- Bahrain’s position in the U.S. strategy in the Middle East
- 2- The importance of the Middle East in the USA perspective
- 3- The U.S. strategic interests
- 4- The current U.S. strategy and its requirements
- 5- Sources of threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East
- 6- The Iranian threat on USA interests from the Western perspective and the requirements of confrontation
- 7- The importance of Bahrain within the USA strategy
- 8- The U.S. fears of the situation in Bahrain
- 9- The limits and controls of the U.S. behaviour on the future in Bahrain
- 10- Conclusion
Here, and contrary to what USA reacted on the public protest in other countries like Libya for example -where it did issue from the Security Council a resolution of allowing the foreign military intervention to protect civilians and used it as a pretext for NATO intervention, which led to the overthrow and killing of President Muammar Gaddafi- in the case of Bahrain,USAhas almost been silent at first,whichshoweditsapproval to the military repression on the peaceful publicprotest. It alsosuspended any reaction, yet, encouraged the intervention of the Gulf Forces consisting of majority of Saudi. USA has been recently adopting an introverted position of urging the King of Bahrain to make some reforms that might ease the public congestion, yet, continues its support to the regime in Bahrain regardless ofthe reality of the authoritarian rule practiced by it. The position the United States has been taken about Bahrain, has raised questions about the reasons for its adherence to this regime, despiteits definite contrary to USA’s claims of certain commitment to spreading democracy and establishing human rights bases.
In this study we will discuss the strategy of the United States in the region and the position of Bahrain within it. we will also approach the reasons why USA is interested in the Middle East first, so we stand thenon the adopted strategy of the United States in the region, then we are to determine Bahrain’s position amid this strategy, with an attempt to shed light on the best approach for the people of Bahrain to achieve their demands in view of the existing facts at the present time.
2- The importance of the Middle East in the USA perspective
Since itcame into the global influential scenein the World War II, the United States has sought to expand its strategic sphere, and after the war ended in 1945 and the United Nations was established on the wrecks of “the League of Nations LON” to prevent war and to achieve international security and peace, the world order that was set up at the time came to protect the interests of the victors,which at the forefront was USA, who adopted the policy that allows it to achieve its goals without falling into the negative aspects of the old colonialism.
Therefore, the United States focused on the Middle East, as the latter does represent benefits in support toUSA’s universal project. The region of the Middle East is mediating the ancient world and has the necessary corridors of transportation and travel between the parts of the world, and then it storesthe sources of energy (oil and gas) that were not yet replaced by any viable alternative. So it has become firmly entrenched in the general strategic philosophy that one who has control over this region has easily control over the global decision.
Building on that,USAhas put the entire region in its highest level of attention, and it has adopted safe and reliableplans and strategies, while it did not congeal withonly one strategy to work upon, but adaptedits behavior according to the given variables, with the stability of the goal. This is logical because the strategy varies according to the change of the data and the elements upon which it is built.
This is said with a reminder that a strategy in general -depends on key goals to secure the vital interests of a party and is to act by all available means and capabilities toward achieving them, by taking into account the working environment which includes the facilities extended or the obstacles and barriersproduced. After this, the plans are putthat enable to achieve the interests\targets through using the available means that meet the conditions and the running environment. In short, a strategy is understood to be a plan of using the available capabilities in order to achieve the desired interests and goals, with respect to the circumstances of the current environment.
Initially, it is to outline a strategy determining the interests\goals, and then count the available or acquired capacity and potential, down to the identification of obstacles and difficulties or risks that prevent and hinder the achievement of the desired objectives. And on this basis, the researcher on the strategy of the United States in the Middle East must stand at first onthe strategy ofUSAand then look for the USAn interests in the Middle East in particular. Moreover,the researcher must also identify the obstacles that might hinder the implementation, and more accurately determine the opponent or the enemy that USAshall face in its quest to achieve what it wants in the region.
