Tell me I need to take off my tinfoil hat, but, honestly, doesn'tthis New York Times article strike you as a pretty transparent Neo-Con/AIPAC/Likud psyops piece?
Its only meaningful data point is the transit of Iranian ships through the Suez Canal. All of the noise about Shi'a discontent is more or less deflated by this line: "Shiism is hardly monolithic, and Iran does not speak on behalf of all Shiites."
Well, then we're owed an explanation of how this increases Iranian influence and we get none. At least none in favor of that contention. Regarding the Bahraini opposition the article says, "But demonstrators have maintained their loyalty to Bahrain. The head of the largest Shiite party, Al Wefaq, said that the party rejected Iran’s type of Islamic government."
And who are the main experts quoted? A RAND Corporation analyst and "former National Security Council staff members." Turns out it was for the Bush administration, something the article does not point out.
I'm still not sure how the same class of experts who failed to predict this Pan-Arab revolt have any credibility on the subject for the moment. And, I thought we were worried about an increase in Turkish influence? or was that just during the "Flotilla" crisis?
Turks, Persians, and Arabs and Sunnis and Shiis on the other have a complicated history, and I strongly doubt that it's so simple as a zero-sum game of influence between the U.S./Saudi axis on the one hand and Iran on the other. Is Egypt, a giant and proud nation, susceptible to a takeover by Iran? Doubtful.
This article is nonsense.