"..The West has no problem siding with the authoritarian status quo .."

"... The more complicated version is a proxy war in Lebanon, where Saudi Arabia supports Sunni groups loyal to the Hariri family and Tehran sides with Hezbollah. Since the Arab Spring began with the toppling of authoritarian governments in Tunisia and Egypt, a third front has emerged, where the battle between Iran and Saudi Arabia is gaining the complex dimension of a “proxy” struggle: Bahrain.

The battle between Iran and Saudi Arabia explains why the West has turned a blind eye to the brutal crackdown on the Shiite opposition in Bahrain. Although the ruling dynasty is Sunni and close to Saudi Arabia, a majority of Bahrain is Shiite. Adding to the strategic importance of this island in the Persian Gulf is the fact that it houses the 5th Fleet of the US Navy.

As a result, a double standard has emerged in the way the West approaches the crackdown of pro-democracy forces in the Middle East. In places like Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, the West is ready to show considerable resolve against repressive governments that use violence against pro-democracy protesters. However, where Iran may score strategic victories in case of democratization, the West has no problem siding with the authoritarian status quo. This paradox has different names. Some, like myself, call it a double standard. Others refer to it as a classic case of a clash between America’s ideals and its interests.

For international relations scholars, what is unfolding in Bahrain is a textbook example of realpolitik, according to which there is nothing surprising about the lack of consistency in US’s support for democracy. The superpower does not have the luxury of dealing with the world according to moral principles that do not take into consideration strategic and vital national interests. The downside of this is that it enables Tehran to score a propaganda victory against Washington. As Abbas Milani, a scholar on Iran, recently pointed out in The New York Times: “Iran, as the most brutal authoritarian regime in the region, will now have the chance to seem to stand with the democratic aspirations of the people, and against authoritarians clinging to power.”

Now, with recent signs of serious unrest in Syria, all eyes are once again on the proxy war. How will the struggle in this critical country unfold? In symmetrical opposition to Bahrain, the demographic majority in Syria is Sunni, but the ruling clan is pro-Iran Alevi. Normally one would expect countries like Saudi Arabia, the United States and Israel to wish for democratic change in Syria. After all, the West has been trying for many years to steer Damascus away from Tehran, but there is also the fear of the unknown. What if the opposition to the secular rule of Assad turns out to be radically Islamist? This is the same concern facing Washington and its allies in Libya, where little is known about the political inclination of anti-Gaddafi forces. A post-Assad Syria may also turn chaotic and unpredictable. Worst of all, it could also provide a safe haven for al-Qaeda.

As a result, it will not be surprising to see yet another ideological competition in Washington about what course of action would best serve America’s national interests in Syria. The prudent realists will probably argue that Washington should maintain its distance in Syrian developments..."