I will now resume my discussion of Bahrain and the US Ambassador there, Thomas Krajeski. In an interview with the political magazine published by Yale, Krajeski alluded to his work as an ambassador in Yemen. He made a comparison between Yemen's poverty and the high illiteracy rates there, and Bahrain, the relatively wealthy country – according to him – where education is very important and nearly amounts to 100 percent, and where the prosperous economy was affected by the 2008 crisis (which was caused by George W. Bush's inept politics). He further noted that despite the present differences between the Sunnis and the Shiites, the two sects lived in peace together in a small island for 300 years. I wonder what changed, and why did all these differences occur? The only answer consists of the covetousness of the Iranian Islamic Republic, which is controlled by the non-elected Ayatollahs and which has Persian ambitions in Bahrain and the entire Gulf. Had the differences in Bahrain been centered on democracy, I would have taken part in the protests. However, the differences revolve around the fact that Bahrain is an open country rather than a self-isolated republic that the whole world is sanctioning. Bahrain is a prosperous country as per the ambassador. I should add that the cause for this prosperity is the "skillfulness" of the ruling people there and the support of the GCC. Bahrain is a country with no major natural resources. Indeed, the country produces 50,000 oil barrels daily. However, another 200,000 barrels are produced from a shared field with Saudi Arabia. Thus, Bahrain obtains revenue from the production of 250,000 oil barrels a day. This figure amounts to half the oil revenues of Oman, a country preceding Bahrain when it comes to oil production in the GCC. The Bahraini regime turned the country into an active financial center and a tourism destination for the neighboring countries, especially for weekends. All this was achieved while Sheikh Khalifa Ben Salman was the prime minister; but I recently heard that the American ambassador asked King Hamad Ben Issa to oust the prime minister. I don't know if this is true and I hope it's not, because the ambassador has no right to interfere at all since the government is a purely Bahraini matter. Even if the king wanted to replace his uncle, Sheikh Khalifa, with a new prime minister, if the ambassador did indeed intervene in this matter, the king will surely change his mind and keep Sheikh Khalifa. The American ambassador's real or fictitious interferences actually led to a decision taken at the level of the Bahraini parliament to halt the ambassador's interferences in the Bahraini domestic affairs. Once again, I am not certain that the ambassador is really interfering that much. However, there is no smoke without fire. The campaign against him in the local media and the parliament does not lead one to believe that he will playing a positive role in ending the violence acts carried by the opposition under the Iranian incitement. If the United States wishes to solve its problem with Iran at the expense of Bahrain, it will fail, because Bahrain is not alone and is supported by the GCC countries and all the other Arab countries, especially Egypt. The Arab countries that are affected by the Persian covetousness will protect Bahrain. This is a red line. The Arabs will not accept that this red line be violated like Barack Obama accepted the violation of his red lines. King Hamad Ben Issa is the one who called for an international investigation committee, and he is now working on implementing its recommendations. The Minister of Interior, Sheikh Rashid Ben Abdullah, appointed two prominent officers from Britain and the United States at the Ministry of Interior in order to provide counseling and monitor the work. Did any other regimes do what the king and his minister of interior did? I am waiting for the answer of the ambassador and the Human Rights activists as well as the congressmen who sent a letter to King Hamad. The members of the Kuwaiti parliament came up with an excellent but long response to this letter. I would have hoped to publish some of it.
