Bahrain Urged to Release Prisoners as Regional Airstrikes Increase Risks for Detainees

Last updated: 15 October 2026

Seef, Bahrain © Seef, Bahrain / SASI VARDHAN

On March 11, 2026, Human Rights Watch published a report arguing that Bahrain should urgently release prisoners as the regional conflict involving Iran, the United States, and Israel heightens the danger faced by detainees inside the country. The article says Bahrain, which has repeatedly come under attack by Iranian forces, now presents an especially risky environment for people already imprisoned, particularly those held arbitrarily for exercising their right to free expression. It frames the issue as both a prison-rights concern and an emergency protection question linked to the broader military escalation across the Middle East.

The report’s central argument is that detainees in Bahrain now face “greater risks than usual” because of the regional air war. According to the article, Iranian attacks have struck the island state repeatedly, and prisoners have reportedly heard nearby explosions during those attacks. In that context, the article argues that the Bahraini authorities should not wait for a direct prison disaster to occur before acting. Instead, it says people who are arbitrarily or unlawfully detained should be released immediately and unconditionally, while others should at least be released temporarily on humanitarian grounds because of the heightened threat to life and health posed by the surrounding conflict.

A major focus of the article is the status of people jailed for peaceful speech and political expression. It says many prisoners in Bahrain were detained for exercising their right to freedom of expression, including opposition figures and activists connected to the 2011 pro-democracy protests. Some of these detainees, the article notes, have been imprisoned for nearly 15 years. By emphasizing the duration of their detention, the report presents the current emergency not only as a conflict-related issue, but as part of a longer human rights problem in Bahrain, where authorities have continued to keep critics and dissidents behind bars over many years.

The article also says that authorities have detained additional people in recent days during crackdowns on protests and demonstrations against the US and Israeli attacks on Iran, as well as in connection with social media posts showing the effects of Iranian strikes in Bahrain. This detail is important because it suggests that the regional conflict is not only increasing physical danger around detention sites, but is also contributing to new arrests. In the article’s framing, Bahrain is responding to the external military crisis by tightening domestic repression, which means the number of people placed at risk inside detention may be growing at the same time as the danger outside intensifies.

A particularly urgent aspect of the report concerns detainees with serious health problems. The article singles out Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, a Danish-Bahraini human rights defender, and Sheikh Mohammed Habib al-Muqdad, a dual Swedish-Bahraini national, both of whom have reportedly been arbitrarily detained since 2011. According to the article, both men are now in their 60s and suffer from severe health problems linked to torture and long-term imprisonment. The report says Bahraini authorities have continued to deny them adequate medical care. This gives the article a strong humanitarian dimension, because it suggests that even without a direct strike, some prisoners are already at elevated risk due to age, illness, and lack of treatment.

The prison locations mentioned in the report add to those concerns. The article says prisoners in both Dry Dock Prison and Jau Prison have reported hearing nearby explosions during Iranian attacks. It also notes that Aluminum Bahrain (Alba), an aluminum smelter that has reportedly sustained damage in the strikes, lies only 11 kilometers from Jau Prison, where al-Khawaja and al-Muqdad are being held. These geographical details are significant because they move the discussion from abstract danger to a more immediate physical risk. The article is effectively arguing that the conflict is close enough to detention facilities that prisoners cannot be assumed to be safe simply because they are not on the front line.

The report then broadens the warning by referring to what has happened elsewhere in the region. It points to the Israeli strike on Evin prison in Iran in June 2025, describing that case as an example of the “worst-case scenario” in which prisons themselves become direct targets during conflict. The article also notes that in the aftermath of the Evin attack, Iranian authorities subjected detainees to enforced disappearances and ill-treatment, including cruel detention conditions and denial of food, potable water, medical care, and communication. By bringing in this example, the report suggests that the dangers facing Bahraini detainees are not limited to blast damage alone. Even if prisons are not directly hit, conflict conditions can worsen detention practices and deepen the vulnerability of those inside.

