Tuesday's newspaper tour addresses the security repercussions on the Gulf states, the bombing of Riyadh Airport, and British Prime Minister Andy Burnham's talk about a Russian role in the referendum to leave the European Union, and the upcoming referendum in the US state of California to impose a tax on the state's wealthy people.
In The Guardian, Nesreen Malik wrote an article entitled, “The Gulf has entered a new era of instability. If its leaders think they can rely on old alliances, they are wrong.”
The author believes that the attack launched by the Ansar Allah group in Yemen on Riyadh airport, which led to the killing of at least 13 people, is “more catastrophic” for the region than the world imagines, and represents an important shift in a regional conflict that is constantly becoming more severe.
Malik believes that over the past year, the Gulf has entered a new, rather than temporary, phase of instability, adding that "the gradual erosion of peace and security in places like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE has changed the region more dramatically than their leaders would like to admit."
Malik recounts some of the events that led to this outcome, starting with Iran launching missiles at the American Al Udeid base in Qatar in response to the American strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, then Israel targeting Doha with the aim of assassinating leaders in the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas).
After that, came “Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu’s war on Iran,” which pushed the Gulf into the heart of the confrontation, and the ensuing Iranian strikes targeted sites in all the Arab Gulf states.
Malik believes that the most disastrous result of all, from the perspective of the Gulf rulers, is the way in which these attacks disrupted the integration of these countries into the multicultural international community as destinations for tourism, entrepreneurs, sports and entertainment, after they spent billions of dollars to secure the hosting of Formula 1, golf and boxing events and championships, before a wave of cheap drones put them at risk.
The matter reached the latest escalation in Yemen, after the advance of the Ansar Allah group in Yemen accelerated, and Saudi Arabia escalated its strikes against the group.
According to Malik's analysis, the Yemeni group is not just an agent of Iran, but rather they have internal ambitions and severe regional hostilities, especially towards the Al Saud (the ruling family in Saudi Arabia).
Malik believes that the last element that was maintaining the balance of the tense region collapsed when US President Donald Trump decided that the safety and security of US allies in the Gulf was a secondary issue compared to his Iranian “adventure”.
“What Saudi Arabia is facing now is a long and complex war with a resourceful and motivated opponent, willing to endure a great deal of suffering in ways that Riyadh cannot match without completely redirecting itself towards war,” according to Malik, who says that this war will claim thousands of lives with only a small possibility of achieving a decisive outcome.
Malek arrives at the conclusion that Saudi Arabia, as well as the entire Gulf, is being pulled into the heart of the ongoing storm, while the rise of “Ansar Allah” again represents a new reality in a region stuck between old alliances that are no longer useful and new, extremely disastrous hostilities that are difficult to confront.
In The Independent newspaper, an article analyzes British Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s statements regarding leaving the European Union, and his accusation of Russia of interfering in the referendum held by the United Kingdom in 2016.
Writer Sean O'Grady believes in his article, "History indicates that Britain may return to the European Union without a referendum," that Burnham's talk about a Russian role in influencing the outcome of the vote means that the Prime Minister clearly declares his support for the option of "returning to the European Union."
O'Grady believes that if Burnham is serious about forging a better relationship between Britain and the European Union, including returning to its membership, he should do what former British Prime Minister Edward Heath did when Britain joined Europe for the first time nearly six decades ago.
The writer talks about there being no need for a referendum on this issue at that time, as Heath’s conservative government brought the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community with the approval of Parliament, and then the Labor government that followed it sought to hold a confirmation referendum, the first in British history, to remain within it.
“As happened with Brexit, asking the public what the country should do has proven in practice to cause more harm than good,” the writer says.
The writer refers to Burnham's desire to open a national debate on re-joining the European Union, put his proposal before voters within the Labor Party's platform in the next elections, and then leave the decision to Parliament.
Thus, the decision to start talks with the European Commission will receive a direct and clear mandate from the British people, and then it will be approved or rejected through a serious and detailed parliamentary process based on deliberations, scrutiny and final decision-making, according to the writer.
The author returns to Heath's experience in the 1970 general election, when the most conservative and pro-European opposition leader in British history came up with a formula and framework for accession that would satisfy his followers, skeptical public opinion, and his European counterparts.
"The phrases in the Conservatives' 1970 'Better Tomorrow' platform were so well-crafted that Burnham should borrow them for Labour's 2029 programme," the author says.
The writer talks about the importance of negotiating to understand the consequences and the price, and then it is possible to determine “whether the balance is fair and in Britain’s interest.”
“Regulating the relationship between the UK and Europe is nothing new,” says O’Grady. “What Burnham should be asking voters at the next election is a mandate limited to negotiating the terms of a closer relationship with the EU in the interests of the British people, nothing more, nothing less.”
He adds that the conditions for re-joining the European Union institutions or the Union itself must be acceptable to Burnham, and then be approved by a majority of the members of Parliament in the new council. This is how it happened between 1970 and 1972, through sometimes heated debates and narrow voting margins in the House of Commons.
Turning to the Washington Post, an article headlined “Britain learns a costly lesson about taxing the rich.”
The newspaper believes that paying taxes for many of the world's wealthy is "largely a matter of choice", as "if you are rich and do not like taxes in one place, you can quickly move to another place."
A vote will be held in California on November 3 to impose an exceptional one-time tax of five percent on the state’s billionaires.
Supporters of the voting initiative say the measure could provide $100 billion in funding for health care, food aid and education in California, but skeptics estimate revenues at only $40 billion and say the move could push some billionaires to leave the state, depriving it of future tax revenues and investments.
The article refers to a model of wealth transfer in Britain, and talks about the Labor government in Britain, since coming to power in July 2024, seeking money from the country's billionaires to finance its social programs.
The possibility of reversing these taxes will become clear on October 28 when Treasury Secretary John Healey presents the government's annual budget.
At the conclusion of the article, the newspaper says: “It seems that Britain is heading to re-learn the lessons of the post-war period the hard way. The political class in the United States must pay attention to this.”
