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.

Could this be the end of the ayatollahs in Iran?

Mass nationwide protests in Iran will go one of two ways: total political upheaval in which the ayatollahs will be forced out or the protesors will be increasingly slaughtered by the security forces and the demonstrations will die in the blood-flowing streets. The latter is the more likely because of the Supreme Leader's determination to stay in power and his hatred for the United States whom he blames for stirring up the revolutionary display by the people. It's easy for Tehran to blame the US and particularly Donald Trump for what is going on across Iran. Blame the West. It's the instinctive accusation of the ayatollahs. But the truth is, Iran has been destroyed by the regime, just as Nicolas Maduro destroyed the Venezuelan economy. The population of Iran has had enough of falling living stndards, rising costs and regime repression. A significant proportion of Iran's population are young and they are disillusioned and have been for years. They want change, and right now they are dying in the streets for what they see as a fight for freedom.Trump has warned that the US will intervene if protestors are killed. No one knows what that means. But more than 60 people have died so far at the hands of armed security police and there is no sign of what Trump has in mind. At some point, the protests could well drive the regime's gun-toting security forces to even harsher retaliation, obligating Trump to take some form of action. But it is hard to see what even the mighty US can do to stop the killings. The people of Iran are really on their own and it is their bravery and sacrifice which might, just might bring down the regime that hate so much. PLEASE BUY AND READ AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. YOU WILL LOVE IT. (Amazon and Waterstones)

