The Middle-East is dominated by two regional powers, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

On the face of it, the two states are not dissimilar. Both are Islamic theocracies where Islamic teaching is fundamental to all aspects of government and wider life. Both are also authoritarian states where there is little political opposition to the government. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy and has been governed by the House of Saud since 1932. Iran is led by the Supreme Leader, currently Ali Khamenei, who the main institutions of the state, such as the Armed Forces, are directly subject to.

• 

• 

In addition, both countries have enormous economic potential, largely due to their oil reserves. Today, there are estimated to be 268 billion barrels of oil in Saudi Arabia and Iran is estimated to have around 158 Billion barrels.

However, there are clear dissimilarities too. Saudi Arabia is a majority Sunni state, with up to 85% of the population being Sunni. Iran, however, is a predominantly Shia state, with 95% of the population identifying as Shia.

The Saudi’s had always claimed to be the leaders of the Muslim world. Notably, because both Medina (the burial place of the Prophet Muhammad) and Mecca (the holy city of Islam) are within its borders. However, at the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, the country has claimed to be the true beholder of the Muslim Faith.

Both Saudi Arabia and Iran have actively sought to extend their influence in the Middle-East. Iran and Saudi Arabia have never gone to war with each other. Instead, they have supported different sides during the various wars that have taken place in the Middle-East. This is known as fighting a ‘war by proxy’. For example, in two prominent wars taking place in the Middle East at present they support opposing sides:

Yemen – A Civil War has been ongoing since 2015 between the Yemeni Government and Houthi Rebels. The Yemeni Government is supported by a Saudi-led coalition. Iran supports the Houthi rebels. The conflict is further deepened by the presence of terror groups in the region, including Al-Qaeda and ISIL.

Syria – The Syrian Civil War has taken place since march 2011. The Government forces of President Assad are supported by Iran, whilst the Syrian rebels are supported by Saudi Arabia.

Both sides want to ensure their influence in the region and support the sides that they do in order to do this. This was the same process that American and the Soviet Union engaged in during the Cold War, not directly engaging each other militarily, but supporting different sides in conflicts (like the Korean War) in order to preserve and extend their influence in the region.

The relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia is complicated by the involvement of the world’s major powers in the region. Since 1951 the United States of America and Saudi Arabia have been actively allied on many fronts. The USA has traditionally sort influence in the Middle East to protect oil exports, a decline of which could seriously damage the global economy. The US supplies military hardware to Saudi Arabia. In 2017 Saudi Arabia and the USA signed an arms deal that would see the US sell $350 Billion Dollars of arms to Saudi Arabia over the course of a decade. In addition, the US retains active military basis in the country, with around 5,000 US military personnel based there.

Saudi Arabia also have close relationships with other western countries. The UK’s largest ever arms trade deal is with Saudi Arabia. Most recently, the UK have sold 72 Eurofighters to Saudi Arabia. This was heavily criticised by the Labour and Green Party who criticised the decision of the government to sell arms to a country with an extremely questionable record on Human Rights.

The close relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia is not mirrored in the US relationship with Iran. Since 1980 the US and Iran have had diplomatic relationship and the US have imposed a trade embargo on Iran since 1995. In 2015, relations appeared to be getting better when Barack Obama’s government negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran that guaranteed that the US would lift sanctions when Iran dismantled its nuclear facilities. However, in 2018 the Trump Government reimposed sanctions, something he had promised right from the start of his presidential campaign.

However, Iran is supported by two major powers – Russia and China. Since sanctions have been placed on Iran by the West, Russia have provided Iran with a lifeline. Russia have supported the Iranian military, including planes and advanced artillery systems. In addition, the two countries have an extensive trading relationship, including a $20 billion dollar trade deal in 2014.

China have been a key buyer of Iranian Oil for a number of years and Chinese companies have been given drilling rights in Iran.

What has happened recently?

Tensions in the region have ratcheted up greatly in the last week. On Saturday 14th September an attack was mounted on one of Saudi Arabia’s most important oilfields and one owned by the government. The fires that erupted after the attack lasted for many hours and the chaos that it created resulted in a 5% drop in global oil production.

Responsibility for the attack was claimed by the Houthi, a rebel group fighting against Saudi Arabia in Yemen. The attack was carried out using advanced drone technology – this is technology that is almost certain that Iran has supplied.