That comparison is one of the article’s most important structural features. It does not claim that Bahrain has already repeated the precise events seen in Iran after the Evin strike. Instead, it uses the Evin case as a warning about what can happen when prison systems are exposed to war conditions without adequate safeguards or humanitarian release measures. In that sense, the report is trying to make a preventive argument: authorities should act now, before a prison is damaged, a supply system collapses, or detainees become trapped in a rapidly deteriorating emergency.

Another significant point in the article is the distinction it draws between categories of detainees. It says that all those arbitrarily or otherwise unlawfully detained should be released immediately and unconditionally. Others, even if not detained on clearly unlawful grounds, should be released temporarily on humanitarian grounds because of the emergency created by the airstrikes. This distinction matters because it shows the article is making both a rights-based and a pragmatic argument. For political prisoners and those jailed for peaceful expression, release is framed as a standing legal obligation. For others, temporary release is presented as an urgent humanitarian measure appropriate to a time of regional military danger.

The broader human rights logic of the article rests on the idea that nobody should be in prison for peaceful expression in the first place. It says clearly that “nobody should be detained in Bahrain or elsewhere for exercising their right to peaceful expression.” In the context of the current conflict, that principle takes on added weight. A person who was already unjustly detained now also faces elevated risks from nearby attacks, limited access to healthcare, and possible emergency breakdowns in prison conditions. The report therefore portrays the conflict as intensifying the harm of an already abusive detention system rather than creating an entirely new problem from scratch.

The article is relatively brief, but it is structured around a clear progression: regional war creates heightened danger; Bahrain continues to hold political and other detainees; some of those detainees are elderly or ill; nearby strikes have already been felt by prisoners; and a recent precedent from Iran shows how quickly detention conditions can become catastrophic in wartime. That structure gives the piece the feel of an urgent intervention rather than a retrospective rights summary. It is meant to persuade authorities that waiting is itself dangerous.

The timing also helps explain why the issue is drawing attention. Bahrain is not usually discussed as a direct battlefield in the regional confrontation, yet the report suggests it has already become exposed enough for prisons to be considered at risk. That matters because detention facilities are often overlooked in crisis planning. Prisoners cannot relocate, stockpile supplies, or seek safety on their own. They depend entirely on the state for protection, medical care, food, and communication. The article’s underlying message is that if authorities know the regional threat has increased, they also bear responsibility for reducing foreseeable risks to those they hold in custody.

The inclusion of named detainees also gives the story a stronger personal dimension. Abdulhadi al-Khawaja is not only a Bahraini prisoner; he is a well-known human rights defender whose case has drawn international attention for years. Sheikh Mohammed Habib al-Muqdad is likewise presented as someone with serious health needs and long-term detention. By highlighting two individuals with foreign citizenship ties, the report also implicitly raises the possibility of broader international concern from countries such as Denmark and Sweden, as well as from rights groups following Bahrain’s treatment of prisoners since the 2011 uprising.

More broadly, the article reflects a recurring theme in conflict-related human rights reporting: war amplifies pre-existing abuses. Bahrain’s detention system, as presented here, already held political prisoners, restricted speech, and denied adequate healthcare to some detainees. The regional air campaign adds another layer of danger to that reality. Instead of prompting leniency or release, the report suggests, the authorities have continued arrests in relation to protests and online expression. That combination of external insecurity and internal repression is what gives the story its urgency.

In that respect, the article is not only about Bahrain. It also raises a wider regional point about detainees in times of war. When airstrikes spread across borders and states respond with tighter domestic control, people in detention become especially vulnerable because they cannot protect themselves and often have limited public visibility. The report uses Bahrain as a specific case, but it implicitly speaks to a broader principle: governments should not maintain unnecessary detention, especially politically motivated detention, when doing so exposes people to heightened wartime risk.

Conclusion

The report presents Bahrain’s prisons as an overlooked but increasingly urgent human rights concern in the current regional conflict. Its main argument is that people jailed for peaceful expression, along with other detainees facing serious health risks, should not remain in custody while nearby strikes and wartime uncertainty increase the danger around them.

More broadly, the article shows how military escalation can magnify the harm of long-standing domestic repression. In this case, the issue is drawing attention because it combines two sensitive realities at once: a regional air war and a prison system already criticized for arbitrary detention, poor healthcare, and the continued imprisonment of prominent dissidents.