Starmer boosts defence spending but is it enough?

Keir Starmer has only got another 20 days or so as British prime minister before he "voluntarily" steps down and hands over to Andy Burnham. But he has managed to find the time to publish, at last, the defence investment plan to fund the armed forces and modernise their equipment for future wars. It has taken a long time and he has persuaded the Treasury to hand over an extra £15 billion to help build a new class of warship which will be a mother ship for drones, plus some additional vessels for the Royal Marines and a fancy new combat aircraft that will fly alongside unmanned air veihcles. Yes, more drones. The Ukraine war has taught the whole world that warfare is now different. Forget tanks and traditional warships, the requirement is for drones, drones, drones, whether in the air, on land or on the water or under the water. Thousands of them are needed to fight off Russia in the future. The problem is that drones are not the answer to everything. When it comes to big military powers like Russia, they have hypersonic ballistic and cruise missiles and if the UK doesn't have the most advanced air-defence systems, we would be crushed in a war. The UK should be buying US Patriot missiles and parking them around the country if we want to be safe from Russian missile attack. Drones are great, they are more potent than in the past, they have longer ranges and can be guided to hit targets spot on. But we need so much more than drones to stay ahead of our enemies. And this is where the extra money is going to seem paltry by the time it has been spent on new fancy drones. With the UK economy drifting like a slow-moving barge, it's difficult to see where all the money for defence is going to come from. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS, AMAZON.

