Will US weapons stocks survive a long war with Iran?

War is an expensive business. Even with a defence budget of $1 trillion, the US has to calculate whether it has sufficient weapons in stock to prosecute a short-to-medium length war without endangering reserves. General Dan Caine, the top military adviser to President Trump, laid out his assessment of how far the munitions stockpiles would be depleted prior to the decision by the commander-in-chief to go to war with Iran. Trump has stated publicly that the US has all the weapons it needs both to strike Iran and defend against retaliatory attacks. By all accounts, General Caine’s conclusions were more cautionary. This is not to say that on Day Three of Operation Epic Fury, the US military is running out of missiles and missile-interceptors. Far from it. As Trump pointed out, the Pentagon has pre-positioned stocks of weapons around the world, some of it on giant ships in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, and Subic Bay in the Philippines. However, a military superpower with global security responsibilities has to ensure at all times that in the event of a huge-scale war, such as that envisaged between the US and China, there would be reserves of weapons of every kind available to sustain a long conflict. This is the dilemma for the likes of General Caine, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. If the attacks on Iran continue for four or five weeks, which Trump has now predicted, the arsenal of key weapons, notably Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles, Patriot anti-missile systems, warship-carried Standard SM-3 interceptors and terminal high altitude area defence missiles (Thaad), will be significantly reduced. Each of these systems which have already played a substantial role in Operation Epic Fury, cost multiple millions of dollars. Replacements can take up to a year or more to come off the production line. The Pentagon for years functioned on the basis that it could fight two theatre wars simultaneously. But with the rising threat posed by China, this was dropped. This year’s National Defence Strategy document highlighted the need to defend the homeland and deter China in the Indo-Pacific. However, the US support for Ukraine over the last four years and the confrontation with Iran – in June last year during Operation Midnight Hammer against three nuclear sites, and today in the hoped-for regime-change mission – has expended offensive and defensive weapon systems on a huge scale. In the June operation, to protect Israel and countries in the Middle East where American forces are based, the US fired more than 150 Thaad missiles, about a quarter of the total inventory of 632 of these weapons which can intercept a ballistic missile in its final flight to a target. Thaad has been used to hit missiles targeting the United Arab Emirates in the present campaign. Each Thaad interceptor costs about $13 million, and it could take two or three years to replenish stocks. The US armada of warships sent to confront Iran brought hundreds of Tomahawks with them, each costing more than $1 million. Many were fired on the first day of Operation Epic Fury. They were also used against Islamic State targets in Nigeria in December, and frequently against Houthi rebel sites in Yemen. In Operation Midnight Hammer, more than 30 Tomahawks were fired at Iranian nuclear sites. As a result, the Pentagon has had to step up Tomahawk production but it can take two years to build one. Perhaps the greatest pressure for the Pentagon has come from the demand for the PAC-3 Patriot. missile system. Nineteen countries currently have Patriots, including Ukraine which always wants more, Taiwan, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Poland. One Patriot interceptor costs about $4 million and this system will be crucial for knocking out short-range Iranian missiles. Like President Putin who has been forced to convert Russia into a war economy to build enough arms to continue his fight against Ukraine, the Trump administration has had to supercharge the US defence industrial base to make sure there will be enough weapons to engage in long-term, high-intensity warfare. Reserve stocks have already been raided to cope with Ukrainian demands. Meanwhile, Operation Epic Fury is a sobering reminder to the Pentagon of the need to spend significantly more money on weapon systems that will dictate the success or failure of future military operations. “Stocks are in fact depleted and although the Pentagon has started to address the shortfalls, it will take time to get production going at a sufficient rate to replenish munitions expended in the [current] campaign,” said Eric Edelman, a former top defence policy official at the Pentagon. Iran has or had about 3,000 ballistic missiles and large stocks of Shahed long-range attack drones. To counter the threat posed by the missiles targeting Israel and Gulf states, the US has had to deploy a layered defensive wall, consisting of Thaads, Patriots and SM-3 Standard interceptors which are based on Arleigh Burke -class destroyers and in Ohio-class submarines. A Standard interceptor costs more than $10 million. One unknown is whether the Pentagon will once again turn to the 30,000lb Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) to hit targets. It can only be carried by the B-2 Spirit strategic bomber. US Central Command has confirmed that B-2s, flying from their base in Missouri, more than 6,500 miles from Iran, have been used in attacks. However, 14 GBU-57 MOPs were used against Iran’s three principal nuclear sites in Operation Midnight Hammer in June, and only 20 were built at a cost of up to $20 million each. The Pentagon is now urgently attempting to have more built, and a new version is also being developed. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER PAPERBACK. AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES.

Death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was Donald Trump's first objective

As soon as Donald Trump wad told by the CIA that the whereabouts of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, had been tracked to an office building in central Tehran, the long-planned attack was hurriedly brought forward. The intelligence was absolutely crucial. Not only Khamenei but a whole bunch of his top advisers were all in the same building having a big discussion about the likely confrontation with the US. It was a gold mine of potential targets for a president who wanted above all to see regime-change in Tehran, followed by an about-turn on any ambition for a nuclear weapon. Khamenei, in power for nearly 40 years, was the key figure determined to keep alive the dream of having a nuclear weapon to threaten the US. With him gone, the debate in the White House would have argued, the nuclear bomb issue could also be resolved. The intelligence received about Khamenei's whereabouts was what is called actionable intelligence. In other words, act now before the intelligence goes cold or changes. So the Israelis were told and it was the Israeli air force given the task of bombing the office compound, not the Americans. Why, it's not clear. You would have thought that Trump would have wanted an American pilot to drop the fatal bombload on the Iranian leader, but the Israelis were selected. Israeli ground-attack aircraft took off at 6am and three hours later Khamenei was dead, along with the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the defence minister and the chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces. It vwas the biggest possible blow to the Tehran regime, although Iranian officials were quick to say the regime would survive without Khamenei at the helm. It was a coup for Trump and a coup for Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister. Israel had been tracking Khamenei for months, so that last bit of confirmation intelligence from the CIA was all Netanyahu needed to give the go ahead. One small thought: a dozen US F-22 Raptor stealth fighters were fowon from the UK to Israel last week. Could it be possible that any of these stealth bombers also took part in the killing of Khamenei. I'd be surprised if they weren't. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER PAPERBACK. AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTSONES.

Trump's war on Iran

The bombs started to drop early this monring and look set to be falling on Tehran and other cities where there are military and regime targets for the next week or so. This is a war which Trump chose. He diodn't seek Congressional approval, althpugh Marco Riubio, the secretary of state, did paint a pretty obvious picture of imminent war when he addressed the eight senior members of the Senate and House of Reprresentative intelligence and armed services committees a few days ago. Whether an air campaign will help Trump to meet his objectives which include regime-change is another matter. The Iranians have responded by launching ballistic missiles at Israel, Dubai, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. It looks as if the US and Israel together have tried to target the suspected hideaway of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the so-called Supreme Leader who has total authority over everything the Iranian military does. But there have been no reports of his demise. The more Iran's air defences are battered, the mnore unequal the war will become, and the US and Israel will be able to help themselves to whichever targets they choose. Provided Iran fails with its ballistic-missile launches - most of which have been intercepted so far - this war will be a one-way destruction path. Trump no doubt will soon be claiming victory. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. CHECK OUT AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS AND WATERSTONES.

JD Vance dismisses fear of a wider Middle East war

One assumes the US vice president and everyone else in the Trump administration is getting the same intelligence briefings about what might happen if America attacks Iran. Trump said General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it would be easy, and now JD Vance is dismissing any concern that a strike by American forces would provoke a wider war in the Middle East. Let's hope Vance is right but judging by the bellicose words coming out of Tehran, the ayatollahs are planning for massive retaliation if the US goes ahead with an attack in the next few days or weeks. Well, they would, wouldn't they, and it might be all blather. But the fact is, there has to be a real risk that a strike by the US now might lead to a prolonged military confrontation that could draw in other countries. The last time the US attacked Iran in June last year, Tehran retaliated with hundreds of ballistic missiles aimed at Israel and some against a US base in Qatar. If the US strike is very limited, aimed at persuading Iran to negotiate a nuclear deal, then it might not lead to a wider war. But Trump has amassed such a large armada of warships and bombers in the region that it seems unlikely he has in mind just a token attack. What he says will be limited just means the bombing raids will last for days rather than months. But that could provoke Tehran to respond in a way that would lead to serious escalation. Then everything will get unpredictable.

