Obama Stops Saudi Intervention In Bahrain

[MerryPrankster]

During the 2011 "Arab Spring" uprisings in Bahrain, the Saudis and other Gulf states sent soldiers across the causeway into Bahrain to bolster the government.

What if U.S. President Barack Obama had flat-out told the Gulf Cooperation Council that such interference would not be tolerated and would be considered an attack on the U.S. Fifth Fleet that's stationed there?

(AKA anything that crosses the causeway dies.)

The goal would be for the U.S. to manage an end to the uprising that secures the freedoms of the people without threatening Bahrain's status as a U.S. base.

Something tells me the Saudis wouldn't want to take the chance on getting a thrashing like the Iraqis got in 1991 and 2003, but at the same time, a lot of Obama's domestic critics would claim he was trying to help Iran take over Bahrain or something like that.

 

[LendleAlba]

Sauds cut oil flow, economy goes to hell, Obama loses massively in '12 and country goes to hell under Romney. The end.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Sauds cut oil flow, economy goes to hell, Obama loses massively in '12 and country goes to hell under Romney. The end.

Can they eat and drink their oil?

 

[Whanztastic]

Just why would he do it though? The Fleet actually isn't in trouble by a Gulf state intervention, and stopping the supression is actually more risky because the protestors are most likely in part protesting the American presence.

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

Shia Islamists win big in the elections, and begin to construct an "Islamic" Republic. More moderate minded Bahrainis feel alarmed by this and question what is meant by the term, and Iran crows that Bahrain is following in its footsteps. Pretty much the results of every Arab Spring revolution.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Just why would he do it though? The Fleet actually isn't in trouble by a Gulf state intervention, and stopping the supression is actually more risky because the protestors are most likely in part protesting the American presence.

Because unconditional American support of the abusive and decadent Gulf monarchies gives al-Qaeda a major recruiting tool? Or perhaps suppressing the protestors keeps Bahrain safe as a fleet base in the short run, but risks a major explosion later?

(Seriously, if you're Bahraini and you know your country will never be free of its monarchy so long as the al-Sauds are in power, the solution is to stir up trouble in Saudi Arabia.)

Plus if the U.S. is seen as a power that is helping free the people of Bahrain, that's some good PR among the people there.

I never said the GCC represented a real threat to the Fifth Fleet.

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

Plus if the U.S. is seen as a power that is helping free the people of Bahrain, that's some good PR among the people there.

That didn't really seem to be the case with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or their affiliates in Libya.

 

[MerryPrankster]

That didn't really seem to be the case with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or their affiliates in Libya.

Umm...look at the reaction to the consulate attack in Benghazi. Thousands of people proceeded to drive the (likely) perpetrators out of their headquarters in outrage over the ambassador's death.

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

Umm...look at the reaction to the consulate attack in Benghazi. Thousands of people proceeded to drive the (likely) perpetrators out of their headquarters in outrage over the ambassador's death.

Somewhat encouraging, but the problem with this hypothetical is that the revolutionary process hasn't been completed.

Not all of the members in the crowd did so out of support for America, some just had problems with the particular militia. Plus if the Islamists decide to take up arms, will said group be willing to fight them?

All of this is unknown.

 

[MerryPrankster]

All of this is unknown.

All of this is unknown, so the assumption is OMG TEH ISLAMISTS?

That reminded me of a Young-Earther I heard once saying it's impossible to know the age of the Earth.

(Ergo, that means his theory is at least plausible.)

 

[MerryPrankster]

Not all of the members in the crowd did so out of support for America, some just had problems with the particular militia. Plus if the Islamists decide to take up arms, will said group be willing to fight them?

And for the record, many of the protestors were killed. They did fight the Islamists.

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

All of this is unknown, so the assumption is OMG TEH ISLAMISTS?

That reminded me of a Young-Earther I heard once saying it's impossible to know the age of the Earth.

(Ergo, that means his theory is at least plausible.)

Considering that Islamists have had the greatest overall support in Post-Arab Spring states, then it's not really that absurd as you're making it out to be. Plus, salafis have no problem with bloodshed and dying for their cause. How many zealots are out there for secular democracy? The fact is that dozens of militias still exist in Libya, and plenty have an Anti-Western and Islamist agenda.

None of this is being a doomsayer, it's acknowledging the reality of the situation that revolutions don't magically result in 1st world states overnight like so many people were eager to believe.

 

[Noravea]

Sauds cut oil flow, economy goes to hell, Obama loses massively in '12 and country goes to hell under Romney. The end.

Well, if the POD is early enough, we might get some more competent Republicans to run if they think Obama is an easy target to take down in 2012.

We could see Republicans like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, and others try to make a run in 2012.

 

[Nassirisimo]

Well, I'll wade into this whole thing...

