Khamenei and the Claim of Non-Intervention in Bahrain: Tactic or Strategy?

Recently, following the revocation of citizenship from Sheikh Qasim Isa, a prominent Bahraini cleric, Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards, reacted strongly to this action by the Bahraini government in a statement saying that "the insult to Ayatollah Sheikh Isa Qasim and the continued excessive pressures on the people of Bahrain" will lead to the start of a "bloody intifada" in that country. He further warned that crossing this red line would "ignite a flame in Bahrain and across the region and leave the people with no option but armed resistance," the result of which would be nothing but the destruction of this "tyrannical regime." This initial stance from one of the senior officials of the Revolutionary Guards, who has a significant presence in Iraq and Syria, provoked many reactions. His remarks that a bloody intifada will begin in Bahrain were considered more of a threat from the Guards against the Bahraini rulers, whom Soleimani described as a "tyrannical regime." Interestingly, it is worth noting that during the suppressed uprising in Bahrain, fewer than a hundred people were killed, while in Syria, over three hundred thousand have died and ten million have been displaced, yet General Soleimani does not consider Bashar al-Assad's government a tyrannical regime. The claim is not that the peaceful movement of the people of Bahrain has not been violently suppressed by the rulers of that country, but rather how Qassem Soleimani considers the Bahraini regime tyrannical while not viewing Bashar al-Assad's regime in the same light. With this introduction, the question arises: what is the Islamic Republic's position regarding developments in Bahrain? This question is pertinent because Ayatollah Khamenei, in brief remarks during his Eid al-Fitr sermon in 1395, stated that the Islamic Republic has not intervened and will not intervene in Bahrain's issues. Given the sharp statement from the commander of the Quds Force, the question is whether Khamenei's claim that the Islamic Republic has not intervened and will not intervene in Bahrain is a tactic for deception or a strategy for non-intervention in the internal affairs of another country? To answer this question, Khamenei's claim that the regime under his leadership does not intend to intervene in Bahrain must be tested. To test this claim, one does not refer to the claims of the Bahraini rulers who have reported the discovery of groups linked to the Islamic Republic, as it is clear that the repressive Bahraini government, like any other repressive government, wishes to attribute internal movements to external forces to facilitate repression. To test Khamenei's claim, one can refer to his other positions to clarify the inconsistencies and contradictions in his statements from yesterday and today. If a contradiction is found in Khamenei's position, then Soleimani's positions, which operate under Khamenei's command, take on a meaning beyond a mere prediction for events in Bahrain. Interestingly, Khamenei stated in his Eid al-Fitr sermon in 1394: "We will not cease to support our friends in the region: the oppressed people of Palestine, the oppressed people of Yemen, the people and government of Syria, the people and government of Iraq, the oppressed people of Bahrain, and the sincere fighters of resistance in Lebanon and Palestine; [these] will always be supported by us." As can be seen, Khamenei has divided his support for others into two categories: the first category includes support for their nations and governments, where he mentions the people and government of Syria and the people and government of Iraq. The second category includes support for nations (without support for their governments), where he mentions the oppressed people of Palestine, Yemen, Bahrain, and the sincere fighters of resistance in Lebanon. It should be noted that in this categorization, Khamenei refers to each of the nations of Palestine, Yemen, and Bahrain as "oppressed." On the other hand, we know that in a general and baseless claim, the Islamic Republic considers itself a supporter of the oppressed nations of the world. If this is the case, then the oppressed people of Bahrain are also under the support of the Islamic Republic. For example, the Islamic Republic's support for the Palestinian people is clear. This support extends to the point where the Islamic Republic does not side with Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, but rather supports the financial and military backing of jihadist groups including Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Another example is Yemen. We know that the Yemeni version of Hezbollah in Lebanon is Ansar Allah, which is an armed movement. This movement took power in the country after declaring the parliament of Yemen dissolved and forming a five-member council for the presidency on 17 Bahman 1393. Since then, Yemen has entered a civil war that is essentially considered a proxy conflict between Tehran and Riyadh. The third example in this category is those whom Khamenei refers to as the sincere fighters of resistance in Lebanon. The comprehensive support from Tehran for the Lebanese resistance, manifested in Hezbollah, is evident in that recently Hassan Nasrallah stated that as long as "there is money in Iran, we have money too," and commanders of the IRGC have armed Hezbollah with various military equipment. Alongside these three examples, the financial and military support of the Islamic Republic for the governments of Iraq and Syria requires no further explanation. Given the type of support the Islamic Republic provides for the aforementioned cases (Palestine, Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria), one question remains: when Khamenei places the "oppressed people of Bahrain" alongside the "oppressed people of Palestine" and the "oppressed people of Yemen," as well as alongside Iraq and Syria, how credible can his claim of non-intervention in Bahrain's internal affairs be? This question becomes significant when we recall that a senior IRGC official of Qassem Soleimani's stature, who operates under Khamenei's command, issues such a sharp statement that describes the revocation of Sheikh Qasim Isa's citizenship as the "beginning of an armed uprising." With this description, the question arises: if an armed uprising is to begin in Bahrain as predicted by Soleimani, will the Islamic Republic remain silent and not intervene? Will the Islamic Republic not provide the necessary weapons to the Bahrainis? The answer to this question is clear enough that everyone knows where the weapons of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ansar Allah in Yemen, armed Shiite groups in Iraq, and supporters of the Syrian government come from. Khamenei's positions: tactic or strategy? It is hard to believe that Khamenei's position of non-intervention in Bahrain is a strategic stance. It seems this claim is merely a tactic. For example, the Islamic Republic has so far denied military support for Bashar al-Assad. Senior IRGC officials claim that their military presence in Syria is only at the level of "advisory assistance." Meanwhile, hundreds of Iranians, including senior IRGC commanders, have been killed in Syria. If the claim of advisory (not military) presence of Iran in Syria is a false claim, why should we believe that Khamenei's position of non-intervention in Bahrain is a truthful claim?