From Angry Arab's chief Bahrain correspondent: "This Wallstreet journal article is about the Khawalid, a dangerous fanction of
the royal family. They are extremely sectarian and known for their hatred of
shia.
I have written to you a lot about Khalid Bin Ahmad, the minister of the royal
court, and Khalifa Bin Ahmad (commander in chief of the BDF). They are
responsible for a lot of what happened in Bahrain during the crackdown and what
is happening today. I have no doubt that the Khawalid wield a lot of power.
However this article makes the King look like some innocent weakling that is
being controlled by the Khawalid. There is no proof of this (there is a lot of
evidence on the other hand that the crown prince has no power and is not liked
by the Khawalid - does not mean he's good or believes in democracy - just means
that they disagree) . King Hamad does not have a weak personality like his
father (who was clearly controlled by the Prime Minister) and he was strong
enough to take on his uncle the Prime Minister from the beginning. He also
never made any reconciliatory gestures towards the opposition. I am told that
Crown Prince's talks with the opposition at the beginning and his appearance on
Bahrain TV were on his own initiative and he had to convince his father to allow
him to negotiate (though he clearly had no power to implement anything) - the
article implies that the King strong backed the Crown Prince). If the King was
so agains the Khawalid, why didn't he fire the minister of the royal court a
long time ago? In fact, one could argue that before the uprising, the King was
using the Khawalid to consolidate his power and weaken his uncle the Prime
Minister (who never liked the Khawalid - of course they banded together after
the uprising because of the threat from the people). I unfortunately cannot
analyze the dynamics of the royal family. I do not have enough knowledge of
what is going on and I find the King to be very difficult to read. However I
have yet to come across a Bahraini whether they want a constitutional monarchy
or a republic, that thinks that the King is just a weak figurehead. There are
many people (though less than before) that believe that the Crown Prince is a
good alternative. But even the most moderate of the opposition will not say
this about the King. Other than that, I do agree with a lot of what the article says and I do think
there is a push to shift the succession from the Crown Prince to Nasser Bin
Hamad (the Kings 25 year old son from his third or fourth wife). I just have a
problem with portraying the King as weak."