Bahrain from 'Fourteenth Province' to Accuser of the Iranian Government

How did Bahrain separate from Iran? What historical background and factors shaped the relations between Bahrain and Iran before and after the Iranian Revolution on February 11, 1979? We discussed these questions with three guest experts on this week's program. Touraj Atabaki, senior researcher at the Amsterdam Social History Research Institute, Hassan Hashemian, political analyst on Arab affairs in Istanbul, and Hossein Alizadeh, former diplomat of the Islamic Republic of Iran and researcher at the Peace Studies Center at Tampere University in Finland. Mr. Atabaki, what was the background of Bahrain's separation from Iran and under what conditions did it occur? Let's start from how the relations between Bahrain and Iran have been historically. Touraj Atabaki: Let's not go too far back and start roughly 500 years ago, with the re-establishment of the Persian Empire under the Safavid dynasty and then the centralized government of Isfahan. The borders of this empire were clarified in treaties between states. The Safavid government worked to define the borders of its empire, including that the Persian Gulf and Bahrain were part of Iran's territory. With the end of the Safavid era and the fall of Isfahan, the lands surrounding the empire did not accept central authority. With the arrival of Nader Shah Afshar, once again the surrounding lands accepted central authority. This continued until we reach the Qajar dynasty. However, a strange transformation occurred in the 18th and 19th centuries with the expansion of the British Empire in South and Southeast Asia, including the Persian Gulf, where at that time Britain claimed that the name for the Persian Gulf should be nothing but British Lake. In their treaties and diplomatic texts, they referred to it as 'British Lake.' Britain attempted to support a series of Arab rulers along the southern shores of the Persian Gulf, using the excuse that they needed to fight pirates and with the abolition of slavery in the mid-19th century, Britain called itself the banner bearer in the fight against slavery. Therefore, the fight against slavery and slave trading was an excuse for Britain to justify its independent presence in the Persian Gulf. Of course, this was not limited to the southern shores of the Persian Gulf. In the northern part, we had Khuzestan, where the British government tried to maintain its protective umbrella over Sheikh Khaz'al, and Sheikh Khaz'al, relying on British support during World War I and the immediate years after the war, claimed independence regarding separation. Let me point out here that based on historical data, British dominance over the Persian Gulf was never uniform. There were disagreements even within the political and diplomatic structure of Britain. We have evidence that even during World War I, the Indian government, which was part of the British Empire, had a different reading of the Persian Gulf and the countries bordering it, meaning the sheikhdoms under Britain's umbrella. A different reading from that of London. Therefore, there was no uniformity, and only after the end of World War I did the British government finally settle on a unified diplomatic position to delineate and clarify its geographical borders. Mr. Hashemian, what does the historiography of Arab countries say about the historical relationship between Bahrain and Iran? Hassan Hashemian: Yes. As Mr. Atabaki pointed out, in 1602, the Safavids entered Bahrain and stayed there for about 181 years. Then from that time onward, we see the Al Khalifa family. The history that Bahrain has set for itself begins from the year the Safavids left Bahrain and the Al Khalifa era began, and they believe that the Al Khalifa family was a fighter for independence against the Safavids. In 1820, the Al Khalifa family signed a peace treaty with England, which angered the Iranian government at that time, and for this reason, Iran invaded Bahrain three times in 1820, 1823, and 1836. During the reign of Naser al-Din Shah, these invasions continued. Bahrainis tell an interesting story in this regard, saying that in 1864, during the Qajar period, the ruler of Bahrain would place the Ottoman flag on the western side towards Iraq and the Iranian flag on the eastern side. In fact, he wanted to create a balance between these two forces at that time. But ultimately, Bahrain became independent in 1970 through a referendum, as you know, and Ayatollah Mohsen Hakim, a Shia religious authority at that time, supported Bahrain's independence. This discussion that was raised at that time, and the Shah accepted it, led to the establishment of strong relations between Iran and Bahrain. Despite the fact that this country had gained independence, the Shah was able to improve these relations during his time and incorporate them into his policy. However, after the revolution, we witnessed other developments. Two years after the Iranian revolution, a person named Hadi Modarresi attempted a coup in Bahrain. This period coincided with the Iran-Iraq war. From that time onward, we witnessed the emergence of a new discourse in the statements of Bahraini officials under the title that a foreign factor is trying to disrupt the situation in Bahrain. This foreign factor particularly referred to Iran in the statements made by the then Prime Minister of Bahrain. Mr. Alizadeh, you were a diplomat of the Islamic Republic of Iran until 2009, and as a result, can you tell us what the Foreign Ministry's view was on what happened in Bahrain? Mr. Hashemian referred to it as a referendum, but Pan-Iranists in Iran and many others believe that this was not a referendum but a limited survey of certain groups. What was the Foreign Ministry's view on the historical relationship between Iran and Bahrain? Hossein Alizadeh: If your question is about how the Foreign Ministry dealt with the issue of Bahrain during the Islamic Republic, it is natural that many years and decades had passed since Bahrain's separation, and the Islamic Republic accepted it as an established fact. During national ceremonies of various countries, when Bahrain's day occurred, Iranian representatives also participated. Although preferably, high-level officials from our embassy did not attend. They sent lower-ranking members, which perhaps had its own meaning. But regarding the issue that led to Bahrain's separation from Iran, it is noteworthy in the historiography that my esteemed friends referred to, that what happened was by no means a referendum. It was something called a survey that was conducted based on which a representative from then-UN Secretary-General U Thant was tasked to conduct a survey, and it was conducted selectively in parts of Bahrain's territory, and the representative's opinion went to the Security Council, and the Iranian government at that time accepted it. An important point I want to add is that Bahrain's separation should practically be considered a quid pro quo that the British wanted to leave there, and Iran would say that in exchange