3- The U.S. strategic interests
It may not be easy to outline the U.S. interestsand in particular that USA depends onmultiple methods including the direct methodand explicit delineationin defining them; it is also not lagging behind the adoption of puns to their goals,according to the nature of the goal. However,the U.S. interests in the Middle East can be counted as in the following:
a. The specific direct interests as four points explicitly set by President Barack Obama:
- To ensure the flow of oil to the West
- To endure the survival of Israel and its security
- To prevent one of the countries in the region owning weapons of mass destruction
- To fight against terrorism, in accordance to the USA concept(1).
b. The concealed interest\goals are embodied in:
- To prevent the formation of fronts, forces or regional hubs facing the United States and impede its activity,
- To prevent the establishment of strong and independent regional states,
- To prevent stability that provides and promote for national and regional progress,
- To reduce the Chinese advancement
- To prevent the expansion of the strategic space for both China and Russia in the Middle East.
c. The disguised or hidden interests are mainly concentrated to prevent people of the region from owning and exercising its right of self-determination and sovereignty. And also prevent it from exploiting and controlling its natural resources, and work on the disclosure of a culture of annexation and non-self-confidence.
The United States started to achieve these goals based first on its own capabilities of a strong economy -ranked as the strongest economy in the world – and the enormous military capability made the most of the military and strategic researchers ranked as the first place in the world. Then it accumulated these capabilities on two levels, the military alliances where it established a strong and coherent NATO and tried more than once, to establish other alliances like a Central NATO or Baghdad Pact in the late fifties. Moreover, it tended to rely on international organizations and bodies, specially the United Nations, the International Security Council, the World Bank and the International Energy Agency and others.
1.Sat by Obama in 2011 in his speech on the occasion of support of the democratic movements in the Arab world
4- The current U.S. strategy and its requirements
In the decades following World War II, the United States and its alliances fluctuated on the adoption of several strategies. In the fifties it began with the “strategy of deterrence and containment” which has worked on throughout the period of “the Cold War” with the Soviet Union, which led to the dismantling of the latter in year 1989. Later on, it moved immediately to a “strategy of hard power” and turned it into wars and fight fronts in the Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq. Its ally Israel has also contributed –partially in accordance to USA’s orders- to launch a war on the resistance in Lebanon in 2006, which resulted in its failure and defeat confirmed in 2000 when it dodged from southern Lebanon.
This defeat accumulated on Israel, and was added on the U.S. failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, which made the United States switch to the “strategy of soft power” that was applied directly on Iran, but it soon became apparent that this strategycould not achieve the goals facingan ideological opponent like Iran requiring a soul-consuming and patient methodologies.USA here responded to the views of strategic thinkers and adopted since 2010, the “crisis management strategy.” The new USA option has dedicated in its overall strategic concept on NATO, which was adopted in the November 2010 to be worked on in the next decade until 2020. And in this concept the United States and NATO confirmed on basic fundamentals, which are:
- The importance of the Middle East to the Western security and economy, especially in terms of f oil and Israel’s security.
- The abandon of the strategy of hard power and closing the active fronts and withdrawing combat troops from Iraq and Afghanistan no later than 2014.
- The crisis management that appear in the world in general and in the Middle East in particular, lead to contain it, and walk out towards Western interests.
- Stick to the option of nuclear deterrence as an instrument of effective tool to prevent any earnest threat to the Western interests.
- Tightening in the policy of depriving its opponents from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons.
So, USA has recently changed its strategy after failing in the adoption of two strategies in a row, but did not change the major strategic objectives, particularly with regard to oil control, Israel security, and the prevention of the Middle East of becoming an area with a decision maker other than the U.S.A, or whom may even share in the decision making process, whether was a foreign party, or a party from within. To achieve these goals USA saw that direct military presence in the Middle East, near the oil wells, a grasper of the waterways, and a factor helping the military situation and the security of Israel not to collapse, is a necessity if not a significant condition to bring about confidence in the future according to USA’s preferences in the region. This presence has become more important after the abandonment of the hard power strategy, because its duty has turned into a deter duty, which requires heavy close presence that dreadsthe enemiesand keeps it from any confrontation or friction.
Based on this strategic necessity,USA finds itself bound to uphold the appropriate military basesin that region in order to ensure the protection of its interests that have been stated above, if not even intensifying and expandingits reach to build a deterrent curtain\Shield of a shield of firewall, and a fighting fist constantly directed against the “enemy” who threatens U.S. interests in the region. But who is threatening these interests anyways?