Trump in attack mode vis a vis Iran

President Trump has given every indication that he plans to launch limited bombing raids on selected Iranian military targets to encourage the Tehran regime to bow to his wishes. However, based on Iran’s previous responses to US and Israeli military strikes and the determination of the regime to hang on to power, Trump could find himself confronting a larger-scale war with potentially unpredictable consequences, none of which would meet the president’s primary objective – to force Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, to stop the country’s uranium-enrichment programme. As a result of this uncertainty, why is Trump so eager now to resort to military action once again? Does he really think it will be easy, as he claims his top military adviser, General Dan Kaine, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggested? What are Trump’s mission objectives? It could be argued that the main mission, the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities, has already been achieved. Operation Midnight Hammer last June caused severe damage to Iran’s three main nuclear plants. Trump warned at the time he would come back for more if Iran tried to rebuild the facilities. But there is no evidence that any of the targeted plants are being reconstructed, let alone operational. So, an attack on the crippled nuclear sites would be largely symbolic. Far greater a threat are Iran’s ballistic missiles which have multiplied since Operation Midnight Hammer. Missile production plants, targeted in the joint US/Israeli raids in June, were damaged but not beyond repair, and now, according to Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, “our missile power today far surpasses that of the 12-day war [the June attacks]”. Medium and intermediate-range ballistic missile launchers are reported to have been deployed to western and southern coastline positions in readiness for attacks on US forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, and against Israel. If regime-change is on Trump’s list of mission objectives, a limited bombing campaign would not achieve that. Long-lasting regime change requires “boots on the ground”, and Trump is not going to order troops into Iran. Only Israel, with its unique Mossad capabilities embedded in Iran, could attempt a ground-based targeting of regime heads. But even if partially successful, it would not bring about a new-look government in Tehran which would satisfyTrump. Is the US military ready and what difference has it made that the UK has banned bombing flights from British bases? Judging by the massive redeployments of fighter aircraft and bombers in recent weeks, sufficient firepower is now in place for a short-lived attack operation. But the UK government decision and similar restraints imposed by countries in the Middle East (notably Jordan and Qatar) have forced US Central Command – in charge of the planned strikes – to rewrite the mission blueprint. RAF Fairford, RAF Lakenheath and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean had to be crossed off. As a result, a dozen F-22 Raptor stealth fighters, one of America’s most advanced combat jets, flew out of the UK last week and are now based in Israel which, unlike Britain, will be happy to have the aircraft on its territory, either for bombing raids on Iran or to help protect Israeli cities from retaliatory strikes by Iranian ballistic and cruise missiles. Diego Garcia, the key British-owned (still) base for US long-range strategic bombing missions, is currently full of American military aircraft, notably F-16s and a range of air-refuelling tankers, but no B-2 Spirit stealth bombers. The F-16s would be there to protect Diego Garcia from Iranian attack. Six B-2s arrived in Diego Garcia in April last year for attacks on the Houthis in Yemen, after permission was granted by the UK government. This time, as with the Midnight Hammer operation last June, if B-2s are used, they will have to fly from their base in Missouri – a round trip of about 13,700 miles, double the distance from Diego Garcia and back. Why now and what could go wrong? A limited strike, especially if the US is joined by the Israeli air force, would unquestionably cause huge damage to targeted sites in Iran. The US has Tomahawk cruise missiles on board many of the 17 or so warships in the region, as well as the most advanced precision weapons carried by ground-attack aircraft on the two nuclear-powered carriers off Iran and in the eastern Mediterranean. Trump it seems was initially stirred to action by the deaths of thousands of protesters opposing the Tehran regime. But the build-up of US firepower has laid the foundations for a potential historic confrontation between Washington and Tehran. Is this really what Trump wanted, or has the massive show of force taken over the debate and added a momentum too rapid to stop? Prior to war, military commanders give their assessment of likely casualties. The worst-case scenario might be grim reading. In recent confrontations, Iran retaliated in relatively low--profile manner. The deployment of ballistic-missile launchers along the coast suggests Tehran has a mind to answer back with maximum force. American and Israeli lives will be at risk. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES.

Four years of war and Ukraine still resilient

In his worst nightmare, Vladimir Putin could not have imagined that after four years of attacking Ukraine with everything bar tactical nuclear weapons, his neighbour would still be fighting back, and, what's more, launching long-range drones and missiles into Russian territory. Ukraine has been hit so relentlessly with Putin's bombs and missiles that the country, in the depth of a freezing winter, has only 60 per cent power supply to keep the lights and radiators working. Amd yet, Ukraine and the Ukrainian people have never given up and are intent on striking back however long it takes. This won't lead to victory, as some Ukrainian commanders still insist is possible, but the resilience and determination shown means Putin is facing a for-ever war. He may have a war economy to keep his arms factories going, but is he seriously prepared to prosecute this war for another year, two years, three years or much longer. Russia is already struggling economically and the casualty level is so high that the figure of 1.2 million dead, injured or missing, seems realistic. In the last year, the Russian army in Ukraine has managed just a few metres of land-grabbing a week. And this sort of advance after four years! If Kyiv is sensible, it should now spend much more time attacking Russia over the border, bringing the war closer and closer to Moscow. No restraint is required any longer because Putin has shown no interest in doing a deal. So, Ukraine has only one way forward. Give the Russians a real taste of their own medicine. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY SPY THRILLER PAPERBACK, WITH A STRONG RUSSIAN THEME. AMAZON, RNWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES.

Trump's top military man not happy abut attacking Iran

If it's true that General Dan Caine, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Donald Trump's top military adviser, is unsure about the wisdom of attacking Iran, will the president listen to him? Trump doesn't like to be told what not to do, he wants to know how to do what he wants to do. So, General Caine better watch his step if he's warning that a strike on Iran might not be that easy. Well, of course it won't be easy, especially if the objective is to end the regime and turn Iran into a western-loving nation. You can't do that with a bombing campaign. It;s not the wyt it works. But what Caine seems to be worried about it is the likelihood of a war spreading throught the Middle East and lots of people being killed in lots of countries, including Americans. Everyone in Washington is trying to tell Trump that Iran won't be another Venezuela. But I guess Trump knows that. But the key thing here is, Trump wants a quick in and out war where the damage is so great for Iran the ayatollahs will concede and all will turn out fine.Then along comes his top military man who says, no, Mr President, it won't be like that, it could go aon and on and, by the way, we're pretty low on arms because of Ukraine and the previous op against Iran eight months ago. So, a long campaign against Iran could seriously reduce stocks. None of these arguments will hold water if the president is determined to hit Tehran hard. He will expect the Pentagon to deliver the goods, and to stop whingeing. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES.

Can anything stop a Trump attack on Iran?

Normally, in fact always, the US president, current and past, wants to know whether a war, about to be launched, will definitely lead to victory. If the odds are against you, you don't want, as president of the most powerful nation on earth, to contemplate the possibility of defeat or failure. Vietnam has to be the marker for all US presidents. It was a disastrous failure in every possible way. Afghanistan was a failure. Iraq was disastrous but technically not a failure. Venezuela was a success, a huge success, militarily, and so far, diplomatically. A war with Iran has no guarantee of success. Of course, the US will be able to prosecute massive attacks and cause huge damage, and even, possibly, effect a change in leadership in Tehran. But there are no gaurantees it will be a victory for Donald Trump for a number of reasons: even if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme leader, is assassinated/exiled, another Shia cleric will succeed him and carry on the fight. There will be no regime-change as such, unless the US is prepared to send tens of thousands of troops to defeat the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the battlefield. That's not going to happen. So, in fact, what a US military strike from the air and from warships will do is cause a lot of destruction and probably many deaths but with the Tehran regim, albeit with different people, still in business and still hoping one day to develop a nuclear bomb. They have the scientists and engineers to do it. Iran also has the backing of Russia and China, so Tehran won't be isolated. So, if there is no guarantee of victory, why will Trump go ahead? Probably because he thinks he WILL succeed. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER IN PAPERBACK. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Is Iran resigned to war with the US?

No one expects Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, suddenly to capitulate and give in to all of the demands made by Donal dTrump. It's just not going to happen. By all accounts, Khamemei is prepared to die, anticipating a likjly assassination plot by the US military in the event of war, and has already made preparations for his successor. So if the Supreme Leader has realised war is inevitable, Trump is not going to win this confrontation by diplomacy. He will have to go to war to meet his objectives. This is a sobering conclusion but, I fear, realistic. It means that all the talking so far is fairly pointless. Trump wants a denuclearised Iran with only limited ballistic missiles, and an immasculated or changed regime which will no longer threaten the world in any way. It looks like Khamenei is preparing his country for war and retaliation, probably against both Israel and US military bases in the Middle East. Ballistic missile launchers have been lined up in the western and southern areas of Iran to carry out these retaliatory strikes. So, now it's a just a question of when Trump orders the bombers to set off. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY SPY THRILLER PAPERBACK. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS

Seventeen US warships are waiting for war off Iran

The armada that was built up in the Caribbean to snatch Nicolas Maduro in his pyjamas at a bunker home in Caracas was impressive enough, with an aircraft carrier and around 11 warships and more than 100 aircraft of one sort or another. Now we have Donald Trump's next and imminent military venture, to bomb Iran and oust the regime. For this much much bigger operation, Trump has assembled two aircraft carrier strike groups, a total of 17 warships, dozens of fighter aircraft and the rest of the paraphernalia required for a superpower military mission Trump says he doesn't want to resort to force, he would prefer a diplomatic deal but he has set the marker so high, Tehran and the ayatollahs are never going to agree. So, military force it will be. With the huge firepower available, there shouldn't be any doubt that Iran is going to have a terrifying few weeks once the go ahead has been given. Plus, Israel is almost bpund to join in. Assuming this scenario is correct, I would imagine the first strikes will focus on taking out as many ballistic missile sites and ballistic missile plants as possible to reduce the threat of a massive response from Iran against Israel and US forces in the Middle East. The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has warned that Iran will sink one of the aircraft carriers. But this is more bluster than genuinbe threat. The US has surrounded the carriers with anti-missile protection on other warships, and the outcome of an American attack is not difficult to predict. Iran will be the huge and overwhelming loser. Will Tehran cave in and agree a humiliating settlement before the first bomb has dropped, or will it, unwisely, take on the might of the US military and try to score a few hits? If Iran follows the latter course, Trump will hit back even harder. There won't be a wider war throughout the Middle East, as so many people are predicting, it will be total defeat for Khamenei and his regime. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY SPY THRILLER PAPERBACK. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Ban on use of UK bases for Iran attack is staggering

We don't know exactly how the conversation went between Donald Trump and Keir Starmer earlier this week but the US president came away with a flea in his ear. He was told, according to the illustrious Times, that if he wanted to use RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean for planned bombing raids on Iran, he could forget it. The UK government, Starmer apparently said, was not going to authorise either base for attacks. In political, diplomatic, military, strategic terms, this is a staggering decision, one that will have angered Trump beyond words. If Trump does order more strikes on Iran, then the US will definitely want to use Fairford and Diego Garcia. Both these bases are specifically structured and adapted for American bombers, from B-2 strategic aircraft to F-22 ground-attack jets, and because both bases are around 2,500 miles from Iran, as opposed to 6,500 miles from the US to Iran, it makes a helluva difference in terms of combat bombing runs, logistics, wear and tear on aircraft and gas costs. The US military can still go ahead with the strikes on Iran without the two bases, but it won't be so easy, and to have an ally, such as Britain, refuse to allow key bases to be used is a massive slap in the face. Unless Starmer changes his mind, this is going to have a longlasting negative effect on relations with Washington while Trump is in the White House. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, THE SECOND IN A PLANNED TRILOGY STARRING PART-TIME SPY REBECCA STRONG.