The CIA director with Trump's ear

Back when John Ratcliffe was taking his first major step towards Langley and the wood-panelled office of the CIA director, he had a roll call of people to thank. There was his family: his wife, Michele, their daughters, Riley and Darby, his mother, Kathie, and late father, Rober, both public school teachers, and his five siblings. And there was President Trump. After Trump controversially elevated the freshman Texas congressman to a cabinet position as his director of National Intelligence in 2019, Ratcliffe said it was September 11 that had prompted his call to public life, giving up a successful career as a lawyer. “It inspired me to take stock of all the gifts that I had been given and what I might contribute to the defence of this great nation.” His contribution would soon become clear. The Central Intelligence Agency, once described by Trump as “disgraceful”, employing “sick people” who spread fake news, is back in favour with the White House. And Ratcliffe’s role in its resurgence comes as little surprise to agency insiders. With little national security experience Ratcliffe, now 60, was a divisive pick for the nation’s top intelligence adviser in Trump’s first term. He was instructed to “rein in” the “deep state” intelligence agencies that, Trump claimed, had “run amok” and were stymying his agenda. He was also picked, according to sources at the time, because he would be prepared to break the modus operandi of America’s spies. After the spectacular tactical success of Operation Absolute Resolve, ending with the capture of Nicolás Maduro and his wife from their compound in Caracas, Trump’s tune has changed on the agency: he lavished praise on the clandestine CIA officers who laid the intelligence groundwork for the raid on the Venezuelan capital. Even John Brennan, the CIA director in the Obama administration who described the seizure of Maduro as “vigilante justice”, had to concede that the operation was faultless. Under Ratcliffe the agency has emerged from years of what critics described as risk-averse and diversity-obsessed management to be devoted more than ever to aggressive covert action to meet the demands of a commander-in-chief who wants instant results. In his first term Trump railed against the intelligence services and ignored his detailed CIA briefings, preferring to trust his own instincts. Ratcliffe has made the CIA less risk-averse and more willing to conduct covert action when ordered by the president, going, as he said, “places no one else can go and doing things no one else can do”. It is a reversion to the muscular covert intervention that became so familiar in the 1970s and 1980s when the presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan occupied the White House. Perhaps Maduro should have seen it coming. Back in October, after Trump authorised spies to start work in Venezuela, he attacked the CIA. “Peace must prevail,” Maduro said before his capture. He continued: “No to regime change, which reminds us so much of the failed wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. No to coups d’état carried out by the CIA like those in Chile and Argentina. Until when will CIA coups d’état continue? Latin America doesn’t want them, doesn’t need them, and repudiates them.” As a result of this promised robust approach, the CIA has worked its way back up to the top of the intelligence tree in Trump’s eyes. As one veteran US defence official said: “It does seem significant that Ratcliffe has played a major role [in the Venezuela operation] while his ostensible superior, Tulsi Gabbard, director national intelligence, is nowhere to be seen.” Gabbard, observers said, may be paying the price for having told a conference in Bahrain in October — at the same time that the CIA, and in particular its special activities centre, was taking active “covert action” towards Maduro’s removal — that the days of regime change were over. On Thursday JD Vance, the vice-president, denied that Gabbard had been “kept out of the planning” for the Venezuela operation. Even declaring that covert action was afoot, as Trump did, was groundbreaking in intelligence circles where this is usually carried out in the greatest secrecy. The CIA team dutifully carried out an armed drone attack on a port facility in Venezuela supposedly used by drug traffickers. But that was a distraction. The real mission lay in the hands of undercover spies whose role was to build a “pattern of life” picture of Maduro’s comings and goings. They were fed images transmitted to their laptops from a US air force spy drone operating from 50,000ft. Particular attention was given to where Maduro was bedding down for the night because the plan was for special forces to capture him in his pyjamas. A spy in the camp, recruited by the CIA, provided invaluable confirmation of Maduro’s sleeping arrangements. President Nixon issued a covert action edict in the 1970s for the CIA to effect the overthrow of Salvador Allende, the socialist president of Chile, because of fears he would align himself with the Soviet Union. It was classic regime-change skulduggery and it succeeded. Allende was overthrown in a military coup, engineered by the men from Langley, and General Pinochet took over. He governed as a ruthless dictator for 17 years, an ally to the US but a brutal leader for the Chilean people. This style of action suits Trump as he threatens to pursue the military option in other areas, notably Colombia, Mexico and possibly Greenland. However, there was a notable difference with Operation Absolute Resolve. CIA analysts spent months trying to work out who would best serve US interests after Maduro had been removed. “Our analysis ship was firing on all cylinders,” one US official familiar with the debate said. “The power of our analysis was a decisive factor in the decision [by Trump] to engage with the Venezuelan vice-president [Delcy Rodriguez].” Crucial, too, was the close relationship between Trump and Ratcliffe. The CIA director spends a lot of time in the White House and has the ear of the president. As a result the CIA remains in Trump’s good books. This is in contrast to the Pentagon’s Defence Intelligence Agency, which rattled a few cages when it wrote a report, subsequently leaked, claiming that the US B-2 bomber strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in June had only managed peripheral damage. Trump memorably claimed that the nuclear facilities, above and below ground, had been “obliterated”. Since Ratcliffe’s arrival, the special activities centre, responsible for the most aggressive form of intelligence-gathering and undercover missions, has been busier than ever, sources say. The robust approach to human intelligence, according to one US official, has been earmarked not just for the western hemisphere but also China. In an internal CIA memo handed to Fox News in April and confirmed to The Times by an intelligence official, Ratcliffe wrote: “No adversary in the history of our nation has presented a more formidable challenge or a more capable strategic competitor than the Chinese Communist Party.” The CIA, he pledged, would respond to the threats posed by China “with urgency, creativity and grit”. To meet the rapidly increasing demands on the CIA and the other intelligence services, there will be pressure on Congress to approve a significantly bigger budget for the spooks. Its annual budget remains classified, but it is financed from the overall national intelligence programme, which costs more than $73 billion at present. PLESE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. SEE AMAZON, WATERSTONES. ROWANVALE BOOKS

Can Europe stand up to Trump?

