Protests Against Bahrain: Foreign Policy in the Hands of the IRGC

In a surprising and rare move, the Bahraini government has stripped Ayatollah Sheikh Isa Qassim, a prominent Shia cleric in the country, of his citizenship. This action, in its legal sense, is a deprivation of national identity for a protesting citizen and, assuming he has no other nationality or cannot acquire another, such an individual is referred to as stateless. It is evident that a stateless person faces numerous problems. For instance, they will lack a passport and if they wish to return to their country to visit family, they will need to obtain a visa. The IRGC's Nervous Reaction Regardless of this astonishing action by Bahrain, which has not been the first time it has been applied to protesting citizens, what is even more surprising is the extremely nervous and harsh reaction of General Qassem Soleimani to this action by the Bahraini government, which could add fuel to the existing tensions in the region and the strained relations between Iran and Arab countries. This stance directly contradicts the constructive engagement policy of President Rouhani's government. In a statement issued by the commander of the IRGC's Quds Force, he states that 'the insult to Ayatollah Sheikh Isa Qassim 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 'will ignite a fire in Bahrain and throughout the region and will leave the people with no choice but armed resistance,' the result of which 'will be nothing but the destruction of this brutal regime.' Considerations Regarding Soleimani's Position In this reaction from Soleimani, there are considerations that are highlighted below: First: If the same statement had been issued by the commander of the Iranian army, would public opinion not face a major question about what relevance such a stance has to the army commander? Even if the Islamic Republic has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries (which is questionable), is the military the custodian of the country's foreign policy? If not, why is a commander of the IRGC taking such a political stance so recklessly? Is this not the duty of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? Second: Assuming that the IRGC has the duty to take a position in such a case (which is questionable), why has this stance been taken by the Quds Force? Third: Even if this stance is the duty of the Quds Force (which it is not), is the entirely furious tone of the statement not outside diplomatic norms? Suppose a military commander from another country issued a statement in response to the Islamic Republic's behavior with one of its own protesters, labeling the Islamic Republic as 'brutal' and warning that 'there will be no choice but armed resistance,' what would the Islamic Republic's reaction be to such a tone and such a military figure? The execution of Sheikh Nimr in April 2016 marked a severe storm in Tehran-Riyadh relations when Saudi Arabia executed Sheikh Nimr, a prominent Shia cleric in the country, and a group protested this action by storming the Saudi embassy in Tehran and setting it on fire. The attack on Saudi diplomatic facilities overshadowed the protests from the UN, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the European Union, the US, etc., regarding Sheikh Nimr's execution due to the violation of diplomatic immunity. Following this action, Tehran was condemned in the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Arab League, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. A similar event is now occurring. While stripping a citizen of their nationality is an incorrect action by the Bahraini government and could lead to the condemnation of the Bahraini government, the threatening stance of a military commander in such a harsh and biting tone will overshadow the original wrongful action of the Bahraini government in stripping one of its citizens of their nationality. It is a fallacy to describe the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the custodian of foreign policy. This very reaction of the Quds Force to a political event is evidence that the IRGC, not the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is the custodian of foreign policy in Iran. Mr. Zarif, in an article published in Arabic in the Al-Safir magazine, referred to the saying 'the neighbor comes before the house' and called for regional countries to refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs. At that time, many experts said that Zarif's statement was nothing but rhetoric. Now, General Soleimani's remarks inviting armed uprising in Bahrain are the clearest contradiction to Zarif's demand for non-interference in each other's internal affairs. Riyadh cleverly executed Sheikh Nimr. It knew in advance the nervous reaction of the Islamic Republic. Riyadh was able to execute one of its most prominent opponents while sitting safely on the sidelines. Instead of focusing on the abhorrence of Sheikh Nimr's execution, the world turned its attention to condemning the attack on the Saudi embassy. Similarly, Manama was aware of the Islamic Republic's nervous reaction when it stripped Sheikh Isa Qassim of his nationality. By issuing this statement, General Soleimani has given Bahrain enough justification to intensify its crackdown on domestic protesters and condemn Iran in international forums. This precisely means being played again in a game where the opponent has read your hand. Strangely, the opponent knows Tehran's unreasonable behavior well, yet Tehran has not learned from the consequences of such behavior.