Britain in state of turmoil

The arrest and detention of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, former Prince Andrew, ex-Duke of York, younger brother of King Charles, still eighth in line to the throne, is the latest development in a series of ups and downs, mostly downs, which have hit this country like a hurricane and given the impression to the rest of the world that we are in turmoil. Actually, we are in turmoil. Andrew has been caught up in the Jeffery Epstein scandal because of his friendship with the paedophile and convicted sex offender. The former prince is currently sitting in a police cell! In addition, Donald Trump has turned on Keir Starmer over the Labour Government's bizarre and unnecessary handover of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius (costing us taxpayers £35 billion), the Starmer administration has now carried out 14 U-turns on major policy issues, the UK's former ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson, is being investigated by the police over his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and an allegation that when Business Secretary in the Labour government of Gordon Brown, he passed confidential Cabinet data to Epstein; the roads througout the country are pitted with potholes and the size of the welfare state - with rising youth unemployment and more and more people off work for mental health reasons - is growing by the day. The local elections are due in May and all the signs are that Nigel Farage and his Reform party will win win win. Starmer will then be pushed out and we'll get Angela Rayner as our unelected new prime minister. Turmoil indeed. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, YOU WILL LOVE IT. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

No end in sight of the war in Ukraine

Whatever the Americans say about "meaningful progress" in the latest talks to stop the war in Ukraine, in reality Donald Trump's two main envoys, Steve Whitkoff and Jared Kushner, are no closer to a settlement than they were when negotiations began. The two envoys, neither of whom are trained diplomats, are basically Trump message-carriers, repeating endlessly the need to find a solution based on transfer of land. Poor Zelensky, the Ukrainian leader, must feel sick at heart that every time his negotiators sit down for talks with the Russians, they argue for hours about compromise but pretty much all on the Ukrainian side, not the Russians who of course started the war in the first place. Zelensky said it was "unfair" that the Americans didn't insist on the Russians compromising, too. The trouble is, Putin is not going to compromise, not on the question of the Donbas regio in eastern Ukraine. He wants all of it and for Ukrainian troops to withdraw from the bits they still control.That message from the Kremlin hasn't changed. So it's difficult to see what was "meaningful" in the latest talks in Geneva. I anticipate Putin will get even tougher with his territorial demands because he will hope that Trump will become distracted by Iran and the prospects of a wir within the next month or so. Putin isn't going to do Trump any favours by suddenly agreeing to compromise on the land issue. So, nothing of note is going to happen in the Geneva talks, just more arguing round and round in familiar circles. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER STARRING REBECCA STRONG. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS

The world cannot afford a nuclear-armed Iran

If there is any US president who is actually going to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, it is probably Donald Trump. All his predecessors vowed that Iran could never become a nuclear power but did nothing about it except try to use diplomacy and sanctions to restrain Tehran's ambitions. Obama went the furthest with his 2015 deal. But, actually, the small print still allowed Iran to restart its uranium-enrichment programme eventually. The hope was that Iran would change its ambitions altogether and with the lifting of sanctions give up the nukes idea and concentrate on developing a better, more flourishing country. But that was somewhat naive because we are talking here about the most extreme form of Islamic revolitionary politics, and successive Supreme Leaders said categorically it was the right of the Iranian nation to enrich uranium. So, even if Obama's deal had survived the arrival of Trump in the White House in 2016, it was still a risk that Iran would go nuclear in the distant future. Now, we are in a totally different situation, with Trump making it clear that, unlike his predecessors, he is ready to bomb Iran to bits to stop the country continuing to be a menace to global security. I am begininng to think that whatever Iran comes up with at the reopening of talks with the US, nothing will be good enough to stop the bombing. So in the next month or so, there will probably be a whole lot of bombing. Will it fnally end Tehran's ambition to be nuclear and a pain in the neck in the Middle East, or will it just lead to more war, and an even more determined Iran? PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER - AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES

Should the UK and France provide nuclear cover for Europe?

Both the UK and France have what is called a minimum nuclear deterrent. In other words, unlike the US and Russia which have several thousand nuclear warheads, the British and French arsenals have just enough to deter an enemy such as Russia (Uk, 225 and France, 290). But with the US under Donald Trump urging Europe to spend more and more on defence and not to rely on American to rush to their aid at every possible crisis moment, could and should the Brits and French restructure their nuke arsenals to provide a broad cover for Europe as a whole? It might sound relatively straightforward but of course it isn't. At what point, for example, would the UK and/or France decide it would be justified to threaten to fire nuclear missiles at Russia if Moscow invaded Poland or Latvia or Finland? At present the UK and France retain independent nuclear deterrents, ready to be used in the event of a possible crushing defeat in a conventional war. But the UK and France would not resort to the nuclear option unless the very existence of the two countries was at risk. It is, if you like, a selfish deterrent. It covers the sovereignty of the UK and France but not of the rest of Europe. The US, on the other hand, has committed its nuclear weapons to form a deterrent umbrella over the whole of the North American continent AND Europe. It's the ultimate protection. But now there has to be doubt about whether the Trump administration would launch anything nuclear if some part or all parts of Europe came under mass conventional or nuclear attack. Nuclear deterrence has a theology all of its own and it's changing fast. What we can't have is other members of Europe deciding to go nuclear, developing their own arsenals. That would lead to nuclear proliferation across the globe. For the UK and France to provide a European nuclear umbrella, both nations would need to double or triple their warhead arsenals. That would also lead to proliferation elsewhere and make the world an even more dangerous place. And the costs would be huge, albeit the rest of Europe would be expected to contribute financially. On the whole, it's not a good idea. Spend a lot more on conventional defence and create deterrence that way. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, SEE AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Iran claims it's ready for compromise

Tehran, or at least the deputy foreign minister, is claiming that Iran is ready for compromise with the Americans to get a nuclear deal underway and agreed. In an interview with the BBC, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, says the ball is now in the US court. But actually, this is all playing games. The ball is very much in Iran's court. Donald Trump has stipulated, with Israel pushing hard in the background, that Iran must broaden the current round of talks by compromising not just on nukes but also on the other issues that stand in the way of an all-round settlement - a reduction in ballistic missiles and removing support for proxy militia forces in the Middle East. Takht-Ravanachi as good as ruled out any concessions on these issues. So a deal seems most unlikely. The interview with the BBC was just another example of Iran stretching it out for as long as possible, giving the impression that it's ready for a deal provided, of course, the quid pro quo is that the US lifts sanctions which have crippled the country's economy for years. He promised compromise but gives no clue what that means. It surely won't be enough to satisfy Trump and defnitely not enough to satisfy Benjamin Netanyahu. So, military action would now seem to be almost inevitable. Probably some time in the middle of March. Unless Tehran really does get frightened and offers a lot more. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, ANOTHER REBECCA STRONG SPY THRILLER, AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS

Marco Rubio brings back the smile on Europe's face

Marco Rubio isn't America's top diplomat for nothing. He came to the Munich security conference and made evryone breathe with a sigh of relief when he said that the US and Europe were, effectievly, the same family and would always be partners. So different from Vice President JD Vance's speech in Munich a year ago when he pretty much tore into Europe over its immigration policy and failure to safeguard free speech. He left a very nasty taste in the mouth. But Rubio is a gentler soul and he tried to reassure Europeans that the US was not cutting off from Europe but still valued the shared partnership and alliance. However, although the language was softer, the reality is that he, too, has underlined the White House message that Europe has to be stronger and better able to defend itself, a warning which most, if not all, European leaders are taking on board. I see Keir Starmer, in his Munich speech, said Europe (including the UK) must be ready to fight (Russia). As I have said in a previous blog, surely what needs to be said is that Europe as a whole should be arming itself with mnodern weapons of war in order to DETER Russia and other potential adversaries. Fighting a war would be disastrous for Europe and for the world. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. YOU WILL LOVE IT. SEE AMAZON, WATERSTONES OR ROWANVALE BOOKS

The world order has gone, says German chancellor

This is the weekend when all the politically powerful meet in Munich for the annual security conference and already the warning has gone out: the world order we knew and loved has gone for good. Nothing is the same. Everything we relied on before is no longer valid. The biggest warning came from Chancellor Mertz of Germany who is increasingly taking on the role of speaking for and acting for the whole of Europe. He told the conference that international rules have changed beyond recognition. What he and all the others meant to say was that, thanks to Donald Trump, we can't trust the US to come to our aid any more. Europe has to stand on its own feet. It is exraordinary, althpugh not surprising, that Trump has managed, in his second term, to unsettle what before was regarded as set in concrete, ie the Transatlantic alliance. Previous US presidents all confirmed that Nato and the US leadership of the alliance were iron-clad commitments for Washington. There was never any doubt. But all that has gone, and the Munich conference is another exmaple - after the meeting in Davos earlier this year - of where the world's leaders are walking around not knowing what is happening and what the future holds. But, basically, the time for whingeing and worrying is over. The fact is, Trump will be in power for another three years and the changes he has begun to make will stay for ever. Europe has to get tougher and more robust and more unified. Europe without the US being at their beck and call is the reality today, and European leaders will have to accept it. However, I still firmly believe that Nato will survive all these changes and probably become a better and more powerful organisation than ever. That should surely be everyone's goal in the western world.