Iran has denied any responsibility for the attacks. However, Saudi Arabia, in addition to the UK and US have clearly indicated that they believe Iran to be firmly responsible.

Both Britain and the US have suggested taking action against Iran in response to the attacks.

Any direct war between Iran and Saudi Arabia would be bloody. Iran has far bigger armed forces, whilst Saudi Arabia, with the support of Britain and the US, have far more modern forces:

It is clear than Iran is seen by many as a force of instability in the region. Saudi Arabia, and its allies, will not shy away from checking the growth of its influence. The significance of the recent attacks should not be understated.

On the 11th September 2001 the world stood still as it watched the unfolding events in the United States of America. Two planes struck the World Trade Centre in New York, the symbol of American capitalism. Another hit the Pentagon, the symbol of American military power around the world. A final plane came down in a field in Pennsylvania while heading for Washington DC and the Capitol Building or the White House, the symbols of American democracy.

The attacks were quickly linked to terrorist group Al-Qaeda, led by Usama Bin Laden, the son of a Saudi billionaire who had close links to the Royal Family. Bin Laden had joined the mujahideen forces fighting the Soviet Union in Pakistan before forming Al-Qaeda in 1988.

Al-Qaeda and Usama Bin Laden had been a known terrorist threat for some time. The group were Islamic Fundamentalists with the stated aim of establishing an Islamic Caliphate and removing western influence from Muslim countries in the Middle East. In 2000 they had orchestrated a suicide attack on the USS Cole that claimed the lives of 15 American Soldiers.

The majority of Al-Qaeda, including Bin Laden, were believed to be in Eastern Afghanistan. Here they were harboured by the Taliban. The Taliban were an Islamic Fundamentalist group who enforce a strict version of Sharia law in any territories they control. By 2001, they controlled over 90% of Afghanistan and formed the de facto government of the country.

In October 2001 America began a military action in Afghanistan to remove both Al-Qaeda the Taliban. American Foreign Policy fundamentally changed as America actively attempted to tackle terrorism across the globe. In a speech in September 2001 George W. Bush declared a ‘war on terror’:

Now, eighteen years later, and after the deaths of over 2,000 US Soldiers and around 110,000 Afghans, it appeared that America was on the verge of making peace with the Taliban. Under the deal, America would remove its remaining troops in return of the Taliban agreeing to disassociate itself with terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, and actively working to come to a negotiated peace agreement with the official Afghan Government in Kabul.

However, on the 7th September, President Trump dramatically decided to cancel the impending peace agreement. As has become customary from Trump, this big foreign policy decision was announced via Twitter.

The proposed peace agreement was the culmination of over a years diplomatic work by the American State Department. The decisions to cancel the talks comes in response to the Taliban admitting the killing of a US soldier. However, 16 US soldiers have been killed this year and the Taliban had never agreed to cease their military operations whilst talks were ongoing.

For Trump, the thought of a peace deal that brings home US Troops before the 2020 Presidential Elections is a tempting prospect. However, there is equally a risk that the withdrawal of US Troops will lead to the inter-sectional chaos that has erupted in Iraq. Afghanistan is a largely artificial state, its boundaries were drawn by Mortimer Durand, a British colonial leader, in 1897. It is populated by a variety of ethnic groups, all of which vie for power and influence:

America has completed it stated mission in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda has been decimated. Donald Trump has stated many times that he is opposed to foreign interventionism whether it can be avoided. The job left in Afghanistan now is that of nation-building in one of the poorest and least homogeneous geographical territories in the world. The US under Trump will undoubtedly look to leave Afghanistan soon. However, Trump lambasted George W. Bush and Barack Obama for allowing Iraq to turn into a sectarian blood-bath after the US withdrawal, he will not risk doing that in Afghanistan before the 2020 election. America will leave when it is electorally suitable for Trump, not necessarily when it is strategically best for the region.

With the Brexit chaos continuing, one extraordinary dialogue taking place in British Politics is whether or not Boris Johnson will carry out the instruction of Parliament to seek an extension to Britain’s departure date from the European Union.

The Rule of Law is a fundamental principle of the UK’s constitution and indeed that of any Liberal Democracy. In Britain, the Rule of Law was codified by Victorian scholar A.C Dicey. One of the most important principles that he codified was that no person is above the law and the law applies equally to everyone.