The challenges at America's top spy agency

The al-Qaeda terrorist attack against the United States on September 11, 2001, was one of the biggest intelligence failures of all time, which might have been avoided if America’s spy agencies had worked more cohesively. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was created in the aftermath of 9/11 to learn that painful lesson, and ensure that every one of America’s 18 intelligence agencies coordinates and cooperates with each other. But now this overseer of spooks - from FBI agents to military intelligence - is under attack by the Trump administration, senior Congress politicians and long-serving intelligence officers have warned. They are alarmed over the appointment of a new acting director for the ODNI who, before he took over the reins on June 19, had never had any experience of the secret spying world. The relatively-unknown Bill Pulte, a Trump loyalist, is head of the government’s federal housing finance regulator. He will be keeping that job, too, while joining the cabinet in his new senior intelligence role. Pulte, 38, arrived at the ODNI office at 1500 Tysons McLean Drive, Virginia, just outside the Washington DC border, with a list of names to be chopped, and his role appears to be to cut, cut, cut. The apparently arbitrary nature of the job losses has raised questions over whether the ODNI will be so undermined as to be ineffective, or whether it survives at all. The ODNI was set up by President George W Bush in April 2005, after the excoriatingly thorough inquiries that followed the 9/11 attacks. The investigations found that vital clues to Osama bin Laden’s plot to train terrorists in Florida to fly Boeing airliners and launch them like cruise missiles into the Twin Towers and Pentagon had been picked up by the FBI. Likewise, the CIA obtained covertly-acquired information - but the two threads were not connected in time. The ODNI has gone through many variations. It expanded to about 1,660 personnel, became too bureaucratic and has continued to rival the CIA for winning the ear of the president. But after the 9/11 catastrophe, most members of the US intelligence community would concede that a DNI remains an important post. But not if it’s filled by a man with no clue about intelligence matters. A former long-serving CIA officer told The Times: “I do think this an effort to, at the very least, significantly scale down the size of ODNI. Frankly, that’s not entirely a bad thing. It has ballooned in ways that was never intended since 2005. “The question is how they do it — will they go about it strategically or with a sledgehammer? There’s no question that we need a DNI, but a more tailored and rightsized ODNI wouldn’t be a bad thing at all.” A more alarmist interpretation of Pulte’s appointment as intelligence chief was delivered by Senator Mark Warner, Democratic vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, and Representative Jim Himes, Democratic ranking member of the House intelligence committee. “We are concerned that your record as director of the federal housing finance agency demonstrates a willingness to misuse your position, including your access to sensitive information, to pursue President Trump’s perceived political enemies and further his retributive political agenda,” they wrote in a letter to Pulte. They also warned that further job cuts (in addition to the 500 losses announced under Tulsi Gabbard who resigned from the DNI post last month) would “risk jeopardising the mission of an organisation explicitly created after 9/11 to prevent any future such terrorist attack”. The shake-up at the ODNI comes as Trump has repeatedly shown that, rather than listen to the advice of his own intelligence agencies, he prefers to operate on gut instinct and on occasions to seek the views of non-US spy chiefs who have their own particular furrow to plough. The classic example of this was in February, before the war with Iran. Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, appeared with David Barnea, the head of the Mossad spy agency, a video screen during a national security meeting in the White House’s basement “situation room” and predicted that airstrikes would bring down the regime in Tehran and lead to a popular uprising. A day later, American intelligence analysts had interrogated the claims. John Ratcliffe, the director of the CIA, described the Israelis’ regime change scenarios as “farcical” while Marco Rubio, secretary of state and national security adviser, agreed they were “bullshit”, according to the New York Times. But Trump appeared to trust Netanyahu and Mossad more than the CIA’s own assessments, and the Israelis were proved wrong: Operation Epic Fury, the war started on February 28, did not create a revolution. Similarly, the White House was furious after leaked intelligence reports suggested that last year’s US-Israeli strikes on Iran had only set back Iran’s nuclear programme by a few months, rather than completely “obliterating” it, as the President had boasted. Former senior officials with long experience of working with the US intelligence community fear that Pulte’s appointment is part of Trump’s long-running battle with the alleged “deep state”. They shared the concerns expressed by Senator Warner and his House colleague over the the acting director’s qualifications and motivations. “I would say that there are arguments that the DNI experiment led to some bureaucratic bloating and the DNI was never given control over IC [intelligence community] budgets that would have allowed the occupants of the office to really oversee the entire IC as many hoped would be the case,” one former senior official said. “But whatever the arguments may be for reform, putting someone like Pulte in charge who has no knowledge of or experience with intelligence, not only violates the spirit but the letter of the law. “Even more troubling is the fact that Pulte is there to execute Trump’s retribution agenda against the alleged ‘deep state’ who drew attention to the extraordinarily unusual array of contacts between Trump’s 2016 campaign and envoys of Russia’s government. It is a gross politicisation of the intelligence structures and endangers US national security.” Trump has also tasked Pulte with investigating “rigged elections” as part of his intelligence agency role. Last week the acting director was reported to have installed a woman who worked on election monitoring for the Republican National Committee, as his chief of staff, raising further criticism. Senator Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, remarked that Pulte’s office was supposed to be countering foreign threats, not importing “election denialism into the intelligence community.” Pulte’s tenure is expected to be temporary. Trump has nominated Jay Clayton, a federal prosecutor in New York, to be Gabbard’s permanent replacement. Clayton, 59, a former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and veteran Trump Administration official, is at least a more conventional choice for the role. “Few people anywhere in the Legal Community are respected at the level of Jay,” Trump said earlier this month in a Truth Social post announcing his pick. “I encourage the United States Senate to confirm Jay as soon as possible.” However an attempt by Democrats to speed up Clayton’s appointment before Pulte could begin work was also derailed by the president. As part of a political tug of war with his critics, Trump demanded that the Senate hold hearings to confirm Clayton’s replacement as US Attorney for the Southern District of New York before they interviewed him for the post of Director of National Intelligence. The question being raised on Capitol Hill is: how much damage can Pulte do as acting director before Clayton’s appointment comes up for confirmation by the Senate? PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS

Does anyone care about North Korea?