Trump improves his options for striking Iran

Donald Trump appears to be peparing even more firepower for the waters off Iran. Another aircraft carrier may be earmarked for Iran duty, alongside the USS Abraham Lincoln which is already there. The most likely carrier seems to be the USS George HW Bush which could be deployed from its base in the US. The journey to the Gulf would take three or four weeks. We can probably safely say that no military action is likely before the new carrier arrives. Meanwhile, after his session with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, Trump has made it clear he wants to concentrate on getting a nuclear deal first with Tehran, holding back the military option while US and Iran squabble over what a nukes deal would look like. If nothing has been ahcieved while the second carrier heads for the Gulf (once Trump approves), then I would imagine the pressure for military force will increase significantly. Netanyahu has always been sceptical about a nuclear deal with Iran. He didn't like the last one, brokered by Barack Obama in 2015, and he won't like the Trump version, if it comes about, unless there are other agreements to curb Iran's huge stock of ballistic missiles, all capable of reaching targets in Israel. So now everything will depend on when or if the second carrier is sent to the Gulf. If Trump gives the go ahead, the clock for military action will start ticking. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, SEQUEL TO SHADOW LIVES, STARRING REBECCA STRONG, ARTIST AND SPY. BUY THROUGH AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS OR WATERSTONES.

Can Iran ever be trusted to keep their word?

Iran has a reputation for being devious, and for that reason it is highly unlikely that any deal Donald Trump might fix with Tehran will actually hold water. Obama did a nukes deal with Iran in 2015 but it was never strong enough to stop Iran from secretly continuing its ambition to build a bomb, even if the programme had to be curtailed under the restrictions imposed by the treaty that was signed. In other words, Iran under its present regime can never be trusted. I feel sorriest for the Iranian people who have had to put up with this regime ever since the revolution in 1979. So, is this the right time for the US to take action that might in the end lead to regime-change? The answer is not simple. If regime-change can only be brought about by war, that won't help the Iranian people who will suffer even more. Many will be killed. It might sound the only solution but violence cannot be the answer. The trouble is, the tens of thousands who bravely protested in the streets against the regime, were brutally repressed. Thousands were killed by the so-called security authorities, many of them moving around on motorbikes, opening fire at random. Now there are even reports of wounded protesters in hosptals being shot in the head as they lie in their beds. A war between Iran and the US and probably Israel, will lead to more and more violence against the poor Iranian people. War or no war, they will always be the victims.

Netanyahu on mission to the White House

When Benjamin Betanyahu jumps on the first available plane to Washington to see Donald Trump, you know he is very anxious about something. The Israeli prime minister clearly took fright when Trump said the first round of new talks with Iran had gone very well. He coild see the unpredictable US president suddenly doing a deal which would, in Israeli eyes, be half-cocked. Netanyahu desperately wants Trump to stick to his principles which would mean the president refusing to concede on any of his objectives vis a vis Tehran: scrapping the nuke programme, handing over all highly enriched uranium, reducing hugely the ballistic-missile programme and axeing all links to the proxy militia scattered throughout the Middle East. Trump shouldn't need to be persuaded because when he decided in his first term of office to take the US out of the Obama-brokered nuclear deal with Tehran, he said it was becausee the deal was terrible, didn't limit the nukes programme sufficiently and didn't include any restrictions on ballistic missiles or those proxy forces working their evil on behalf of Tehran. So, if that was his feeling in his first term, Netanyahu wants to make sure Trump still abides by those red lines. The reference to how good the talks were in Muscat, Oman, last week upset Netanyahu because the Iranian negotiator, the foreign minister, said all he wanted to talk about was nukes. Netanyahu has a point. Trump gets carried away with these high-profile talks and seems to be optimistic that a deal can be done. Despite sending a massive armada of warships to threaten Iran, Trump has been very open that he doesn't want a war. So the talks are absolutely key. Netanyahu will try to persuade Trump that now is the time to drive the hardest bargain and get those ballistic missiles which threaten Israel more than anywhere else, must be curtailed. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

If Epstein was a Russian spy, Moscow must be cheering

As the Jeffrey Epstein scandal spreads to almost every corner of the planet, there has been much speculation that this paedophile financier and Ultimate Creep may have been a Russian spy. In other words, working with the Ruskies to do down as many so-called elite rich buddies as possible to cause the downfall of institutions and governments in the West. Could this have been his real plot? If it was and if the Russians really did work with him, then it has been an amazing success story for Moscow, because more and more rich and famous and otherwise are being drawn into this appalling scandal. Somehow I doubt the Russian connection. It's just that whenever a scandal of this enormity breaks, clever people start thinking there must be more to it. There has even been talk that Epstein was working secretly for Mossad. To what end, for goodness sake? Basically, Epstein was a brilliant, charming sleazebag who charmed the pants off multiple people, including royalty and the richest individuals on earth by offering to fulfill their fantasies free of charge. It was all about temptation temptation temptation, and when offered on a plate, it was just too irrestible. Clearly this is the case because the names in his contacts book cover a huge network of pleasure-seeking males. BUY MY NEW SPY THRILLER, AGENT REDRUTH, DESCRIBED BY ONE REVIEWER AS BETTER THAN JAMES BOND. AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES.

Why was a US admiral at the Iran talks?

The oresence of a fully uniformed US admiral at the talks on Friday between American and Iranian delegates was a nice touch. More a piece of theatre than a diplomatic move. I don't suppose Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of Central Command, and thus the boss of the armada of ships currently in the Gulf off Iran, had to actually say anything other than "how do you do, good to meet you" when he was introduced to Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister. But the symbolism was huge. It was Donald Trump's way of saying to Tehran, "we're here to do a diplomatic deal but if you don't play ball then Admiral Cooper has his orders to start bombing military sites in Iran". I'm sure the Iranian foreign minister got the message. I wonder if the Iranians were warned beforehand that the admiral in his uniform would be participating in the talks, held in Muscat in Oman. Central Command covers 16 countries including all of the nations in the Gulf region. So for the admiral it was a chance to meet an important figure representing the country which basically provides most of the aggravation in the Middle East, either directly or indirectly through its proxy militia. The involvement of Admiral Cooper in Muscat was an in-your-face signal from Trump that his massive armada, headed by the carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln, is ready and waiting for the order to strike at Iran if the talks fail to achieve the required objectives: an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions, the handover of all the 60 per cent-enriched uraniuma, a halt to all further uranium-enrichment, the axeing of all links to Iran's proxy forces in the Middle East such as Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen, and the stopping of all killings of protesters by the security forces. It's a big ask which Araghchi has already dutifully dismissed. He wants just the nuclear issue to be discussed. He will have returned to Tehran, hoever, with the image of Admiral Cooper staring at him across the table. PLEASE BUY AND ENJOY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Trump wants the war in Ukraine to end by June

It's always risky to name a date to end a war that has shown no sign yet of ever coming to an end. Donald Trump's latest deadline for stopping the killings and destruction is June. It sounds arbitrary except that if the war were to end by that month, it would probably help the Republicans to keep their seats in the US mid-term elections in November. So we can expect a massive push from Washington to fix many more trilateral talks between the US, Russia and Ukraine to find the formula that so far has been sadly absent. Eventually, we could see a summit between Trump, Putin and Zelensky, although that would seem to be pie-in-the-sky at the moment. There won't be a summit of this stature until the negotiators have done a deal, and that's as far off as ever. Meanwhile, to emphasise the leverage that Putin has over Zelesnky, his forces have been pounding Ukraine's energy sector with hundreds of drones and amissiles, so that large numbers of Ukrainians are living in freezing conditions. War is always cruel, but Putin is masterminding the cruellest of all, making as many civilians as possible suffer from appalling cold temperatures, lack of water, and no power to cook food. How many Ukrainians are dying from cold or lack of food? Under Trump's timetable this will all come to an end in four months. I seriously doubt it. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. YOU WILL LOVE IT, I GUARANTEE!!

Could there be a new nuclear arms race?

The expiration of the New Start Treaty reducing the size of the nuclear arsenals held by the United States and Russia has inevitably led to fears that the world is about to see a so-called nuclear arms race with each of the two signatories to that treaty rushing ahead to build more and more warheads and missiles. But it's not in their interest to start spending vast new sums on increasing the size of the arsenals. There are already way too many to make the Cold War's Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) concept any less or more effective. Russia certainly can't afford to build and field hundreds or thousands more nukes, and nor can the US. The focus will surely be more on modernising the nukes now getting old and potentially unreliable, rather than increasing stocks. However, when a treaty of such historic importance expires without any talk of urgent meetings to extend it, should the world be worried? Donald Trump's approach is actually the right one. Instead of trying to extend the New Start Treaty, he says he wants a totally new treaty and for it to be signed by China as well. This is surely the way forward. China will resist it but with Beijing planning to build its stock of nuclear warheads from 600 to at least 1,000 by 2030, there is every reason to persuade Beijing to join a treaty to keep nuclear stocks to a limited level, even though China is far behind the American and Russian stockpiles. Meanwhile, the real arms race will continue to be in developing hypersonic missiles, nuclear or conventionally armed. A new treaty limiting these weapons would make sense, too. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER - AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES.

Latest Russia/Ukraine talks go nowhere

The exchange of a few hundred prisoners of war was all that was achieved in the latest talks involving Ukraine and Russia in Abu Dhabi. You could argue that was at least something. But on the question of the two biggest obstacles to peace - land and Ukraine's future security guarantees from the US - there was seemingly no movement at all. When is there ever going to be a change of mind on Putin's part, or Zelensky's part? Neither is prepared to give up their red line demands - Putin to have the whole of Donbas, asnd Zelensky to hold onto the 20 per cent of land his military still control in Donetsk in the Donbas region. It's not just an impasse, it's an unmoveable blockage. Whatever Donald Trump says to Zelensky, the Ukrainian leader is never going to back down on this issue, and whatever incentives Trump gives to Putin to concede the land issue. the Russian leader is never going to stop the war until he gets Donbas on a plate. Not just that, he wants agreement for Donbas to be designated a Russian province and for the world to recognise it. On the security question, we have heard before that Zelensky has been offered a deal which he says is satisfactory. But if and when it is actually implemented, what will it involve? Not US troops stationed in Ukraine. That will never happen. Not US fighter jets based in Ukraine. That won't happen either. So how strong will the guarantees be once the war is over, to give Kyiv reassurance that in the event of future aggression from Moscow, the US will rush to help? The US is never going to agree a deal in which there is a possibility that as a result the US and Russia will be at war. That's just not going to happen, either, not while Trump is president. PLEASE BUY MY NEW SPY THRILLER, AGENT REDRUTH. IT'S IN PAPERBACK. SEE AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Can Ukraine and Russia ever do a deal?