On 9th September 2019 an act was passed in Parliament which instructs the the Prime Minister to seek an extension to the Brexit deadline from the European Union if Britain and the EU are unable to reach a deal by 19th October. The text of the letter to be sent is included in the bill. It will read:

Dear Mr President,

The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.

I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.

Yours sincerely,

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

This Act, and the letter it mandates, is contrary to the Prime Minister’s stated promise to UK citizens that the the UK would leave the EU on the 31st of October “do or die, come what may”.

The Act of Parliament has left the Prime Minister with very little wriggle room. A number of scenarios have been suggested:

Option 1 – Accompany the letter with another letter

One option that has been suggested is that the Prime Minister could send Parliament’s letter but also include his own in the package. In this second letter he could say that he does not really want an extension and that he does not believe it is Britain’s interest. He may hope that doing this may exasperate the EU so much that they will give in and refuse to give Britain and extension.

However, legal experts have been clear that this would likely be illegal. The former Chief of the Crown Prosecution Service said:

The act is quite clear in what it requires the prime minister to do. If he sends a side letter to the EU that deliberately conflicts with that requirement, he is deliberately in breach of the law.

Ken Macdonald -Former Chief of the CPS

Option 2 – Persuade an EU Member State to veto the extension.

The EU can only grant an extension of all of the other 27 member states agree. Boris Johnson may try to persuade one of the member states to vote against an extension. If this happens, Britain will leave on the 31st October 2019 as this is the legal default position. There are some leaders of EU countries that are eurosceptic, Viktor Orban of Hungary being a clear example. However, the EU has a long history of acting collectively. Hungary would have little to gain from upsetting her European neighbors and would likely vote as the rest of the bloc does.

Option 3 – Find a loophole in the legislation

A number of prominent Cabinet Members have said that the Government is actively trying to find a loophole in the legislation that has been passed. However, the bill was drafted by Hillary Benn and supported by figures like Dominic Grieve. These are respected parliamentarians and it is unlikely that they have created anything but a watertight bill.

Option 4 – Resign and force an election

Boris Johnson has twice failed to convince Parliament to vote for an early election, with Labour, Liberal Democrats and the SNP all saying they will not support an election call until the Brexit extension has been granted. However, Boris Johnson could choose to resign. This would start a 14 day process for a new government to be formed or a new election would have to be called. However, this would be a perilously risky move. An alternative government may be found from elsewhere in the House of Commons and this is a risk that Boris Johnson will unlikely take.

Some of these options risk Boris Johnson running fell of the Rule of Law, a key feature of the UK Constitution. In the UK Parliament is sovereign. This means no body can overrule, not even the Prime Minister. Any attempt by the Prime Minister to avoid or circumvent the lawful instructions given to him by Parliament may not only result in court action but may also be a criminal offence.

Boris Johnson has said he would rather ‘die in a ditch’ than seek an extension from the EU. In reality, if he wants to stay Prime Minister, he really has no choice as things stand.

Yesterday Parliament voted to take control of the parliamentary agenda. The Government was defeated by 328 to 301 with 21 Conservative MPs voting against the government – even despite threats of having the whip withdrawn and being deselected by the Government

A number of prominent Conservative Backbenchers spoke forcefully about their treatment by the Government:

“If he [the PM] thinks the device of withdrawing the whip this evening is going to change my mind or that of my right honorable friends, he has got another thing coming. It will be treated with the contempt it deserves”

During the debate Jacob Rees-Mogg was criticized for treating Parliament with derision by taken up a sedentary position:

This led to a number of humourous memes:

Yesterday’s motion means that today the House of Commons could introduce a bill to prevent the Government taking the UK out of the EU without a deal. This occurred with the bill passing all three readings in the House of Commons and it now goes to the House of Lords.

Constitutionally, yesterday’s vote was extremely significant and was a rare example of an emergency debate under Standing Order 24. Standing Orders are the procedural rules that the House of Commons follows. These rules are decided by the House and can be amended by the House.

Standing Order 24 allows for an MP to apply to the Speaker of the House of Commons for an emergency debate.

It is up to the discretion of the Speaker as to whether or not the debate should be granted and this is a high bar. Since 1979 there have been around 50 debates under the order.

It now a seems likely that the bill will pass and we move on to the next stage in the drama. The PM confirmed he would bring forward a motion under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act (2011) to hold an early General Election, but, incredibly, it appears the the opposition will vote against it, saying they will not call an election until the no-deal bill has passed.