for relinquishing my nominal sovereignty over Bahrain, my official sovereignty over the Tunb Islands (small and large) and Abu Musa would be recognized. This was the most important equation in the mind of the Shah of Iran. Additionally, at that time, Bahrain was a poor country and did not have much strategic importance. However, on the other hand, the Shah also considered that it was an Arab country that was very distant from the mother country, and it was said that there was a possibility of establishing a federative emirate there, including nine countries such as Qatar, and the Shah wanted to make Bahrain an independent member, not a member of that federation, which would naturally give more power to the Arab countries. These equations led to Bahrain's separation. Mr. Atabaki, did the announcement of Bahrain's independence and the manner in which this independence occurred have precedents in relations between Britain and other countries or major powers? Touraj Atabaki: Let me briefly mention that I brought my historical reference up to World War I. To put it succinctly, Iran has never accepted this separation of Bahrain, neither during the Qajar nor during the Pahlavi periods. In 1347, even during the Qajar period, the governor of Fars, who was responsible for managing Bahrain, insisted on the integrity of Iran and Bahrain's belonging to Iran in numerous negotiations with the British government. At the beginning of the solar century, meaning 1301, there was a movement in Bahrain that opposed British colonialism. The Bahrain Liberation Party was formed, and at the same time, the Iranian government extended a hand of friendship to the Bahrain Liberation Party, and it was decided that representatives from the Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Public Utilities at that time would propose a plan to strengthen Iran's sovereignty over Bahrain. The British response was very harsh and indicated that we want to have a military base here, and Bahrain is part of our empire and sphere of influence, and so on. Throughout the entire Pahlavi period, Reza Shah repeatedly insisted on Iran's sovereignty over Bahrain in discussions with Britain, and during Mohammad Reza Shah's time, the issue of Bahrain was raised twice. Once during the nationalization of the oil industry, when members of parliament again placed the issue of Bahrain on their agenda, and again in 1336 when geographical divisions were discussed, Bahrain was recognized as the fourteenth province of Iran and was included in textbooks. This continued until we reached a plan in the 1960s, 1340, when Britain decided to reduce its presence in the East of Suez and leave the Persian Gulf, handing over the fate of the Persian Gulf to the prominent regional powers, among which Iran was one. Therefore, when they sat down at the negotiating table, they had multiple indications. First, they brought a grand plan for the integration of Qatar, the Emirates, and Bahrain, which was met with opposition from the Pahlavi government. Then it was decided to propose another plan and separate them from each other. It was at this time that the United Nations became involved in this story and sent a representative to Iran to clarify the status of Bahrain. This was done. As our friends pointed out, the story of a referendum in the sense of the current word that we had in many countries, especially after World War II, where the public voted for independence or some form of separation from neighboring governments, was not present. It was a kind of inquiry from political elites, the political elite of the country. In all the documents of the United Nations that are available, the committee that Vittorio Ghiardi was tasked with conducting this work and chaired this committee indicates that there was no mention of a referendum as defined in international law. In fact, it was a kind of information gathering from the experts and elites of that country. What was at stake there was what acceptable option for all countries in the region was with the withdrawal of British forces from the Persian Gulf? Saudi Arabia would not accept that Bahrain be part of Iran. The British government had to somehow appease Saudi Arabia. The Iranian government also had no enmity with Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the result of this consensus at that time was that with the withdrawal of British forces from the region, the three islands of Tunb (small and large) and Abu Musa would come under Iranian sovereignty, and the Iranian flag would be raised over these three islands, and on the other hand, they could somehow engineer a political diplomacy in Bahrain that the Al Khalifa government would have its political legitimacy. For this reason, a form of survey was conducted there, and the result was that in the end, it was said that the island of Bahrain is independent. Initially, the state of Bahrain was formed, and years later it called itself the Kingdom of Bahrain. Mr. Hashemian, you were discussing the events after the revolution, which provided an opportunity for others to speak. Now, please discuss the problems that arose after the Iranian revolution and the challenges. Hassan Hashemian: This is a topic that has significantly continued the tensions between Bahrain and the Islamic Republic. In 1994, widespread protests and uprisings occurred in Bahrain, and then for the first time, Hezbollah Bahrain was formed. The Bahraini government claims that this Hezbollah was established by Iran. However, during the presidency of Mr. Rafsanjani and also Mr. Khatami, the atmosphere improved somewhat, and tensions decreased. Even in 2002, the King of Bahrain was invited to Iran and visited Iran during Mr. Khatami's time. In this way, tensions somewhat subsided. However, after Mr. Ahmadinejad came to power, tensions re-emerged, especially in 2007 when Mr. Hossein Shariatmadari published his famous article about Bahrain in Kayhan. Since then, tensions have intensified significantly, reaching the Arab Spring, of which Bahrain was also a part. Even groups that had previously been involved in the political process, such as the Al-Wefaq Society led by Mr. Ali Salman, which had about eighteen representatives in parliament, suspended their representation and left parliament alongside the Bahraini people. Tensions continued in this way until recently, reaching the issue of explosive and destructive groups that the Bahraini government continuously announces that it has discovered and that Iran and the Revolutionary Guards are involved in this matter. Currently, tensions are higher than ever during the period of the Islamic Republic, and this situation continues. Mr. Alizadeh, as discussed here, both in the Iranian monarchy and the Islamic Republic, the view of Bahrain included fluctuations of being part of Iran, having been part of Iran, being close to Iran, accepting its separation, or having to deal with it. After all these years, what is the outlook for Iran-Bahrain relations given the recent conditions that have raised warnings among the leaders of the countries?