Yes indeed it is not a stretch of the imagination and you could wonder why not Kuwait?
Considering the new extension and developments of NSA Bahrain and that the decision was made by astute and well trained military professionals, I assume there ought to be good reasons why Kuwait was not chosen.
Is it because of its infrastructure? Is Kuwait suited to host the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and United States Fifth Fleet? is it because of its particular geographic location? (seems to me that the strategic location of the island of Bahrain is of significant importance. Looking at Kuwait's coast line, any significant US naval base there would physically look "cornered")
Indeed the Kuwaiti leadership has been and will certainly remain for years to come very accommodating of our military and geostrategic needs . However Kuwait cannot just ignore the popular sentiment towards the US. It has in its parliament a strong presence of the religious establishment that the Emir cannot just brush off. And the position of those MPs in Kuwait city regarding US presence on their land is rather common knowledge in Kuwait and in Washington. That alone puts a limit to what Kuwait can acquiesce or not. Let's remember that Saudi Arabia was forced by its public opinion and various domestic power brokers to remove officially any US military base/presence on its soil. As authoritarian as those countries might be described, they still do answer to various domestic power brokers. Public opinion is still one of them.
I wish I could share your opinion but history and facts show otherwise.
Yes indeed the Shiites of Hezbollah in Beirut do not see eye to eye with the Iranian political and religious leadership on many issues. It didn't prevent them from actually supporting Iran and its agenda on regional and domestic issues. Iranian influence on Lebanon domestic and regional policies is not only rhetorical but actually financial and military too. They do also diverge tremendously from their brethren Alawite in Damascus. At the beginning of the Syrian crisis they did distance themselves somehow from Damascus. But pressured by Tehran their leader Hassan Nasrallah has recently full heartedly supported Bashar al Assad's cause. You cannot bite the hand that feeds you.
The same can be said of Shiites in Iraq. Their leadership, political and religious is distinct from the one in Tehran and can often be seen diverging with Tehran on more than one issue. Washington bet on those differences when it freed Iraq from Saddam Hussein. We hoped that a Shiite led government in Baghdad would be different than the one in Tehran. But the last few years of domestic political turmoil in Iraq proves otherwise. Shiites in Iraq have allowed Iran a terrible hand in their domestic and regional policies. Arms shipments from Iran to Syria via Baghdad is only one recent piece of evidence of just that.
And yes, the Shiites represented by the Allawite sect in Syria are as diverging from mainstream Shiites in Tehran as they are from Sunnis. But it didn't prevent them from allowing Iran a hand in Syria, hence an actual influence on geopolitics and the balance of power in the region, by receiving military and financial support from Tehran.
Shiites around the world are not necessarily a monolithic group when it comes to theology but also culture, political agenda or interest. However, offered the opportunity they have always sided with Iran and allowed them a direct influence on their local and regional affairs. I'm afraid your point Nasser becomes then moot in the face of historical facts, modern and ancient.
Kuwait? This is ludicrous. You are totally ignoring Kuwaitis' frustration and anger at the US over their servility towards Israel regarding Palestine; or over the power the Shiites gained in Iraq through our policies their.
We have lost in Kuwait, just as in Libya, all the edge we had gained from freeing them from the yolk of their respective oppressors.
We still fail to understand that whatever good we do there will not make up for our one-sided policies regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The historical belligerence between Shiites and Sunnis in the region is already common knowledge within the MSM. However, I wonder how much of its particularities in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia is known by the author or the general public?
Iran has often laid claim to Bahrain, based on its history of being a part of the Persian Empire and its seventeenth-century defeat of the Portuguese with its subsequent occupation of the Bahrain archipelago. The religious leaders of the Iranian Revolution revived the claim primarily on the grounds that the majority of Bahrainis were Shia Muslims.
Ahmadinejad has just made clear his hegemonic intentions in the region by visiting last April the disputed island of Abu Mussa off the UAE coast. The visit and the Iranian president's provocative rhetoric exposed the duplicity of Iran's assertion that it was keen to establish good relations in the region. Iran's statements have been to date contradictory to their actions.
Shiite/Iranian involvement in armed revolt in north Yemen and Saudi Arabia eastern region is also a well known and well documented fact readily ignored by MSM. Four days ago, the Saudi Coast Guard have arrested a group of Iranians who attempted to infiltrate the country by sea near the northeastern frontier with Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities have also recently arrested locals suspected of spying for Iran. The Iranian hand in the troubled domestic politics of Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine or Syria is also well known and well documented by western intelligence agencies as well as MSM.
It becomes clear then that pushing for a reform led and nurtured by Shiites in Bahrain thinking that it will lead to a democratic system styled after the ones found in the West, is not only naive but misleading and dangerous. How could the author believe that the full application of all the BICI recommendations will have no bearing on Saudi interests nor its domestic stability and security?!