5- Sources of threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, the world followed the U.S. -the world’s sole pole at the time- and no country in the Middle Eastwas left outside the sphere of USA influence and control or held on the right of independence and self-sovereignty, exceptforces led by Iran –the Islamic Republic- which worked according to the principle of “neither Eastern or Western”, and saw in Israel a “gland cancer that must be uprooted”. Iran deepened its strategic alliance with Syria, who maintained its rights of nationalism and patriotism in Palestine and the Arab land occupied by Israel, an adherence made it embrace alongside Iran the resistance movements against Israel in Lebanon and Palestine, which came in the forefront Hezbollah and Hamas movements as well as the Islamic Jihad. And components of the above-mentioned have created an axis called “the axis of resistance and opposition”.
The interesting point is that the theme of this axis has been ideologically formed on two things: the “Islam active jihadist” thatisadopted by both Iran and the Islamic resistance movements, and the “Arab nationalist thought” and “leftist” which is adopted by Syria and the Palestinian resistance factions. This axis was a challenge posed to the United States, which refuses the existence of such alliances, or the establishment of fronts that are not following it as previously stated. Despite all USA’s efforts and pressure, and what was carried out by the military deployment in the Gulf region after the “fake war” launched under the name of the “Desert Storm” to liberate Kuwait, which ended in the defeat of Saddam Hussein and the spread of U.S. military directly into Kuwait placed on the outskirts of the Iranian coasts. In spite of all that,the mentioned axis of the resistance has continued to stick to its positions, which it was considered by the United States a threat to its strategic interests in the region. So USAdecided to confront those through working on dismantling their alliances, and eliminating their group and individual capabilities in order to prevent the exacerbation of their danger to its interests.
Therefore, it is an enemy in the political- military lexicon of the U.S. each of the following:
- Hezbollah in Lebanon, who fought Israel in order to expel it out of Lebanon and to liberate the south and that was accused by the United States as a terrorist movement and has developed systems and plans to fight against and harass it.
- Palestinian Resistance Movements, particularly the Islamic -Hamas and Islamic Jihad- which threaten Israeli security in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in addition to what could be pouring out into the occupied territories in 1948.
- Syria who is the direct custodian of the resistance movements mentioned, and the recusant to concede to Israel as both Egypt and Jordan did, which hampers the closing out of the Palestinian case as craved by the United States and Israel and keeps the fate of Israel under a serious sign of question as long as the issue was not resolved.
- Iran that is the most dangerous party to the declared U.S. interests, for being so outspoken regarding its rejection of the existence of Israel and its support for resistance movements, and also for its military power making it able to threaten the navigation in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, which is the most important a corridor for oil to the West. As well as Iran’s firearms that threaten the oil wells, and also its impact on the decision of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries “OPEC,” as a producer and exporter of oil.
In addition to those direct regional powers which we have stated above, it remains in the USA mind the parties outside that region directly or indirectly. Without going into details we will mention of all China, which is in need to Middle East oil in the process of its economic advancement which is now seriously threatening and spearheading the Western economy. We will also mention Russia who recovered its vigilance and began groping the way back into the international stage to play the role of force powers which was the role it has lost two decades ago after the collapse of the Soviet occupation. These two countries have a stake in building up significant relationship and coordination with the forces in the Middle East that oppose the United States where Iran comes in the forefront.
6- The Iranian threat on USA interests from the Western perspective and the requirements of confrontation
Amongst all parties whom the U.S. sees as threat to its interests in the Middle East, Iran seemed to have the geopolitical and strategic location making it a powerful adversary seriously threatening the interests of the U.S., for the bellow stated reasons:
- Iran inhabits the north-eastern shore of the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, the door for over 40% of global oil exports.
- Iran laid its system upon an Islamic regime, working under the logic of the Islamic active jihadist, and the Islamic doctrine of 12 Imams (Shiite), which seeks independence and sovereignty and rejects subordination and annexation.
- Iran has a military force that can affect the navigation in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
- Iran has defensive capabilities to prevent foreign intervention, as it is capable of causing serious harm to Israel through its missile energy.
- Iran is based in 3 islands from the east, controlling the traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.
- Iran has a strategic extension to the Mediterranean coast through its allies, enabling it to be in direct contact with the borders of Palestine that is occupied by Israel.