Firstly, even without the Peninsula Shield Force, the al-Khalifas are not likely to cave into the protesters, and any violent action is likely to end with an al-Khalifa victory, excepting American intervention.

However, in a hypothetical American-supported overthrow of the al-Khalifa clan, all the cards are thrown into the air. The al-Wefaq political society is the only group large enough to actually take over the role of the state, though they may find their support slipping away within months after the divisions between them and the more left-wing protesters (many of whom are popular even among the Islamists) become apparent. Al-Wefaq will most likely have the US breathing down their necks over free democratic elections, so even their political future isn't so assured.

Considering that Islamists have had the greatest overall support in Post-Arab Spring states, then it's not really that absurd as you're making it out to be. Plus, salafis have no problem with bloodshed and dying for their cause. How many zealots are out there for secular democracy? The fact is that dozens of militias still exist in Libya, and plenty have an Anti-Western and Islamist agenda.

None of this is being a doomsayer, it's acknowledging the reality of the situation that revolutions don't magically result in 1st world states overnight like so many people were eager to believe.

Though Islamism is not a rigid ideology. It varies greatly from country to country, and in Libya, the Liberals won the elections.

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

Though Islamism is not a rigid ideology. It varies greatly from country to country, and in Libya, the Liberals won the elections.

Where did I ever come across as "OMG THE CALIPHATE IS COMING!"? I know that the National Forces Alliance was in first, and that Islamism is not some kind of monolithic bloc. All I ever did was inject some skepticism into some of the grand narrative that 2011 is 1989 except in Middle East and North Africa.

Could Libya devolve into civil war again? Maybe. Is Libya doomed to be Iran 2.0? No. Sheesh.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Where did I ever come across as "OMG THE CALIPHATE IS COMING!"?

Here:

Shia Islamists win big in the elections, and begin to construct an "Islamic" Republic. More moderate minded Bahrainis feel alarmed by this and question what is meant by the term, and Iran crows that Bahrain is following in its footsteps. Pretty much the results of every Arab Spring revolution.

My apologies if I misread you, but it came off a lot like "Arab Spring = Islamist takeover" that Obama's more extreme political enemies like to say.

 

[Nassirisimo]

Where did I ever come across as "OMG THE CALIPHATE IS COMING!"? I know that the National Forces Alliance was in first, and that Islamism is not some kind of monolithic bloc. All I ever did was inject some skepticism into some of the grand narrative that 2011 is 1989 except in Middle East and North Africa.

Could Libya devolve into civil war again? Maybe. Is Libya doomed to be Iran 2.0? No. Sheesh.

You came across as that in your first post, where you stated that "An Islamic Republic" would be set up, dominated by the Shia Islamists (I assume you meant the al-Wefaq party. You stated that this was the result of every Arab Spring revolution, which is patently false. Ignoring the fact that you implied Shia Islamists were behind it (which I will treat as an omission on your part) there is the Libyan case mentioned before. There is the unresolved civil war in Syria, where Iran opposes any support to the revolutionaries. You seem more to be simplifying the revolutions and conflating very different organizations rather than "injecting skepticism".

 

[MerryPrankster]

Firstly, even without the Peninsula Shield Force, the al-Khalifas are not likely to cave into the protesters, and any violent action is likely to end with an al-Khalifa victory, excepting American intervention.

You're the Bahraini here, but from the Wikipedia article, it looked like the protestors were winning when the GCC intervened.

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

Well considering how the monarchy would be deposed in Bahrain if the protestors had their way, then I don't see what the big deal is about an Islamic Republic. I even put Islamic in scare quotes because that's essentially the political question of the Revolutions of 2011. Is Islamic Democracy obtainable? What kind of role should Sharia have in society? Where does secular government roles end and religious authority begin?

I'm not some kind of reactionary bigot, in fact I pretty much called it that Libya would be a victory for liberals when surrounded by people saying that the Muslim Brotherhood was going to form an Islamistan in North Africa.

 

[RousseauX]

Considering that Islamists have had the greatest overall support in Post-Arab Spring states, then it's not really that absurd as you're making it out to be. Plus, salafis have no problem with bloodshed and dying for their cause. How many zealots are out there for secular democracy? The fact is that dozens of militias still exist in Libya, and plenty have an Anti-Western and Islamist agenda.

The Islamists in Egypt you are talking about have accepted the democratic process as the best way of governing. You are throwing out the vague `hey they might be violent in the future`thing as an assertion along with the assertion that the current level of support for Islamist parties in the region will continue, which is unlikely at best, to prove your point.

None of this is being a doomsayer, it's acknowledging the reality of the situation that revolutions don't magically result in 1st world states overnight like so many people were eager to believe.

No but there`s a huge difference between this and OMG IRAN 1979 2.0