The whole world goes crazy with wars, unbelievable heatwaves, earthquakes etc etc and all while these things are going on, North Korea just keeps on building more missiles, more warheads, more artillery, and MORE NUKES. No one cares. No one is dashing off to the UN Security Council to demand resolutions, no one is going to Beijing to demand Xi Zinping restrain Kim Kong-un, the North Korean leader, there are no headlines in any newspaper warning North Korea could blast us all to kingdom come. All we get are news stories showing Kim Jong-un standing around watching the latest firing of something or other aimed at destroying South Korea or the US or wherever. No one cares. Well, I'm sure South Korea cares but no one else seems to worry about it. It's one of the most extraordinary facts of life in this mad world, that one individual leader can get away with building a massibe nuclear and conventional force without anyone batting an eyelide, apart from continuing with sanctions which make no difference to the lifestyle of the leader sitting in his palace in Panmunjon.

Trump doesn't want to see Andy Burnham

Donald Trump probably thinks Britain has now gone down the tubes so far he doesn't even have to bother talking to whoever is in 10 Downing Street. Initially it was Keir Starmer and that was bad enough in his eyes, although he did say Starmer seemed a nice guy. But now Starmer is about to exit from Downing Street, thanks to his back-stabbing and chest-stabbing cabinet colleagues, and there will be a new bloke in Downing Street whom Trump has clearly never heard of. He called him a town mayor. And liberal, ie socialist. So he made clear in chats with reporters in the Oval Office that he didn't expect or want to see Burnham in the White House. He could make his first trip abroad as prime minister to Guatemala for all he cares. He didn't say that. I said it. But that's what he is implying. So, not a good start for this town mayor who is to become prime minister without a fight on July 18. What a farce. Certainly we voters didn't vote for Burnham. We had nothing to do with it. It's all down to the Labour party mafia who killed their leader and went for someone with a bigger smile and flashier glasses. Trump will probably have to meet with Burnham at some point but it ain't going to be soon. In fact, Burnham has suggested his first trip abroad might be to Israel to face up to Benjamin Netanyahu. Good luck with that, Andy.

Who to believe, the US or Iran, over the negotiations?

Ever since the negotiations between the US and Iran began, whether directly or through intermediaries (Pakistan, Qatar), we have seen conflicting reports of what has or has not been achieved. The US makes big claims, and Iran denies them. Vice President JD Vance claimed yesterday that the Tehran negotiators had agreed to allow international nuclear inspectors into Iran to monitor all suspected nuke programmes. Iran said this wasn't true. Who are we to believe? It's actually the same old story. The Iranian negotiators might say something privately to someone, whether to Vance or to the Pakistan prime minister, but then in public says the opposite. What matters as far the rest of us is concerned is the public statement because that is how Iran works. The public statements are the ones that matter. So even when Donald Trump claims the Iranians have said privately that they will do this or do that, it only counts when a formal statement is made in public, and that more often than not contradicts what some Iranian negotiator might have whispered into someone's ear during negotiations. The US behave in a different way. When Trump makes bold claims about what Iran has agreed to do during private discussions, they turn out to be "in your dreams" remarks. So, for example, Trump said Iran had agreed to hand over the 440 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium and that the US and Iran would work together to dig out the material in canisters from deep underground where they were buried by the B-2 bombing in June last year. Tehran said they never agreed to that. So, this is what we have to put up with for the next 60 days or, claims from both sides which clash. The lesson is to listen to what Iran says publicly because that is when the supreme leader and his military backers have agreed what to make public. All the supposed private stuff doesn't really matter.

Trump challenged by Iran and algae

It's going to be tough-going for Donald Trump to get a final settlement with Iran that looks and seems better than the one signed by Barack Obama in 2015 without firing a shot. So far, from the 60-day talks in Switzerland, the discussions are all about exactly the same things that Obama's negotiating team talked about, with the big exception that Iran has found its super-leverage card in the Strait of Hormuz and neither side has yet got down to the nitty-gritty details vis a vis Tehran's nuclear programme. And yet already the US has temporarily lifted a whole bunch of sanctions and allowed Iran to export oil which means that the new regime in Tehran has won a huge bonus just from day one of the Switzerland talks. How many more goodies is the US going to grant Tehran? No wonder the Republicans in Congress are beginning to feel uneasy about the war and the aftermath. American taxpayers will also be asking why Iran is benefting so much from the talks while the cost of living for them is still high and causing suffering. This is all bad news for Trump and now he has been hit by the algae problem, the spreading green on the famous Reflecting Pool in Washington DC which should be super-blue. The millions of dollars spent on updating the pool appear to have been wasted. The algae is back and the blueness has gone. One poor duck has already died sipping the water. All Trump needs now is for the ballroom he is building at the eastern end of the White House to go pear-shaped. It's already massively over budget. Perhaps the golden look he is creating will turn green, like the Reflecting Pool.