Yes indeed it is not a stretch of the imagination and you could wonder why not Kuwait?
Considering the new extension and developments of NSA Bahrain and that the decision was made by astute and well trained military professionals, I assume there ought to be good reasons why Kuwait was not chosen.
Is it because of its infrastructure? Is Kuwait suited to host the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and United States Fifth Fleet? is it because of its particular geographic location? (seems to me that the strategic location of the island of Bahrain is of significant importance. Looking at Kuwait's coast line, any significant US naval base there would physically look "cornered")
Indeed the Kuwaiti leadership has been and will certainly remain for years to come very accommodating of our military and geostrategic needs . However Kuwait cannot just ignore the popular sentiment towards the US. It has in its parliament a strong presence of the religious establishment that the Emir cannot just brush off. And the position of those MPs in Kuwait city regarding US presence on their land is rather common knowledge in Kuwait and in Washington. That alone puts a limit to what Kuwait can acquiesce or not. Let's remember that Saudi Arabia was forced by its public opinion and various domestic power brokers to remove officially any US military base/presence on its soil. As authoritarian as those countries might be described, they still do answer to various domestic power brokers. Public opinion is still one of them.
I wish I could share your opinion but history and facts show otherwise.
Yes indeed the Shiites of Hezbollah in Beirut do not see eye to eye with the Iranian political and religious leadership on many issues. It didn't prevent them from actually supporting Iran and its agenda on regional and domestic issues. Iranian influence on Lebanon domestic and regional policies is not only rhetorical but actually financial and military too. They do also diverge tremendously from their brethren Alawite in Damascus. At the beginning of the Syrian crisis they did distance themselves somehow from Damascus. But pressured by Tehran their leader Hassan Nasrallah has recently full heartedly supported Bashar al Assad's cause. You cannot bite the hand that feeds you.
The same can be said of Shiites in Iraq. Their leadership, political and religious is distinct from the one in Tehran and can often be seen diverging with Tehran on more than one issue. Washington bet on those differences when it freed Iraq from Saddam Hussein. We hoped that a Shiite led government in Baghdad would be different than the one in Tehran. But the last few years of domestic political turmoil in Iraq proves otherwise. Shiites in Iraq have allowed Iran a terrible hand in their domestic and regional policies. Arms shipments from Iran to Syria via Baghdad is only one recent piece of evidence of just that.
And yes, the Shiites represented by the Allawite sect in Syria are as diverging from mainstream Shiites in Tehran as they are from Sunnis. But it didn't prevent them from allowing Iran a hand in Syria, hence an actual influence on geopolitics and the balance of power in the region, by receiving military and financial support from Tehran.
Shiites around the world are not necessarily a monolithic group when it comes to theology but also culture, political agenda or interest. However, offered the opportunity they have always sided with Iran and allowed them a direct influence on their local and regional affairs. I'm afraid your point Nasser becomes then moot in the face of historical facts, modern and ancient.
Kuwait? This is ludicrous. You are totally ignoring Kuwaitis' frustration and anger at the US over their servility towards Israel regarding Palestine; or over the power the Shiites gained in Iraq through our policies their.
We have lost in Kuwait, just as in Libya, all the edge we had gained from freeing them from the yolk of their respective oppressors.
We still fail to understand that whatever good we do there will not make up for our one-sided policies regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The historical belligerence between Shiites and Sunnis in the region is already common knowledge within the MSM. However, I wonder how much of its particularities in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia is known by the author or the general public?
Iran has often laid claim to Bahrain, based on its history of being a part of the Persian Empire and its seventeenth-century defeat of the Portuguese with its subsequent occupation of the Bahrain archipelago. The religious leaders of the Iranian Revolution revived the claim primarily on the grounds that the majority of Bahrainis were Shia Muslims.
Ahmadinejad has just made clear his hegemonic intentions in the region by visiting last April the disputed island of Abu Mussa off the UAE coast. The visit and the Iranian president's provocative rhetoric exposed the duplicity of Iran's assertion that it was keen to establish good relations in the region. Iran's statements have been to date contradictory to their actions.
Shiite/Iranian involvement in armed revolt in north Yemen and Saudi Arabia eastern region is also a well known and well documented fact readily ignored by MSM. Four days ago, the Saudi Coast Guard have arrested a group of Iranians who attempted to infiltrate the country by sea near the northeastern frontier with Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities have also recently arrested locals suspected of spying for Iran. The Iranian hand in the troubled domestic politics of Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine or Syria is also well known and well documented by western intelligence agencies as well as MSM.
It becomes clear then that pushing for a reform led and nurtured by Shiites in Bahrain thinking that it will lead to a democratic system styled after the ones found in the West, is not only naive but misleading and dangerous. How could the author believe that the full application of all the BICI recommendations will have no bearing on Saudi interests nor its domestic stability and security?!