Representatives from Russia, Ukraine and the US are gathering in Abu Dhabi for a second round of talks to try and forge a peace settlement to end the four-year war. But is there really any hope of a breakthrough when both sides are so adamant about the land issue. Zelensky cannot envisage any time when he might consider giving up the whole of the Donbas to the Russians without a fight; and Putin says there will be no end to the war until Kyiv hands over Donbas. According to newspaper reports, there is a growing feeling in Ukraine, especially perhaps in Donbas, that getting peace would be better than hanging on for dear life to the bits of Donbas still controlled by Ukraine. In fact it's about 20 per cent of Donetsk, one of two provinces in the Donbas region. That's a lot of land to surrender, especially as it includes crucial defensive positions which so far have managed to keep the Russian military at bay for the last four years. Has it come to this? Peace or land? This is the question which is going to come up again and again in the Abu Dhabi talks. I just don't see this being resolved. Zelensky is never going to agree. Zelensky can't agree. Not when so many Ukrainian lives have been lost in Moscow's relentless bombing and drone campaign in Donbas. BUY MY NEW SPY THRILLER, AGENT REDRUTH, STARRING SPY HEROINE REBECCA STRONG. SEE AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Why did so many people love Jeffrey Epstein?

I don't think I'm misquoting Donald Trump who described Jeffrey Epstein as a slezebag and creep. But Trump for a time also fell under his spell, even if in later years he banned him from his Mar-a-Lago resort residence. The queue of people from the top end of society who fell for Epstein's charms was so long that he managed to absorb into his web huge numbers of rich and famous - and of course royalty. Now, in hindsight, with so much known about what he was doing, it beggars belief that such people carried on adoring him, even when they knew or suspected he was abusing young women/girls. There have been other examples over the years of people becoming attracted to monster human beings, but Epstein is on a pedestal all of his own. His supposed charm and money and powerful friends brought people with similar attributes running to his door. The Epstein club was a unique haven for the rich and famous who wanted to indulge in Epstein's world, supposedly with the promise of secrecy and omerta (the Mafia 'code' for keeping quiet). He was found out and now everyone in his vast contacts book is being exposed. In a brilliant interview in The Times today between Peter Mandelson, former British ambassador to the US, and Katy Balls, Washington editor, the now-disgraced figure in the Epstein scandal gives a pretty good insight into how he got drawn into the Epstein world. He said he was invited to one of Epstein's famous dinner parties and found himself next to a brilliant brain surgeon, and opposite was Bill Gates, with Bill Clinton down the other end of the table. Power.and glamour and influence were on the menu. It doesn't excuse the appalling lack of judgement on the part of everyone who succumbed to Epstein's charms. But it should be a lesson for all power-chasing politicians and the like to take a step back when a seemingly engaging, island-owning charmer shakes your hand and invites you to a swanky dinner party. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, SEQUEL TO SHADOW LIVES. CHECK OUT AMAZON, WATERSTONES, AND ROWANVALE BOOKS

Is Greenland really important for Trump's Golden Dome?

Negotiations for an American take-over of Greenland have gone quiet. The threat of military action may have been abandoned, for the moment, but Trump still wants the largest island in the world. Much of the focus has been on his desire to grab the rare earth minerals buried under Greenland. But the priority reason has already been hinted at. Trump appears to have been told by the Pentagon that if he is to have his Golden Dome anti-missile system to protect the whole of the US, he must acquire Greenland to convert it into a huge anti-missile base, with interceptors in silos all over the island. Situated as it is on the edge of the Arctic, Greenland is in the perfect spot for intercepting hostile nuclear missiles coming from Russia, China or North Korea. These ballistic missiles, were they ever to be launched against the North American continent, would fly above the Earth over the North Pole. At present, there are silos with interceptors in Alaska and California, and there has been much discussion about installing some in New York State. But if the first layer of defence was established on Greenland, it would increase by a significant amount the ability to knock out enemy nukes aiming for the US. At present the US only has an early-warning missile installation site on northwest Greenland. Trump wants to take control of Greenland because he feels America can then do what it wants on the island to provide the sort of missile defence he hopes the Golden Dome will be able to guarantee. But in reality, with negotiations, there is probably a solution to Trump's massive military expansion plans for Greenland without grabbing its sovereignty at the same time. BUY MY NEW SPY THRILLER, AGENT REDRUTH. YOU WILL LOVE IT. CHECK OUT AMAZON, WATERSTONES AND ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Should Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor testify to US Congress?

On the face of it, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, former Prince Andrew and ex-Duke of York, should be willing to fly to the US and give whatever evidence he can to the Congressional committee examining the repercussions of the scandal surrounding the late disgraced sex trafficker and underage girl sex abuser Jeffry Epstein. The younger brother of King Charles knew Epstein over an extended period and has had a number of very revealing and totally inappropriate photos taken of him with young girls allegedly supplied by his friend Epstein. If he knows much more about Epstein, then for the sake of the young girl victims, should he not be obliged to appear before Congress and give the victims and their families further insight into the life of a man who appears to have trapped hundreds, if not thousands, of people into his web? The answer is more complex than that. What would actually be achieved by Andrew appearing before Congress. First of all, he would face humiliation. Congressional panels are known to be pretty harsh and unforgiving. Serve him right, some might argue, but Andrew has already been humiliated in the public's eyes. He agreed, unwisely, to be interviewed on camera in 2019 by Emily Maitlis from which he has never recovered. The King has removed all his titles. In the Royal Family he is now a nobody. He insists he never did anything wrong and whether that is to be believed or not, he is now a sorry figure. Humiliation enough in my view. Let him carry on his life out of the public view and somehow come to terms with his downfall. We don't need another public spectacle, this time in Washington, with the world's press listening and watching. The second reason for Andrew not to go Washington would be the further humiliation it would bring to the monarchy as a whole. Charles has done his best to sort out the scandals in his family, he has effectively consigned his brother to a life of no meaning. It would be devastating for the king to see his brother being torn apart by over-eager American lawmakers. I think enough's enough, and for that reason, Keir Starmer is totally wrong and discourteous to the monarch and the monarchy to call for Andrew to give evidence to Congress. Totally wrong.

Why is Israel still bombing Gaza?

There is no question that Hamas in Gaza is and will continue to violate the ceasefire agreed under the Trump three-phase deal. Israel has evidence that Hamas gunmen are carrying out activities that breach the conditions. However, why does the Israeli government feel it is necessary each time it spots a Hamas gunman emerging from an underground bunker to launch deadly airstrikes which kill a lot of people, gunmen and civilians. The strikes today have killed 28 people in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run health ministry in the territory. The figure is horrific, adding to the 73,000 Palestinians killed since the Israel Defence Forces launched strikes on Gaza following the massacre by Hamas on October 7 2023. Normally one would expect Hamas to exaggerate the death toll. But an Israeli official has now confirmed the Hamas figure of around 73,000. So 28 people probably did die today in the latest Israeli bombing raids. Collateral damage - that dreadful phrase - has been a huge factor in the war in Gaza. Women and children in their thousands have been killed. Hamas had no compunction about killing or kidnapping women, young or old. But Israel is a sophisticated military power with tremendous intelligence capabilities. So why are women and children in Gaza still being killed in what is supposed to be an official, internationally-recognised and mandated ceasefire?

China's very limited benevolence towards Britain

A big session between two leaders, whoever they are, is supposed to end up with lots of goodies for each to boast about when they go home. But following the end of Sir Keir Starmer's visit to China and face-to-face with President Xi Zinping, the diplomatic goodies agreed between them have been more like scattered crumbs for the British prime minister: a deal not to demand a visa for British visitors, the removal of tariffs on whisky and the lifting of sanctions on a few British parliamentarians. Not exactly a diplomatic triumph. Whereas for Xi, he can be more than satisfied with hosting visits in quick succession from Mark Carney, prime minister of Canada, President Emmanuel Macron of France and now Keir Starmer. All the visits to pay homage to Xi have already infuriated Donald Trump. That alone will give Xi a lot of satisfaction because China is fast catching up the US as a global military and economic superpower, and the more he can develop western trade and political partnerships, the better for the future of his country and the communist party which runs it. If Starmer has brought back from Beijing nothing more than free visas, sanctions-lifting for MPs, and cheaper whisky exports, then it looks like another historic diplomatic coup for Beijing.

To strike or not to strike? The big Iran question

Donald Trump promised Iranians on his Truth Social platform that help was on the way when thousands were being killed in the streets by a brutal, panicking regime. But did he mean regime-change by military force? Do the Iranian people want to get rid of the ayatollahs or do they just want a better economy so they can live a decent life? Trump things the regime is now weaker than ever, providing a perfect moment to strike hard and bring it down. But if this leads to a wider regional conflict, will the Iranian people be eternally grateful? Clearly not. No one in the region wants a wider war. Arab leaders have been appealing to Trump not to launch military action against Iran again. The last time, in June, the US and Israel did huge damage to the three nuclear facilities and it was all over very quickly, although Iran retaliated with limited ballistic-missile launches against Israel and Qatar and American bases in the region. This time,. if Trump goes ahead with an attack, using the recently-arrived USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group and other aircraft in the Gulf, Tehran has vowed to respond with a much bigger counter-attack. It might seem that Iran is in a weak position. Not just the nuclear sites are badly damaged, but persistent raids by Israel have decimated the country's air defences. But Iran still possesses a huge stock of ballistic missiles and, therefore, they pose a significant threat both to Israel and to American troops based in Iraq and elsewhere in the Gulf region. Also, if Tehran fears Trump's plan is to topple the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, then the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps which keeps him in power, will do everything it can to resist Trump's "armada" of warships sitting within targeting range. Trump has given Tehran an ultimatum: dismantle the whole nuclear programme, stop enriching uranium, hand over what has been enriched, and stop backing proxy militia (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis etc). If Tehran were to submit to these demands, it would be the greatest humiliation for the regime. So the chances of these ultimatums being met in total would seem to be unlikely. But Trump thinks now is the moment in histpry when the hateful, suppressive regime in Iran can be brought down. But Iran is not Venezuela. The likelihood of voluntary capitulation is remote. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, SEQUEL TO SHADOW LIVES. SEE AMAZON, WATERSTONES AND ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Surrender Donbas or no US security guarantee? Really?