Trump can't bomb Iran again

Since the much-criticised Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the US and Iran, Donald Trump has at least three times said that if a final settlement is not reached to his satisfaction he can always go back to bombing Iran. Everyone knows, probably even Trump, that this is not true. Now that the peace momentum, if there is a peace momentum, is underway, the option of returning to bombing has gone for good. What would it achieve anyway? Just more death and destruction and therefore more money will have to be raised to help Iran reconstruct. Also, it wouldn't look very good if Trump just reverted to bombing every time the negotiations are beginning to look a bit fragile. Iran will just bury itself in its bunker and refuse to continue negotiating and probably do its best to rush for a nuclear bomb, although that would be impossible at the moment because so much was destroyed by the US and Israeli bombing of nuclear plants in June last year. No, Trump's only option now is diplomacy and keep fingers crosssed that the mullahs and generals in Tehran will be ready to do a deal of sorts. So, that's a win for Iran. Meanwhile, the Iranian negotiators continue to use the other winning card they possess - citing Lebanon and Israel's continuing strikes against Hezbollah as the key element, as far as they are concerned, in the negotiations. If Tehran is happy with the progress made it's because they know they have screwed Trump over Israel's actions in Lebanon. Trump knows that however much he swears at Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli leader will carry on targeting Hezbollah every time Hezbollah targets Israel.

Iran has all the cards as talks begin

The negotiators from Tehran gathering in Switzerland for the beginning of talks with the US to forge an overall long-term deal will be super-confident that they hold the cards. This is because the main card in Donald Trump's hands is the bombing card but he doesn't really have that anymore because if he starts bombing again, the whole deal will crash and we will be back to square one. Whereas Iran has the Strait of Hormuz card, which will remain its best leverage for ever. Also, the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, one of the two main negotiators, has all the wealth of experience of negotiating on behalf of Tehran for the nuclear deal agreed under the Obam administrion in 2015. He knows his nukes much much better than any of the American negotiators. He has all the technical stuff in his head. His fellow negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian parliament and a former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. knows his onions, too, and won't conceded anything which might weaken the power of the IRGC. So, JD Vance who seems to spend more time writing books than performing as vice president, and the other two negotiators, Steve Whitkoff, Trump's business buddy, and Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, know more about business ventures and property than the intricacies of diplomacy. All in all, these talks in Switzerland are going to cement in all the goodies already promised in the memorandum of understanding - sanctions relief, unfreezing of Iranian funds and the $300 billion reconstruction fund - while failing probably to get a fullproof nuclear deal. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

The Lebanon question is going to ruin the Iran deal

The Lebanon issue is striking back. Iran has been very clever. By insisting that Israel's war with Hezbollah in Lebanon has to be linked inextricably with the Trump/Iran deal, it means every time there is violence in Lebanon, the Iranians take revenge, by closing the Strait of Hormuz again - like they have today - or refusing to start discussions in the 60-day phase of the negotiations to conclude a final settlement. This puts all the emphasis on Israel to stop bombing Hezbollah. But if Hezbollah attacks Israel, Israel will attack Hezbollah, Benjamin Netanyahu has made that clear. So it goes on. The Trump/Iran deal is so fragile, it could collapse any day. But the clever thing is that Iran can then blame Israel, when in fact it's just as much Iran's fault because the mullahs have failed to rein in Hezbollah. But Trump will be so angry he will also blame Israel. Yes, the leaders of the Iranian regime have been very clever. They have outsmarted everyone.