Therefore, Iran was included in the top of theUSA black list as the most dangerous party because of what it has –as according to the opinion of the United States- is considered a threat to more than one USA interest or strategic goal. Iran is an oil country first, and does affect the oil market and rejects Israel’s existence and controls the power of navigation in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and is engaged in a regional strategic alliance seeks the legitimacy and independence. It has also – from the eye of the U.S. – a political ambition beyond its territory and is seeking to expand its strategic spherethrough forming a coherent regional front adheres to the independence of decision, sovereignty over the land and wealth, as well as working for the “Middle East for its own people,” contrary to the USA policy, which strives to establish the “New Middle East” consisted fromweak nations based on religious, national or ethnic basis, in favor to Israel and the West’s interest.
And addition to what is said, Iran is seeking to obtain power in all of its military, economic, political intellectual and cultural sources as well as religious beliefs –Islamic Jihad- as power based on the capacity to self abilities and external alliances. Besides its hosting and support for resistance movements and put in place the “axis of resistance and opposition” to the USA authoritarian approach in the region we would come to the conclusion to say that the U.S. sees Iran’s the most dangerous state in the world againstits interests. That we understand when Iran has been considered as the head of the “axis of evil” quoting George Walker Bush the (Former U.S. president) it meant evil to U.S. interests, good for the people of the region.
With this conclusion,USAis now confident that the survival of the current Iranian regime would hinder its work and policy in the region. Moreover, it is not able to overlook the fact that the entire world followed it, except for Iran and its axis. This axis caused USA’s failure to establish a global unipolar order and forced it to retreat and start to accept a multi-polar world that refuses even bipolar system, which fell with the fall of the Soviet Union.
With this vision USA realized that the military option to tame Iran or change its regime on the Afghani, Iraqi and Libyan way is impossible due to both objectiveand subjective circumstances for both parties. USA also consider sits experiment with soft power and its attempts to penetrate inside Iran to spread chaos and pitting the world to Iran from the door of the false claim that it “does not respect the rules of democracy and disguise human rights” or that it is seeking to the atomic bomb. However, its bid was disappointed, and the form of Iranian withstand raised a deep disappointment to the United States. This has resulted as we have previously mentioned in carrying USA to switch to the “strategy of crisis management”, which impose in its work that two types of behaviours:
- Possessing power of deterrence to prevent the opponent from an initiative to confrontation.
- The close and prepared political and military ability for a rapid situational intervention in order to make pressure and push the USA allies parties to be able to follow the USA lead in facing the opponents of the West.
Consequently, USA saw that the best way to implement this strategy is based on the land and sea spread of military near the oil wells and acquire control of the crossings\waterways of those wells to the west which are the Straits of Hormuz and Bab el Mandeb and Gibraltar as well as the Suez Canal.And then support the regimes of the “guards of the Western interests” who are the weak rulers who are based originally by the USA protection in order to survive and to suppress their own people on behalf of the United States to prevent the formation of and desires of independence and national sovereignty.
This logic has resorted USA to promote the development of regional powers working by its side, to form their fronts in facing Iran, while ensuring to achieve several goals, including diversion of the conflict from a Zionist-Arab/Islamic, to Arab-Persian, or Sunni-Shiite conflicts, which in the end will loosen up against Israel. That is a function added to the functions of the regimes of the “guards of the Western interests” established by Britain in the Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula through building up states, emirates and sheikhs in the oil wells so to keep holding the energy across these weak and fragile states.USA has been able to establish and undertake the “Gulf Cooperation Council GCC,” plant fear from Iran so to increase these countries’ connection with the U.S., and open their territories for the deployment of Western military bases, which amounted to thirteen bases in 2012 in the Arab countries based on the shore of the Gulf opposing Iran.
7- The importance of Bahrain within the USA strategy
Bahrain is group of Islands located in the Gulf facing all of Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, with which it has a long causewaythat can be accessed using vehicles. Most of its people are Arab and some of with Iranian roots, but all are Muslims, from which three-quarters are Shiites and the other quarter is Sunnis.
Bahrain’s natural resources are limited and its national economy is the weakest among all the Gulf States. Britain has entrusted the rule to Al-Khalifa family -a Sunni Muslim family with Wahhabi tendencies presently- and its ruler announced himself a kingand turned the country intoa kingdom of absolute monarchy. Where he has practiced discrimination between citizens on the basis of sectarianism, wholly removing the Shiites from all main sectors of the state and its essential positions, yet, he also has not been impartial with the rest of the Sunnis themselves.