I know Donald Trump is desperate to get a settlement to end the war in Ukraine - nothing wrong with that - but can it really be true that he has told poor Volodymyr Zelensky that unless he agrees to give away the whole of the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine to Russia, he won't get any American security guarantees to protect the country from future aggression? It sounds like the sort of ultimatum that the Trump administation might make, but the US has always stated, even under Trump, that Ukraine's sovereignty is a matter for Kyiv and its people and cannot be dictated by a third party. The story about the ultimatum in the Financial Times has been slammed by the White House as totally false. But I'm sure there are people in the US administration who have talked this sort of language. The question is, are these the people whose opinions have been accepted by Trump and have, therefore, become part of the Washington strategy for ending the war? There is no mention in Trump's 20-point plan for Kyiv to give up Donbas to Moscow. There IS a reference to the option of turning Donbas into a demilitarised zone which would mean the withdrawal of Ukrainian and Russian troops. But that is not the same as forcing Zelensky to surrender what Kyiv still controls in eastern Ukraine to the Russians, in return for a US blanket security guarantee for the future. What Zelensky wants is to get a security guarantee signed and sealed BEFORE he negotiates a settlement that might include some sort of concession over Donbas, but not, definitely not, giving Putin Donbas. But because all talks so far have failed to find a formula for ending the war because of the impasse over land, it might well be the case that some officials in Washington are beginning to think and say that the only possible solution is for Zelensky to give up Donbas. But is this the official line now adopted by Trump or just another controversial ingredient being played around with in Washington? Whatever it is, Zelensky's own political future rests upon him getting that US guarantee and NOT having to give up Donbas. So we are sort of back to square one.

Europe cannot defend itself without the US, says Mark Rutte

With all the hullabaloo about divisions between the US and Europe and the proliferation of commentaries about Europe needing to get on with defending itself and spending gazillions in order to do so, it is a relief to hear someone actually talking realistic sense. Mark Rutte, secretary general of Nato, has stated that Europe cannot defend itself without the might of American military power. He is right, never mind whatever so many so-called experts have been saying. Europe needs the US and the US needs Europe. Not just because there are US military bases all over Europe, including some with stored tactical nuclear weapons, but because the 77-year-old Nato alliance, with the US at its head, is the biggest deterrent to stop Russia and other potential malign nations from launching an attack on European nations. The US-led alliance is the only obstruction to adversaries such as Putin. Weaken the alliance, let alone, carve it up into little bits, would be disastrous for Europe and even more so for the future peace of the world. So, as Rutte says, there is no possibility that European governments can spend the sort of money required to stand up to a Russian invasion. They will for ever rely on the US. Europe of course should spend more on defence but it will never be the same without the American superpower. So, Nato has to survive and the US, under Donald Trump and whoever succeeds him, must always realise that we have to stand together. Talk of breaking away from the US and standing on our own feet here in Britain and elsewhere in Europe is an unrealistic and dangerous notion. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER - AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES.

The axeing of China's top military leader is huge!

General Zhang Youxia was a favoured son in the eyes of President Xi Zinping. He was vice chairman of the Central Military Commission which is headed by Xi, a combat veteran and a man who, when visiting the West, gave the impression of being superlatively confident that whatever he said or did he had the backing of his leader. Aged 75, he was already well past retirement but Xi wanted him to stay on. Now out of the blue the favoured son is out, finished, under investigation for corruption and who knows what else. The Chinese military hierarchy has been beset with corruption and Xi has made a point of trying to eliminate it for years. But Zhang was never before under suspicion, even though at one point in his career he was in charge of weapons procurement, a golden opportunity for bribery and corruption. There are all kinds of stories doing the rounds about why Zhang has been axed, one of them, reported by The Wall Street Journal, that he passed confidential secrets about China's nuclear weapons to the Americans. This all adds to the drama of the story but it seems beyond belief that a trusted military adviser to Xi would spill nuclear secrets to the US. Indeed, Jake Sullivan, Joe Biden's national security adviser and a very smart guy, told The New York Times that Zhang never revealed anything he shouldn't when they met and nuclear weapons were discussed. He said it was always in very general, broad terms, no secrets divulged. So what is it really about? The obvious anmswer is that Xi has begun to worry that Zhang was surrounding himself with more power than was appropriate and that, therefore, he posed a potential threat to Xi's leadership. Perhaps Taiwan is at the heart of it. Xi wants to take control of Taiwan by 2027, by whatever means, and Zhang, being a combat veteran in the war between China and Vietnam, has maybe been warning a military operation could not be completed without huge risks. We will never know the full story because this is China which likes to keep its secrets secret. But the sacking and imminent charging of Zhang is a mighty blow to the stability of the Xi leadership regime. BUY AND READ AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. CHECK IT OUT ON AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS OR WATERSTONES

No Ukraine war breakthrough in Abu Dhabi

It was a week of realpolitik Trump-style. Greenland sorted (kind of), Gaza, peace-boarded, Venezuela already in the bag, and then it was the turn of Ukraine and Russia. The whirlwind of tough-talking diplomacy had switched from Davos to Moscow to Abu Dhabi. Donald Trump might be back in the US but his special envoys, armed with the president’s formula for ending the war in Ukraine, were under orders to get a deal fixed to stop the killing and destruction as soon as possible.As the envoys from the US, Russia and Ukraine opened the talks on Friday evening in the capital of the United Arab Emirates, none of the pre-signalling indicated that a breakthrough was in the offing, although two days hde been allotted for the meetings, in the expectation that it wouldn't just be a round-robin of all the same familiar arguments. After the first trilateral talks since the invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, ended on the first day, the chief negotiator from Kyiv sounded relatively satisfied with the progress. Rustem Umerov, formerly the minister of defence, said the first session had focused “on the parameters for ending Russia’s war”. The aim of the talks, he said, was to progress towards “a dignified and lasting peace”. The diplomatic language didn’t fool President Zelensky who said it was too early to draw any conclusions. “The key is that Russia must be ready to end the war it started,” he said in a statement in Kyiv. Despite the cautious reactions, there was one new ingredient, and, as a result, the timing of the trilateral session could not have been more apposite. The announcement that Vladimir Putin had been invited to join Trump’s Board of Peace for Gaza ws surely a subtle – not a word normally associated with the US president – hint to the Russian leader that the invitation to involve him as a chosen head of state should come with a quid pro quo: compromise over Ukraine and stop the war. Until now, Putin has shown absolutely no inclination to consider moving one inch from his territoriaL demands. He wants the whole of the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine or there will be no ceasefire and no peace settlement. However, if this remains his position, Trump’s arm-twisting approach to diplomacy will suffer a serious setback. Abu Dhabi was not supposed to be just about “frank and useful” talking. Trump wanted it to be the start of proper deal-making. The presence of 64-year-old Admiral Igor Kostyukov, director of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian General Staff, (otherwise known as the GRU, responsible for some of the most outrageous assassination and sabotage operations overseas) woas ominous. However, the Trump factor at the talks was now more important than ever after the American president’s further attempt – in Davos - to bring Putin back into the international family of nations. Was Putin prepared for a quid pro quo? Steve Whitkoff, the all-action billionaire business friend of Trump’s, and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, spent hours on Thursday evening talking with Putin after flying to Moscow from Davos. Before he left Davos, Whitkoff commented: “We are at the end now.” Before then flying to Abu Dhabi, he sounded optimistic, summing up what was left to negotiate: “I think we’ve got it down to one issue, and we have discussed iterations of that issue, and that means it’s solvable.” The one issue, of course, is land. There is no obvious solution. Whitkoff’s use of the word “iteration” underlined the multiple attempts that have been made to find a territorial formula for the Donbas region which will satisfy both Putin and Zelensky. On the face of it, there is no possible solution when Putin wants the whole region to become Russian sovereignty, and Zelensky is desperate to hang onto the twelve per cent of Donbas still under the control of Ukrainian forces. Russia occupies almost all of Luhansk, one of two provinces in the region, and about three-quarters of Donetsk. In terms of real estate, Ukraine still controls and defends about 2,550 square miles of land in Donbas, including crucial stronghold, well-defended towns. The only solution to the land issue that has made sense is the idea that both parties would retreat from Donbas and turn the region into a demilitarised zone and convert it into a free economic area. It’s part of Trump’s revised 20-point plan for Ukraine. However, until now, Putin has stuck to his unmovable red line. He says Donbas must be handed to Russia, and he has rejected any thought of ordering his soldiers to withdraw from occupied territory, especially since his forces have made small but significant gains in recent months. As a consequence, Putin has more leverage than Zelensky. Which is why Putin’s negotiator in Abu Dhabi, the man from the GRU, arrived with no remit to offer Zelensky a white dove of peace. Sure enough, aftert the second day of talks, the only message that came out was "No breakthrough." PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, SEQUEL TO SHADOW LIVES, BOTH STARRING THE AWESOME REBECCA STRONG. AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS AND WATERSTONES.

Could Iran be next on Trump's list - again?

After the exhausting diplomacy bashing in Davos, Donald Trump will be looking elsewhere for some more foreign policy goals, and high on his list seems to be Iran. Again. Having neutered Iran's nukes last summer, and threatened more military action if the security forces in Iran didn't stop killings protesters, there are preparations already underway to place a military strike force in the region for possible further action. The aircraft carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln, should be arriving any day, along with escort warships, and fighter aircraft are being repositioned in the Gulf. There's talk of regime-change. The problem is, the killing of protesters has stopped, for the moment. So it's difficult to see the justification for further attacks on Iran, other than the general dislike of the regime and the wish, for the Iranian people, to give them a better and more humane government. Whatever the motivation, there is no question that, as Trump himself said, there is a US armada on the way and it must be for something. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES.

