, or even buy it from security companies (ok, now I'm stretching, but whatever), to deal with their own domestic protests, like those in WI, legitimately, citing this as precedence in international treaty law?
America seems against it, but what are they going to do to stop the Saudis?
At least they aren't saying something like "The GCC is a legitimate alliance network with the right to set its own mandate... etc", so hopefully I'm just being paranoid above.
Still, not taking any action to chastize the Saudi's sets precident that they are allowed to interviene in neighbouring nations, even if it is against unarmed civilians.
Anyways, this kind of thing is unprecedented. Even the Americans had to use people like Oliver North to stop citizen lead movements in neighbouring countries (I guess not if you ask Smedly Butler, so maybe this isn't all that unprecedented... It is for the modern world, or at least that region). Anyways, I just think this could have enormous implications for the region. Saudi Arabia sort of acts with impunity because of its American shield, and if there are going to start militarily dominating the region... errr...
though, I can't say, given something like the GCC, this would necessarily be any different than what exists now
So, my questions:
Is America going to do anything to chastize the Saudis? remember, this is the same America who gave nuclear material to the Saudis in exchange for oil.
Does this spell doom for any revolt in the gulf/peninsula region? Could the Saudis use this as a stepping stone to increase influence in non-GCC (also not Yemen) nations (I mean like Jordon or Lebanon or Iraq, where there has also been protest [though, who the **** wants to go to Iraq...])? If protests continue in Saudi Arabia itself, can the world condemn then for using force against those demonstrations if they have allowed it in this context?
What about the UAE? they sent 500 troops, and they are a huge American ally, often touted as a pro-western beacon of Arab world secular prosperity [sic]
Does it serve any purpose for Iran to try and influence the outcome of this conflict?