At some point Europe is going to have to do more than flatter Trump and plead with him not to do anything to disrupt or damage the Transatlantic alliance. Trump's threat to take over Greenland is now the gravest issue for Europe and the US to sort out. Obviously there is not going to be a war over Greenland. Stephen Miller, the very outspoken White House deputy chief of staff and Trump loyalist extraordinaire, has made it clear that no one can stop the US from seizing Greenland. He's right of course, but I doubt even Miller believes it's the right option: military action against poor old Greenland which has a population of 57,000, none of whom are in military uniform. They rely on the huge Danish army of 9,000 soldiers to protect them. So, there absolutely won't be a war over Greenland, let alone a military confrontation between the US and Denmark, both founding members of Nato. But with the option of force as maximum leverage, will Denmark just cave in and let Trump have his way? Next week Marco Rubio, US secretary of state and possibly the busiest man on the planet right now, is going to Denmark to lay out the options they face, all of which will end up with Greenland becoming American or more American than it currently is, with the US base in the northwest tip. If Denmark sends Rubio back to Washington with a flea in his ear, Trump could get angry. This is when Europe as a whole and Nato specifically must group together in the strongest possible way and tell Washington Greenland stays as it is, but please expand the base you already have if you want. And maybe, have mining rights for the rare earth minerals which he wants. But no way will it become an annexe of the US. That's it. Will Europe have the gumption? PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES ETC.

All action on the high seas

Two oil tankers seized in the North Atlantic by US military and with the help of British forces. It's just action, action, action these days. One of the tankers was Russian-flagged but it hasn't led to threats from Moscow, just appeals for the safe return of Russian crew members. The seizing of the tankers is part of the move against all shipping attempting to break international sanctions. The US had already stopped tankers coming out of Venezuela, as the huge armada of US warships, headed by the supercarrier USS Gerald R Ford maintains a blockade of the country. No wonder the new interim leader, Delcy Rodriguez, has little option but to do as Trump wants and to carry out his orders which, for the moment, focuses on handing over Venezuelan oil partly for US financial benefit. Trump has said the money from the sale of Venezuelan oil will go to the US and to the Venezuelan people. So far, this extraordinary arrangement between the US and Venezuela has not led to any sort of violence or protests in the streets of Caracas. The people who have suffered for so long under Maduro's corrupt regime must be hoping and praying that their future now looks more optimistic. It will be up to Trump and his non-stop secretary of state, Marco Rubio, to make sure the Venezuelan people are not let down. They are used to that, thanks to Maduro and his cronies.

Is Greenland really next in line?

Greenland is roughly nine times bigger than the UK but 80 per cent of it is covered in ice. But Donald Trump wants all of it. He wants to replace Denmark's centuries' old "ownership" of Greenland and put the Stars and Stripes flag on it. After the military spectacular in Caracas at the weekend, anything is possible, and Greenland is right to feel worried. Trump wants the island, as he says, for US national security reasons. It is perched on the Arctic Circle, strategically placed on the globe to give the US a perfect view of what potential enemies, China and Rusxsia, might be up to. The thing is, the US already has a huge base in the northwest of Greenland at a place called Pituffik, formerly Thule. It's an early warning station for missile attacks. The US has jurusdictional rights at the base. But Trump wants more. He wants to annexe Greenland so that he can put in a lot more military hardware - presumably anti-ship missiles. Plus the island has huge reserves of rare earth minerals which he needs to mine for America's weapons technologies. Right now, China dominates in the rare earth minerals world. So it makes sense to start mining the largely untapped minerals buried under Greenland. There are also believed to be vast untapped oil deposits. But the Greenland government hasn't made a move to mine for oil or for the rare minerals for environmental reasons. Trump pooh poohs that sort of ideological thinking. So can he just send a naval armada to Greenland and grab it without doing untold damage to the Nato alliance? Greenland, being kind of attached to Denmark, is covered by Nato's Article 5 protection guarantees. So, Nato fights Nato's leader, the United States of America? Well, of course not but you see the problem. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. CHECK AMAZON.

Was the capture of Maduro legally justified?