Zelensky makes a big mistake

Volodymyr Zelensky, president of Ukraine, has demonstrated to the world that he is a brave and resourceful leader at a time when his country is facing annihilation by Russia. He has travelled non-stop to the capitals of the world to seek support for his battle with Vladimir Putin. He has largely succeeded, winning huge financial backing and deliveries of weapons and munitions from the United States and Europe. Ukraine has survived so far, largely, at least initially, thanks to the coalition of countries who have backed him all the way. However, now after nearly four years of war, Zelensky appears to be exhausted and has begun to turn on his western allies, accusing the Europeans of weakness and failing to stand up sufficiently to the dangers of Putin and his ambitions. He needs to step carefully. Europe, like the US, has been slow on occasions in sending arms to Kyiv. But the western coalition behind him and his countrymen has stood strong against Putin's aggression. All the leaders have warned that the fight in Ukraine is a fight for the security of Europe as a whole. Zelensky needs Europe and the US and if he starts complaining about them, he could find himself on his own. Then the only winner will be Putin. We will get a sense of that when the meeting takes place today in Abu Dhabi between the US, Russia and Ukraine for the first time, examining what might be possible to end this terrible war. This is not the time for Zelensky to criticise Europe. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES.

Is the Greenland deal really settled?

Donald Trump has left Davos in Switzerland with the firm declared belief that diplomatic negotiations have now resolved the Greenland issue. He has compromised. He won't get the whole of Greenland for the US, but the American military on the huge ice-covered island in the Arctic will enjoy sovereignty on their bases, just like the British do on the two bases in Cyprus. It sounds like a brilliant arrangement. It has worked for Britain for over 65 years. The two bases in Cyprus are UK sovereign land - at Akrotiri and Dhekelia. The trouble is, Denmark which has total sovereignty over Greenland doesn't want to give it up, any of it, and that includes the US bases that are already on the island. So clearly there is still work to do. But I suspect the whole of Nato will be so desparate to appease Trump and prevent the alliance from collapsing around its ears that Denmark will come under sustained pressure to give in and allow Trump his little bits of sovereignty. Poor Denmark. But for the sake of the alliance's future existence, this compromise solution must surely be given the go ahead. There are soon going to be even bigger crises to resolve - eg Iran - so let's put the Greenland issue behind us, and that means Denmark smiling in semi-defeat.

Will the US military obey a Trump order to take Greenland?

Every American soldier is allowed a moral conscience under the US constitution. But the line between conscience and disobeying an order has become increasingly blurred under the current commander-in-chief. If President Trump were to order troops to invade and seize Greenland which is part of the Nato family, how would the top commanders react, and would the lower ranks stand fast against their leader? Under the 1951 Uniform Code of Military Justice, soldiers are obliged to refuse an illegal order. This goes back to the Nuremberg trials after the second world war when it was ruled that obeying orders to commit war crimes was not a defence in law. Could Trump’s chosen commanders, from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff down to the heads of the individual services, resign if ordered to seize Greenland? Theoretically, they could. But it would lead to such a constitutional upheaval, that, were Trump to get wind of it, even he might have second thoughts about attacking Greenland, a move that would be in direct violation of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty covering all members of the Nato alliance. However, it has long been the case that lawyers pore over the operational details of a planned military campaign to give commanders in the field the legal cover for taking action. Although a US military invasion of Greenland is deemed to be both unlikely and wholly unnecessary, a former American defence official said Justice Department lawyers would be studying whether there could be lawful justification “for mounting any form of coercive action against an ally”. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was “lawyered” and approved because of the perceived threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s suspected weapons of mass destruction. However, several American officials, military and diplomatic, resigned or retired early out of opposition. Operation Absolute Resolve, involving the seizure on January 3 of Venezuela’s then leader, President Nicolas Maduro, by the US Army’s Delta Wing commandos, was legally justified as a law-enforcement act to remove an accused drugs trafficker threatening the lives and security of the American people. No one resigned. However, there was one setback for the White House. Admiral Alvin Holsey who was commander of US Southern Command, responsible for Trump’s top-priority Western Hemisphere region, suddenly took early retirement after just one year in the job, and departed three weeks before Absolute Resolve was launched. He would have been in the loop about the plan to capture Maduro and bring him to New York for trial. As Trump was threatening to attack Venezuela, Senator Mark Kelly, a democrat from Arizona, was one of a group of fellow senators, all with military or intelligence careers behind them, who posted a video in November reminding service personnel that under their oath of enlistment they had to reject “illegal orders”. Both Trump and Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, condemned Kelly and other participants in the video. Hegseth described it as “seditious”. “There is nothing more American than standing up for the constitution, that’s what we were doing. The president didn’t like it, so now he calls for us to be hanged,” Kelly told CNN at the time. Kelly is now being investigated by the Pentagon for breaching codes of service as a former naval officer on a pension.

One helluva first year of Trump II

In exactly one year, Donald Trump has probably had more impact at home and on the world stage than any previous American president. Whether this will be seen as a good thing or bad thing we won't have too long to wait. The greatest disruption on the world stage has been the explosive, and in some senses, deteriorating relationship between the US underTrump and the whole of Europe and the whole of the Nato alliance. Everything is topsy turvy and unsettled and unsettling, with Trump accusing Europe of being weak and on the whole pretty useless. European leaders have no idea from day to day whether Trump is going to praise them and support them or criticise them and drop them. All his daily thoughts he puts on the Truth Social media platform and very often the remarks he makes about Europe or individual European nations is so scathing and rude, it's no longer funny. He seems to mean every word he says, until he changes his mind. Unpredictability is his watchword. But in the process he has managed to force the European members of Nato to spend more on defence, he has arranged for Europe to take over the Ukraine problem, he has sorted out Gaza after months of devastating Israeli bombing, he has tried his best to persuade Putin to stop the war with his neighbour and he has put the hateful and brutal Nicolas Maduro behind bars. Plus he has put the rest of the Western Hemisphere on notice that any one of them will be given the Venezuela treatment if they don't play ball and stop the drugs trails into the US. The Trump impact is staggering. He had Iran in his sights until the Tehran regime suddenly stopped killing people in the streets, and he is pursuing his determination to put Greenland under the Stars and Stripes flag. One way or another I think he will succeed, despite outrage and opposition from Europe. Yes, the first year has been Trump KAPOW year. BUY AND READ AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, SEQUEL TO SHADOW LIVES. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS

Putin to join the Gaza peace board?

It sounds outrageous. According to the Kremlin, President Putin has been asked by Trump to join the Board of Peace to oversee the transformation of Gaza. But it might just be a clever move. Involving Putin in peace rather than war might have an influence, even if a tiny amount, on his thinking about Ukraine, and agreeing to bring that war to an end as well. Was that Trump's thinking if it's true that he wants Putin on the overarching gboard of international leaders who will sit above all the other executive boards and committees which will attempt to provide Palestinians with a decent home to live in in Gaza, free of violence, free of Hamas and free of starvation. I doubt Putin will have to move from his desk in the Kremnlin to carry out his duties on the board of peace, it will all be done by video calls and video conference. But having the Russian leader on board could be interesting and potentially effective. But it's a gamble, something which Trump is good at. What is desperately needed is for these various boards to get stuck in as quickly as possible because right now in Gaza, there are still bombs dropping regularly from Israeli aistrikes against Hamas positions, and aid trucks bringing in food and shelter are being delayed getting across the border. Israeli forces still occupy about 50 per cent of the territory and the ceasefire is fragile to say the least because of infringements by both sides. So the peace board must get up and running, with or without Putin.

Donald Trump raises the stakes over Greenland

Now Donald Trump is actually threatening European allies over Greenland, not with war but with his favourite tool, trade tariffs - up by 25 per cent by June. He is aiming his tariffs at the UK, Denmark and others who have shown support for keeping Greenland under Denmark's wing. If anyone thought Trump was bluffing about wanting the US to take over Greenland, they will no longer be in doubt. He has decided that the huge island in its strategic location on the cusp of the Antarctic must be owned by the US for it to be defended properly against any threats of an invasion by Russia or China. If Russia or China genuinely have their eyes on Greenland, then Trump has an argument at least. Denmark won't be able to defend Greenland from a sudden surprise attack, nor will the other Nato countries who have sent a handful of troops to the island to demonstrate that the alliance can keep enemies at bay.I doubt it's a play by the Europeans which will impress or deter Trump. So will the tariffs work and force Denmark to give in and hand over Greenland? It looks unlikely but Trump is in a mood, after the successful regime-change operation in Venezeula, to move fast with the next country on his dream list of 2026 acquisitions - Greenland. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. I PROMISE YOU, YOU WILL LOVE IT.