Trump battles to persuade his critics that the Iran deal is good

Republican heavyweights, newspaper columnists and broadcasters have all given the thumbs down to Donald Trump's deal with Iran. Israel hates it. The Gulf states don't like it, Western leaders praised Trump when they met him for the G7 meeting but they probably didn't mean it. They praised him because they were desperate to get back on side with him and keep him happy. So, Trump has a helluva battle on his hands to try and prove to the world that he has engineered the best possible deal with the regime in Tehran. The only way, it seems, he can do that is by making the next 60 days the toughest of all for Tehran so that when all the details have been agreed on the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions-lifting and the nuclear question, Tehran will be seen to have taken its medicine and the US can claim to have won the arguments. That, unfortunately, looks pretty unlikely. There is already so much that is good for Tehran in the Memorandum of Understanding, now signed by Trump, that the future detailed agreement may go their way as well. For Trump, he has to show that his negotiating style will get there in the end, and in 60 days' time, the world will feel a safer place. Good luck with that.

Tons of money for Iran if the peace deal is honoured

All the details of the Memorandum of Understanding between Iran and the US are now published, and it shows beyond question that if the Tehran regime behaves itself and adheres to the terms of the agreement, Iran will be flooded with money: a $300 billion investment fund for reconstruction, paid for mostly by Arab states in the Gulf, an unfreezing of £24 billion which had been held in European banks, mostly in Belgium for some reason, and a huge amount of revenue from the sale of oil to anyone who wants it, mostly China, with all sanctions lifted. It's a bonanza for Iran. Their negotiators have done well. As for the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has agreed there will be no tolls or fees for the next 60 days during the next stage of negotiations. But after that Iran and Oman will hold talks about the "management" of the strait for the safe passing of ships through the chokehold. What on earth does that mean? Is there a chance Iran and Oman will be allowed to charge some sort of admin fee in future? If so, that woulld be totally against what Trump and co have been saying ever since the war with Iran began. It would also be counter to international maritime law. Once again, the Iranian negotiators have done exceptionally well to get that sentence into the MoU. Trump will need to do a lot of explaining to the world's shipping companies. Insurance premiums will go up, the cost of oil will be affected and Iran will get richer. The nuke issue will have to be dealt with in the next 60 days as well, not enough time I would have thought to nail down the detail that will have to be negotiated to prevent Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon.

The US/Iran memorandum of understanding is paper-thin

First of all, the MoU between Washington nand Tehran was said to be two pages. Now, apparently, it's only a page and a half. Probably the most accurate description of the MoU which is supposed to end the war between the US/Israel and Iran has been provided by the US vice president, JD Vance. He said the clauses in the MoU were all general. The specifica details will have to be bashed out in the next 60 days. Actually, I doubt all the details will be sorted in juty 60 days. The nuclear issue alone took two years to resolve under the previous agrement during the Obama administration, and the wording was immensely complicated. This sort of deal is not going to be negotiated by a couple of Trump friends. It will need the US's finest nuclear brains. So the MoU to be signed in Switzerland by JD Vance on Friday is so paper-thin that, on reading, it might seems as if it is too broad-brush to have any true meaning. However, if the signing goes ahead as planned, then it's better than a resumption of war. Generalities allow for too many interpretations but there will still be some form of broad agreement on the following matters: the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of the US naval blockade and an agreement on both sides to discuss all the detail over the next 60 days. Key to this will be the Strait of Hormuz. Iran is still saying it will charge administrative fees - ie tolls under a different name. Trump is not going to allow this. But you can bet there is going to be some form of language eventually which will make the Strait of Hormuz less free than it has always been. Tehran enjoyed having the power to close the strait and then impose payments on shipping companies and the regime is unlikely ever to agree to give up that entitlement unless it gets something pretty massive in return, like a lifting of ALL international sanctions over a short period. So far, nearly all commentators have rubbished the deal before it has even been made public. I suspect, and hope, that there will be enough meat in the few paragraphs to lay the foundations for a better relationship between the US and Tehran, and a settlement that can get the global economy back working properly again.