To many countries, including I suspect the Labour government in the UK, the US military operation authorised by Donald Trump to seize Nicolas Maduro and bring him to justice in New York was illegal and in breach of pretty much everything to do with international law. But if you are a lawyer given the task of putting legal weight behind Operation Absolute Resolve, then I guess you would argue that Maduro, if he is linked inextricably with the worst drug gangsters in Venezuela as the White House claims, posed a threat to the prosperity and happiness of the people of the United States because they are being tempted to take and become addicted to the drugs coming out of Venezuela. It's a fairly tortuous argument but it could be made. Maduro himself did not pose a threat to the US homeland, either militarily or economically but Maduro plus drug traffickers could at a stretch be viewed as causing instability and risk and ill health and death in the United States as a result of the smuggled drugs. Few judges would give time for this argument. But Trump has stated in his national security strategy that the Western Hemisphere is his top priority because it is in America's backyard, and, therefore, anything in Venezuela or Colombia or Peru etc, that disturbs the stability and prosperity of the United States is seen as a legitimate target for action, military or diplomatic. Again, it's a stretch but it's an argument. There is a good chance that Venezuela will become a better place for its suffering people without Maduro at the helm. That's probably Trump's best argument. But he hasn't made this his reason for sending in such a mighty military force to capture Maduro and his wife, who now look very sorry figures in handcuffs and the likelihood of a long prison sentence.

Astonishing military operation to capture Maduro

Donald Trump was right. There is no other military power on the planet which could have done what the American special forces et al did to capture Nicolas Maduro from his stronghokd compound in Caracas. The details that have emerged from Trump and from General Dan Caine, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, are mindboggling. For the capture of one man and his wife, the US military used 150 aircraft/helicopters/drones, warships galore and the most elite US Army special forces unit, the famed Delta Force, modelled, incidentally, on the SAS. Maduro's Cuban bodyguards and loyal army were totally blitzed with surprise, and before they knew what was happening, their president had been grabbed, whisked out by helicopter and taken to the USS Iowa Jima amphibious assault ship off Venezuela. Casualties on the US side? One soldier with minor gunshot injuries and a damaged helicopter which was still able to fly back to its ship safely. Sensational. Operation Absolute Resolve was a total success, as far as military missions are concerned. China has condemned the "illegal" intervention but then Beijing loses out more than most, apart from Maduro. Venezuela is in hock to China and sells most of its oil at a ridiculously cheap rate to China. So, now with Trump pledging to take over the oil industry in Venezuela with US money and oil companies' expertise, China is going to be pushed out. This was obviously one of Trump's principal objectives. But in the meantime, the White House will be glowing with pride that the US has proved yet again that its military are the finest in the business. China has been forced to take note. Rather than being given carte blanche to intervene in Taiwan, Beijing will now be fearful of how Trump might respond. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, A PAPERBACK. SEE ON AMAZON BOOKS.

Trump seizes Maduro but now what?

The US capture of Nicolas Maduro, the leader of Venezuela, was brilliantly executed by special forces but also raised serious questions about the legality of such a dramatic intervention. After the huge build-up of US naval power in the region over the last five months, there had been widespread speculation that President Donald Trump's main objective was regime-change in Caracas. Ever since coming to power in 2015, following the death of Hugo Chavez, Maduro has systematically destroyed the Venezuelan economy, despite the existence of huge oil reserves which should have made the country rich and prosperous. But it was the cultivation of drugs, much of it smuggled into the US and Europe, and the use of Venezuela as a major transport route for cocaine from Colombia and Peru which was finally to seal Maduro's fate. Maduro himself was indicted by the US as a drug trafficker in October, 2020, accused of "narco-terrorism" and conspiracy to import cocaine to the US. There was a price on his head of $50 million. Now, after his and his wife's capture, both have been further indicted and will be put through the US courts. His whereabouts was not given after his capture, but it's most likely he and his wife were taken to one of the many US warships currently off Venezuela. When Osama bin Laden, founder of the al-Qaeda terrorist group, was shot dead by US Navy Seals in Pakistan in 2011, his body was flown to the aircraft carrier, USS Carl Vinson, and then buried at sea in a Muslim ceremony. So there is a precedent for using a warship as a holding point. The repercussions for the US seizure of Maduro will be felt for months. But, again, there are precedents. President George HW Bush authorised a similar operation when thousands of troops were sent to Panama in December 1989 to find and capture General Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian dictator, who, like Maduro, had been indicted as a drugs baron. Noriega surrended to US forces in January 1990 and was flown out to stand trial in the US. The US goal on that occasion was not just to arrest Noriega but also to restore democracy to Panama. Is that what Trump wants for Venezuela? Maduro has never been accepted by Washington as the legitimate leader of Venezuela, accusing the Caracas regime of falsifying elections to ensure he remained in power. The enforced end of Maduro's brutal and corrupt leadership of Venezuela may have caused shockwaves across South America. But if the result is a more stable, genuinely democratic country in which the people of Venezuela can prosper and feel safe, then the violence of Maduro's capture may well be seen as justified, despite accusations of unlawful intervention by the US military.