CIA director in Caracas

It's amazing how things can change so dramatically. One moment the brutal Nicolas Maduro is in power in Venezuela, the next he is standing in a dock in a New York courtroom charged with drug-trafficking after being snatched from his compound home in Caracas by US special forces, and then John Ratcliffe, the CIA director is in town (Caracas) talking with the Donald Trumo-approved replacement for Maduro, his vice president, Delcy Rodriguez. All in a matter of two weeks. Ratcliffe was there yesterday (Thurs) and the two of them spoke about what was expected of her to get the country back to economic stability. She has already agreed to let US investment in to restore the oil industry and has released about 80 political prisoners, including some Americans. Washington and Caracas are in political, oil and diplomatic collaboration, and as a result, Ratcliffe is happy to fly into Caracas for a session with the new interim leader. The role of the CIA director is unique in US administrations, always used for the most sensitive of missions on behalf of the president. Ratcliffe has taken on the same super-envoy role carried out with such effect by Bill Burns, his predecessor in the Joe Biden era. Ratcliffe will know all of Delcy Rodriguez's secrets, including whatever skeletons she has in the cupboard, so the conversation they had together must have been fascinating. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES AND ROWANVALE BOOKS

Nato off to Greenland

Iran has been sorted - or so Donald Trump says - so now it's back to Greenland and the president's desire/intention to grab it for the sake of America's national security interests. Unsurprisingly, in a mini-summit yesterday between Denmark, the mothership of Greenland, and two US envoys, Marco Rubio, secretary of state, and JD Vance, vice president, the Danish government representatives came away from the meeting saying there was a huge divide between the parties. JD Vance, in particular, seems very bullish about Greenland becoming US property and hasn't much time for Danes who say:"Leave off, it's ours and has been for centuries." But the most interesting development was the decision by Nato to send troops to Greenland to bolster the island's forces and act as a sort of deterrent to the US which already has around 100 military personnel based at its missile early warning facility in the northwest. What a few dozen, or is it a few hundred, Nato troops exercising on the island can do to stop the US from grabbing it by military force, I can't imagine. Especially when you discover that the British government has decided to get involved and has sent ONE officer to join the party. One person, that's it. No one is going to be impressed by that, least of all, Trump who loves boasting that the US has the finest military in the world. After Operation Absolute Resolve in Venezuela and the snatching of President Nicolas Maduro, I don't think there can be many on the planet who can disagree with Trump. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER - AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS AND WATERSTONES

Trump's options for Iran

President Trump is said to be less bullish about the prospect of a strike on Iran than he was during its summer war with Israel. Over the last few days, however, he has been briefed on the options available to make good on his promise to come to the aid of the protesters facing a bloody crackdown from the regime. "He means what he says," explained the White House spokeswoman, Anna Kelly. Sources suggest that Trump's inner circle, including Marco Rubio, JD Vance and intelligence officials are presenting the president with options "without preference". But with US forces withdrawing from bases in the Middle East, there is growing certainty that he will act. The decision to strike could come down to an effective "coin flip" between the options available, a source told The Washington Post on Wednesday. There is pressure at home to reckon with, too. Many of Trump's Maga supporters do not favour entanglement in a foreign conflict, least of all in the Middle East. "We don’t care about making Iran great again," said Trump's advisor Steve Bannon. More than half of US adults, meanwhile, believe Trump has “gone too far” in using the US military to intervene in other countries, according to an AP-NORC poll. The scenarios currently being considered include military action, but also cyberattacks on the Iranian government’s infrastructure. Trump has a number of options, then, to make good on his promise that "help is on its way" for Iranians. These are the most likely. MILITARY OPTION. As yet, there is no obvious sign of a switch of US military assets to focus on the new crisis. The Middle East region comes under US Central Command which has given no confirmation of new orders from the White House. However, one of the military options already confirmed by the White House is airstrikes on key targets in Iran. The US has multiple choices for carrying out such attacks, not least B-2 Spirit bombers located at Whiteman air force base in Missouri. The B-2’s long-range capability, with or without midair refuelling, provides Trump with the most devastating airborne conventional weapon system in the world. B-2s took part in the attacks on Iran’s main nuclear sites in June, dropping 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs) on Fordo and Natanz uranium-enrichment facilities in Operation Midnight Hammer, without being detected by Iranian radars. While it’s unlikely the Pentagon would want to use up more of the limited supply of 30,000lb bunker-busting bombs, B-2s from Missouri, or potentially from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire if they were to be transferred to the UK, could be armed with the highly effective JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions). The question needs to be asked: what would airstrikes achieve in terms of bringing the Iranian regime’s slaughter of protesters to an end; and what regional repercussions could follow? With Iran’s ability to detect incoming aircraft or missiles dramatically degraded by Israeli air attacks in 2024 that destroyed many of Tehran’s advanced Russian S-300 air defense systems, the most obvious targets would include the headquarters of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, based in Tehran, and the network of command bunkers and communication sites which coordinate the IRGC’s military action against the protesters. Trump has also hinted in the past that he might decide to target the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who normally resides in the so-called Leadership House in Tehran’s district 11, although reports have suggested he has moved for his safety to an underground bunker in the northeast of the city. During the US strikes in June, Trump said he knew where Khamenei was hiding but held off from targeting him, “at least for now”. Any choice of target for airstrikes is bound to provoke retaliation against the 2,500 US troops based in Iraq or the 10,000 military personnel at Al Udeid airbase in Qatar. Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, has warned that Iran is ready for war with the US. Iran launched missiles against the Qatar base in June following the US strikes on nuclear facilities. A former senior US defence official highlighted one other possible option. “Seizing oil tankers bound from Iran could trigger a collapse of Iran’s economy. But it would take time, perhaps months.” CYBER OPTION. In collaboration with Israel the US has demonstrated offensive cyber capability to target Iran. In 2009, for example, a computer worm codenamed Stuxnet was inserted into the country's gas centrifuge system, vital for enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon, causing extensive damage. However, in the context of the current wave of protests, cyber operations, run by US Cyber Command, could be used to target Iran’s propaganda communications networks and the state-run media. “Cyber operations could also be targeted at Iran’s critical infrastructure, such as electrical power, energy pipelines and transportation systems,” the former US defence official said. Iran has cut off phone services and the internet to disrupt the ability of protest leaders to coordinate demonstrations. Trump has been in discussions with Elon Musk to get him to replace the internet system with the help of his Starlink satellite system. ESPIONAGE OPTION. The CIA and Israel’s Mossad intelligence service have “smuggling routes” into Iran which have been used in the past, particularly by Israeli agents. But covert espionage missions would be the most dangerous option because of the risk of being exposed. Mossad has a history of successful targeted assassinations against Iranian nuclear scientists. The US, under Trump in his first term, tracked and killed Qassem Soleimani, commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force in a drone attack outside Baghdad airport in Iraq on January 3, 2020. It was a joint CIA and special operations mission. Covert missions inside Iran would take months to plan. The Mossad, however, has claimed in recent days that its agents are among the demonstrators on the streets, writing in Farsi on social media: “Go out together into the streets. The time has come. We are with you. Not only from a distance and verbally. We are with you in the field.” DIPLOMACY OPTION. The White House says Iranian officials have been in touch to try and start negotiations but then, on Tuesday, Trump said he would no longer be discussing the crisis with representatives of Tehran amid the growing violence. “Given where we are at this point, I don’t see diplomacy having any more value than it would have in 1956 during the Hungarian uprising [the rebellion against Soviet control which led to Moscow sending in tanks to crush the protests],” the former defence official said. With Iran, however, there is alway the nuclear card. There is evidence that the Iranian authorities are attempting to repair and rebuild the damaged uranium-enrichment plants hit by the US B-2 bombers. Using the potential leverage of future US strikes on the key facilities, Trump could put maximum pressure on the Tehran regime finally to give up its suspected clandestine nuclear weapons programme in return for a partial lifting of sanctions. This could help to revive the economy and bring an end to the murderous confrontation between protesters and security authorities across the country. Trump has already imposed 25 per cent tariffs on all countries trading with Iran. But even tighter sanctions, effectively destroying the economy, would run the risk of accelerating the toll of deaths. Unless, of course, Trump’s overarching plan is not just to stop the killings but to engineer regime-change in which case all the above options could be deployed. BUY MY NEW SPY THRILLER AGENT REDRUTH WHICH HAS A STRONG RUSSIAN THEME. AMAZON, WATERSTONES AND ROWANVALE BOOKS

Are US military strikes on Iran the best option?

US presidents turning to the military to resolve a crisis abroad has become a familiar pattern. Every US president in recent memory has done just this; even Barack Obama became an enthusiast for sending off armed drones to kill terrorists, and attacked Isis in Syria with a long bombing campaign; Bill Clinton was fond of the Tomahawk option; George W Bush....well, he invaded Iraq. Joe Biden approved the fatal drone attack on Osama bin Laden's successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri; Trump Part One authorised the killing by drone of Qasem Soleimani, the commander of Iran's Quds Force, the overseas-operating arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps; Trump Part Two has already taken military action in Venezuela, Syria, Somalia, Iran and threatened action elsewhere. Now Trump has to decide whether there is a real point in striking at Iran to stop the killings of protesters in the streets. The Iranian regime, symbolised by the US-hating Supreme Leader Ayatollah al-Khameini, looks like it is nearing the end of its time. Would a few US missile strikes help the regime on its way or give renewed determination to face up to the US, and fight back with retaliatory attacks on US forces in the Middle East, like they did many times in the past? Maybe the regime is doomed even without a push from the US. But for that to happen, the whole of the huge security apparatus in Iran would have to collapse. It's difficult to imagine that happening. So pressure from the US, military or otherwise, looks inevitable.

How can Trump stop the killings in Iran?

The killings in the streets of Iranian cities are continuing. More than 500 protesters shot dead by security forces aiming to kill. It's a shocking scene which we have witnessed many times over the years. This is dictatorship repression on an alarming scale. What can Donald Trump do to stop it? He has promised to intervene. But what would be the point of just bombing Iranian military sites? That would just kill more people, albeit not innocent civilians in the streets. What it would do is provoke Iran to retaliate by sending missiles against American troops in the Middle East. War, war, more war. Now the ayatollahs have offered to negotiate with Washington. I don't know what that means. How can you negotiate about killing people who are protesting about the loathsome regime which is ruining their lives? Certainly, there is nothing that Trump can give them in return for stopping the daily murders. That won't solve anything. It's a dilemma for Trump and his national security team. But right now, what happens next in Iran is more important than the future of Greenland, Cuba, Colombia, Venezuela etc. Perhaps the only solution is for the ayatollahs and Trump to get together and bash out a no-nukes guarantee and dismantling of all uranium-enrichment plants (what's left after last June's US and Israeli bombing) in return for a partial lifting of sanctions So then the economy of the country can improve, and thus stop the reason for the protests. That would be something worth negotiating. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES ETC.