Bahrain acceded to the Gulf Cooperation Council “GCC” and participated in a limited way in the formation of the “Peninsula Shield Force.”
Based on the foregoing, USAdid find in Bahrain an appropriate entity to its strategy with a lot of military and political advantages that facilitate its work in the Gulf region in particular and the Middle East in general. Hence,USA made sure to pamper Bahrain witha very careful care after it found itan appropriate area in terms of being:
1- Islands where they provide for those who are stationed important military advantages related to the marine movement and its protection in the Gulf and the south-western shore. For that reason, the United States hastened and through a process of military deployment in the region to adopt the Bahrain as a military base of the U.S. Fifth Fleet Command specialized in controlling the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean.
2- islands opposite to the Iranian shore, and provide for those who are stationed an additional capacity to monitor the shore and set up the pre-alarms rules against any Iranian move in the direction of the south shore, where the Arab oil states. USA has used this location for setting up bases of radar and eavesdropping and spying in the region, especially against Iran – its chief and most dangerous foe in the region.
3- A region with the Qatar that advanced deep bases into the Gulf to defend the GCC against the alleged “Iranian threat”.
4- a state with a majority of the Shiite Muslims of who some are with Iranian roots, feared with it -in the event of the establishment of a democratic governance based on the popular majority- to establish strategic relationships with Iran. And here Bahrain will move from being part of the system used by USA against Iran, to a base used by Iran against the Gulf system framed under the name of the “Gulf Cooperation Council”, led by a Saudi Sunni-Wahhabi system. And for that purpose and to block such a possibility Saudi Arabia was quick after the protest movement taking place in Bahrain at the present time, to hasten to put the draft of the Gulf Union with Bahrain in particular, because the Union is to disable the effects of the public Shiite factor in Bahrain and to dissolve it in the Sunni majority in Saudi and the Gulf Cooperation Council (failed so far).The United States have realized this strategic importance of Bahrain, and Obama was explicit when he clearly said that “Bahrain is a long-term ally for us, and we will work to protect its security. We know that Iran is working to exploit the chaos there, and we know that the Bahraini government has a legitimate right to protect the system”. This USA position encouraged the King of Bahrain -who is practically one of the employees in the U.S. administration and its intelligence – to confront the public protest movement demanding the rights of citizens and equality of citizenship between all people of Bahrain.Also, it was the U.S. overlook or even the green light to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to support the King of Bahrain to send the “Peninsula Shield Force” to quell the peaceful people demanding their rights.
But the inability of the King of Bahrain and despite the repression perpetrated by his forces, and supported by Saudi Arabia, and the full silence of the Arab League about what is going on in Bahrain, as the Arabs –with a clear sectarian mentality- think that what goes on there is a sectarian movement fuelled by Iran and has no single link to the Arab revolutions. As well as the invalidity of the falsehood of these allegations and sham promises made by the king of Bahrain, all these have become a source of embarrassment and concern to USA which carried it today to think about the future of Bahrain and its position in its strategy. And here we mention that the pragmatic approach of the current U.S. policy is based on the stability of interests and non-adherence in persons, frameworks and systems.
8- The U.S. fears of the situation in Bahrain
A- The Bahraini protest movement has placed USA between two options; one is not with fewer difficulties from the other:
First: to continue supporting the king and to keep him in the current status, through the continuation of the crackdown and prevention of any external intervention to resolve the crisis between him and his people. And here USA will have to continue to cover the behavior of a tyrant king, and if the people continue in its opposition and its protest movement, the result will be a loss of stability and the deterioration of the overall situation which will be reflected negatively on the function of Bahrain (adopted to be a military base to lead the 5th fleet and a defense point against Iran) in the U.S. strategy.
Two: to enable the public movement to achieve the reforms demanded, which means an establishment of a public majority pro-Iran government –as alleged by the U.S.- and here USA will losemany of the gains enjoyed today and its allies in the Gulf will find themselves against the direct Iranian threat exacerbating the risks set up by Iran -in their opinion- through concentration and direct military deployment in the Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunbsopposing the Arab Emirates shores and at the northern-western entrance of the Strait of Hormuz. And even more than that, it may be the first stab in the body of the struggling Gulf Cooperative Council.
