Ever since the breaking of the wave of protests in the Arab region, the authorities in Tehran opted to view the protests as an Arab version of the Iranian revolution. It considered that the protests constitute a response, that came thirty years late, to the project of the “exportation” of that revolution, which had raised the concern of Iran's neighbors back then and caused them to be cautious concerning its objectives. The Iranian revolution could have benefitted from the deep differences in the outlook to the interests of the Arabian Gulf countries, which was present between these countries and the Shah of Iran; and it could have built natural relationships with its neighbors. The Iranians thought that the fall of the Western-allied regimes, such as in the cases of Egypt and Tunisia, will enhance their position and serve their policies within the new regimes. Thus, they classified these regimes in advance as being their own allies although the regimes did not have a say in this issue. And at a time where the Arab revolutionists were stressing on the independence of their decisions and rejecting the attempts aimed at taking advantage of them, the Iranian Guide was talking about “a new Islamic Middle East” in a clear attempt at implying that the revolutions have provided the opportunity for the victory of the Iranian project over the project of George Bush! And through the Iranian confined outlook at the situation of the Arab region – this look considers that the two poles of the confrontation consist of America and Iran alone, and it underestimates the possibility of the establishment of real independent movements in the Arab world that have no connection to the Iranian project or to the American interests; And regardless of this non realistic look – because the rebels' slogans concerned internal reform, and never brandished any of the Iranian revolution's ideologies, ideas, or claims of confronting Zionism and the “international arrogance” – this look has also stirred the concern of the popular movements in the Arab world, which were quick to deny any relationship with Iran based on the fact that these movements are defending their independence in the face of attempts at being taken advantage of by any side. This was possible in the cases of Tunisia and Egypt as well as in the case of Libya, where it was hard for Iran to practice a direct tutelage over the protests because of the nature of the Sunni majority in the three countries. However, things seemed different in the case of Bahrain especially as the Iranian politicians and their media outlets, in addition to the media outlets that are affiliated to them in the Arab world, quickly moved to take advantage of the majorly Shi'i opposition demands all the while dismissing the sensitivity of the situation in Bahrain. This Iranian interference only succeeded in blocking the road for the chances of success of the dialogue between Manama and the opponents in spite of the announced readiness of the Bahraini king at looking for an acceptable solution to the political crisis that would allow for the development of the regime all the while preserving the country. In addition, the Iranian bullying of Bahrain – that the Iranians had always considered as the weak side of the Gulf area – stirred the concern of the GCC countries, which promptly extended their military support through the Peninsula Shield based on the agreements signed between the six countries of the council. And instead of looking at the Gulf step on the basis that it is a sovereign step of the council that does not aim at targeting Iran in any way, Iran once again opted for revealing the truth about its project and intentions in the Gulf and the truth about its tendency to impose a tutelage over the Bahraini people and to speak in their name. Thus, it [i.e. Iran] launched its latest political and media campaign against the countries of the GCC, especially Saudi Arabia, and accused it of “playing with fire” in the Gulf. In addition, an Iranian Shura Council MP asked Saudi Arabia to apologize to the Bahraini people for meddling in their affairs! In commenting on the latest events in the Arab region and the American stand regarding these events, Iran speaks about American double standards in defending Human Rights in one place, then having the [American] army oppress populaces in some other places. This concerns America. But can anyone explain to us the nature of the Iranian behavior vis-à-vis the Arab intifadas? How can it be considering the dictatorship and oppression in a country like Bahrain for instance - according to its claims - and how can it be bracing to defend [the Bahraini] people, while it fails to see [the dictatorship and oppression] and while it even shamelessly defends them in another country of the so-called “Resistance” countries? Don't the populaces of those countries also deserve the compassion of the Iranian Guide?