What is Trump's plan for Venezuela?

The US military build-up off Venezuela has been going on for nearly five months but the Trump administration’s strategy is still unclear. The most dramatic development came last week when it was reported that the CIA had carried out a drone attack on a port facility in early December. The target was an installation suspected of storing drugs for shipment to the US. It was the first time the US military had struck a target inside Venezuela and marked a significant stepping up of pressure on the regime of Nicolas Maduro in Caracas. Although Maduro did not confirm the attack, his offer to the US to talk about drugs and oil and any other issue suggested the Venezuelan president had been rattled by the CIA strike. Trump has threatened recently that he might give the go ahead for land attacks in Venezuela. Until the reported CIA drone strike, the US Navy operating in the Caribbean had been targeting suspected drug-trafficking boats coming out of Venezuela. So far about 35 boats have been destroyed, killing 115 people. The US Navy and IS Coast Guard have also been engaged in imposing a blockade to stop oil tankers breaching international sanctions. Will the offer by Maduro for talks with the US lead to a reduction in tension in the region, or will Trump ignore him and launch the threatened land strikes? With little sign of a breakthrough in the negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, it seems likely that the Trump administration will continue to pursue a tough line with Maduro in the hope of achieving a diplomatic victory against a leader condemned by Washington as a drug baron. It would appear Trump’s main objective is to force Maduro to step down and go into exile. But for that to happen, Trump would probably have to authorise a substantially increased level of military action against Venezuela; and, so far, apart from the CIA drone strike on the port facility, the president has not made use of the awesome firepower at his disposal off Venezuela. Until now the use of force has been relatively modest: drone attacks on the suspected drug-trafficking boats and the CIA’s covert mission. A much larger show of force, deploying the ground-attack fighter jets on the carrier, USS Gerald R Ford, and possibly Marines on the amphibious warships in the region, would effectively be a statement of war against the Venezuelan regime. There is no evidence at the moment that Trump wants to go that far which is why the offer of talks by Maduro might just lower the tension and raise hopes of some sort of deal without the US having to resort to war. In many ways it would be an ill omen if 2026 were to start with a new war involving the US, particularly since Trump has emphasised his desire to avoid wars. It would be an awesome achievement for this new year if the Trump administration could avoid a war in Venezuela, bring the war in Ukraine to an end and ensure the next phase of the ceasefire deal in Gaza, with the disarming of Hamas and the start of a reconstruction programme in the long-suffering Palestinian territory. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. I PROMISE YOU, YOU WILL LOVE IT. GO TO AMAZON OR WATERSTONES.

Putin's residence was not attacked by drones, says CIA

The CIA apparently has backed up Volodymyr Zelensky's insistence that Ukraine did NOT attack Putin's residence in northwest Russia with 91 drones. Putin continues to say that he is reviewing his peace/war plans for Ukraine as a result of the alleged attack. One presumes that the CIA has had a chance to check all the satellite pics of activity around the Putin home in Novgorod and has seen no evidence of a mass of drones being shot down by Russian air defences. The state residence is surrounded by air defence systems. The Russians have even claimed they have found destroyed drones on the ground. But, again, there is no proof of any deliberate attack on the large house. However, the damage has been done which is exactly what Putin wanted when he rang Trump to tell him about the so-called drone attack and got the satisfaction of seeing the US president react with anger when he was questioned by reporters. Putin is very clever at this sort of false information stuff. Red flags, it's called. The CIA of course hasn't come out officially to deny Putin's home was attacked, but helpful officials have leaked it to US newspapers. So, assuming it's true, we now wait for Trump to denounce Putin for putting out lies. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER WHICH HAS A STRONG RUSSIAN THEME. YOU WILL LOVE IT. CHECK IT OUT ON AMAZON