B- Taking into account these emerging risks, says from the United States has came into the scene speaking on the problem and bringing in the subject by what is observed to preserve the USA interests in the region in general and Bahrain in particular.
After that the United States gave the green light to the Saudi military intervention in Bahrain to protect the King fearing that his collapse will bring about political and demographic change in the interest of Iran, it came back after nearly a year on this position and urged the King of Bahrain on making reasonable reforms and start a dialogue with the opposition to reach to a satisfactory-to-some-extent solution to all parties.
And in its approach to the Arab situation,theUSA cell of studies and strategic research, which was formed in the United States to discuss implications of the so-called “Arab spring” on U.S. policy, it concluded its report by saying that standing bet on the continuation of the Gulf rulers regimes is a bet fraught with risks and the chances of its success is low, because this area has entered a movement that cannot be expected to stop with the continuation of authoritarian regimes, which are hosted by the U.S. whatsoever.
And today, the United States seriously fears the collapse of these systems as it fears the repercussions of this collapse on its military presence and its bases placed in the region and, consequently, the threat on the oil wells, which will open the way for Iran to expand its strategic sphere in the Gulf.
USA experts see that the United States should reconsider its current policy in holding on to and depending on dictators and head towards the power of the public basesin order to protect its interests, as in the words of Nicholas Burns in his lecture at Harvard in a symposium of the American’s strategists on the Middle East.
And a public USA direction has been crystallized after more than a year and a half of the public Arab movement; this direction is based on the say that USAis compelled to support the reform movements and in turn abandonthe authoritarian regimes if it wants to protect its interests in the Middle East.
9- The limits and controls of the U.S. behaviour on the future in Bahrain
Based on the above, we see that USA will not easily accept the idea of transformation of Bahrain and its transition to the opposing camp to its policy. As much as it is not obliged to hold on to the king of Bahrain, if found he will turn into a burden on it and especially on its interests. It is clear in the USA behavior and as mentioned previously, that the United States adheres to its own interests and does not stick to tools that are unable to grants its interest.
And on this basis and dueto the ongoing shifts in the region and on the public global level, we observe that USA will continue to look to Bahrain as an element of the implementation of its strategy in the Middle East being a developed marine military base in the Gulf, yet, not theabsolute adherence to its king and its existing regime,butthe control of any change and internal evolution to keep Bahrain in its strategic sphere.USA cannot turn its back on this state, but it will increase its commitment to itin the light of the growing power of Iran in the region, the direction taken by Iraq today in a constant way with Iran, and the open emergence of the Russian role in the Syrian crisis.
This behavior might indirectly be formed to encourage Saudi Arabia to protect the king and his regime and prevent any strategic change for Bahrain in the first stage. In case of failure of achieving stability, USA might seek to resolve the Bahraini crisis in a way that separates the internal reform from the internal strategicexertion so that:
-Keep Bahrain strategically under the USA grip and prevent it from converting to a part of the Iranian strategic sphere or the Shiite star crescent, which the United States fear from, warns against it, and also raise concerns of the Sunni Wahhabi Gulf from establishing it by Iran extended to Lebanon through Syria and Iraq (which is the center of the axis of resistance and opposition)
-Allows a degree of internal reforms in a way that has no effect on that function and prevents the crystallization of the rule of the majority of the population, whether the king remained or was replaced by another ruler similar to him in terms of subordination to the United States and its interests.
In conclusion we confirm that Bahrain has a particular importance in the USA strategy in all its forms, down to the present strategy of the “strategy of crisis management”. An importance derived from the need of USAfor oil and the security of its main way in the Strait of Hormuz, and its need of military deployment in the Gulf to protect it as a hub to its advantage and a block to its opponents and enemies, especially to counter Iran, which refused to obey U.S. dictates in a way that seriously threatened its interests as it claims. However this importance does not mean that USA is to, for the foreseeable future, continue to support the tyrant King, rather will be as we believe open to any solution that gives the people a measure of their rights, and prevents a strategic change for Bahrain againstUSA interests in the region. Thus, we see that the chances of the people of Bahrain to achieve equality and justice as demanded today has high chances, if the public movementcontinues in its peaceful pace without falling into the trap of armed action.