Who has lost most from the war with Iran? The Iranian people

President Trump promised the Iranian people before he launched attacks on Iran: "We're coming to help you." This was after the appalling slaughter on the streets of Tehran and other cities in Iran when protesters came out to show their anger at the rising cost of living and lack of opportunities for young people. Seven thousand or more were killed by Iranian security police who used machineguns to quell the protests. Nothing has changed even after the declaration by Trump that a deal has been signed with Tehran. The Iranian people will still have to live and suffer under an extremist regime which cares nothing for their well-being, only theior retention of power and a share-out of the country's wealth among themselves. The bombs may have stopped falling, but several thousand civilians died during the war and rhe prospects for a happy, prosperous future are zero. Indeed, when the Tehran regime starts to renege on the so-called peace deal after the 60-day ceasefire has come to an end, the war could be restarted. Tehran has made it absolutely clear they plan to impose tolls on shipping in the future which will mean more money for the rulers and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and higher oil prices. There are other losers from the war: all the Gulf states were targeted by Iranian missiles and drones. Their previous wealth and stability, attractive ingredients for westerners and tourists who want to enjoy the heat and luxury lifestyle, have been damaged for ever. Tousism has already fallen catastrophically and fewer westerners will want to live in any of the Gulf states. The word "peace" in the memorandum of understanding signed by the US and Iran will be seen by many in the region as a false hope.

Is Keir Starmer facing his last few weeks as British prime minister?

I could say poor Keir Starmer. He won a huge majority for the Labour Party, annihilated the Conservatives who had enjoyed years of total chaos, and promised voters he would not raise income tax. Now, here we are, nearly two years later, and the Labour government under Starmer is also facing political chaos. Starmer promised to spend much more on defence in the light of Russia's increasing aggression towards Europe, and maybe particularly towards the UK, and yet he has failed to find the money to fulfil his promise. The welfare state handouts have gone way over the top, there are a million young people who have never had a job and have no money or prospects and have to live with their parents because they can't afford a home of their own, and, worse for Starmer, many of his cabinet colleagues are fed up with him. Now, this coming week, he will know for sure whether Andy Burnham, a would-be leader of the Labour party currently Greater Manchester mayor, is standing for parliament again so that he can challeng Starmer, beat him and any other contenders, and enter Number Ten as the next prime minister. Andy who, most people in the rest of the world will be saying. Well, he was a minister in a previous government and seemed ok but when he went for the top job he lost to Starmer which is why he gave up parliament and hoofed off to Manchester. He is standing for Makerfield near Manchester in a by-election and if he wins, Starmer will be in trouble. The truth is that whether Burnham or Starmer is the prime minister by the end of it all, it will make very little difference. There will still be no extra money for defence, there will still be a million young people unemployed and nothing much will change. Starmer seems a decent bloke doing his best which isn't good enough, and Burnham is a decent bloke who will try to do his best but it won't solve Britain's economic problems unless he throws away all the Labour promises published in their manifesto at the last election and announces a rise in income tax across the board and a huge tax boost for business which will force them to recruit more people, preferably out of the million young unemployed, and hang on to all the employees they currently have and stop sacking them all in favour of AI. I will end the way I began, poor Keir Starmer.

Fingers crossed, The Iran Deal will be signed tomorrow....or will it?

I love it. Donald Trump says the deal with Iran will be formally signed tomorrow but Iran says it won't! Plus ca change. But the basics of the deal now seem to be fairly simple. The Strait of Hormuz will be opened, the US Navy blockade of Iranian ports will be lifted, there will be no more bombing, sanctions will be slowly lifted, but the nuclear issue will be discussed at some later point. That will all be contained in a memorandum of understanding. But there are so many unanswered questions. Will the Strait of Hormuz be fre and open without any interference whatsoever by Iran, or is Tehran still insisting on some sort of administrative/management arrangement alongside Oman? If Trump agrees to that, the war was all for nothing. And if Iran fails to agree to hand over the 440 kilos of highly-enriched uranium, the war was all for nothing. And if the regime remains a severe, anti-west, democracy-suppressing military junta, the the war was all for nothing. Yes, lots of questions still, Mr President.

Please Mr Trump can we have that deal, so we can all get on with our lives!

Megotiating a complicated peace deal that covers the whole of the Middle East is hugely challenging and probably impossible. But the US president keeps on telling everyone that "The Deal" is as good as done. So, there is only one question. Where the hell is it? Is he really telling us the truth or is he just building up our hopes and can then blame Iran or Israel or Hezbollah or whoever if it all goes wrong? When he decided to call off the strikes planned for the third night in a row on Iranian military targets, he said it was becasue he had had phone calls from important people in Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Pakistan who said that, through their endeavours, the full deal was ready to sign. So at the last minute, he called off the bombers and Tomahawks. Tehran instantly denied anything had been totally agreed. The wording was slightly different than before, howeve, so there must be something going on. But there is still no deal on the table. Trump is not yet in position to dollop his massive signature on any piece of paper. I want to be optimistic but in the Middle East anything and everything can go wrong. There are so many egos and bad memories and so much hatred that it would seem beyond any negotiator to find the right formula. But Trump seems super-confident, even though it's not actually him or his special envoys who are doing the tough work. The Pakistan army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, is there in the thick of it. Today is Friday. Who knows, perhaps by this weekend or early next week, this famous deal might just come to fruition. Or else, it's back to bombing. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. WATERSTONES, AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Can Trump bomb Iran to the peace table?

Now that the US and Iran are once again "exchanginbg" bombs and missiles as if it's Operation Epic Fury Part One and a Half, the question has to be asked: Can a superior military power literally bomb an opponent country to the negotiating table? Can the US enforce peace by using war? Obviously this concept has worked in the past. The Serbian war against Kosovo was pretty much resolved by Nato bombing, plus, eventually, the parachuting of troops into Kosovo to make sure the Serbian troops went back to Belgrade. But that might be the exception. Normally bombing from the air does not win wars. Vietnam was a huge failure. The mass bombing by the Americans didn't win the war, nor did the infusion of hundreds of thousands of troops. The Gulf war of 1991 was won by brilliant ground warfare, artillery fire, tanks and Apache attack helicopters, as well as air power. The Iraq war wasn't won as such because when it was supposed to be over ("Mission Accomplished"), there followed a murderous insurgency which went on for years. Afghanistan was a disaster. Neither air power nor ground action won that one against the Taleban. So, now we have Iran. This war is different in many ways, but mostly because the regime in Tehran has ruthlessly exploited its advantages - closing the Strait of Hormuz and launching ballistic missiles and drones at every Gulf state, as well as US bases in the ruegion and Israel. So, will the renewed bombing by the US change all that and force the mullahs to negotiate? I fear not. This is because the mullahs are not really in charge anymore. Control is in the hands of the generals who command the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and they are not going to surrender just because the US has gone back to bombing. In fact it will drive them further into their bunkers and they will hang on until Trump realises that being commander-in-chief of the mightiest military power on the planet doesn't actually guarantee winning wars. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. WATERSTONES, AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS. THANK YOU.

What does Trump know about the shootdown of the US Apache helicopter?

Shooting down an Apache attack helicopter is a serious business. It's not like hitting a drone. So did Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps target the helicopter with a crew of two on board? If the helicopter was hit by a missile, the chances are the two crew members would not have survived. But they were picked up safely. So, did the Apache collide with an Iranian drone? That also seems unlikely. The crew would be super-experienced and could evade a drone. Nevertheless, Donald Trump instantly blamed the Iranians and ordered Central Command to retaliate. Iranian air defence systems and communications sites were bombed. The rescued crew will presumably be able to give a better picture of exactly what happened. If it was an Iranian missile, then Iran got what it deserved. But if it turns out, it was a helicopter malfunction, then Iran is going to be very aggrieved. My feeling is that Trump, as commander-in-chief, must have been told something which convinced him it was the IRGC which brought the Apache down. In other words, the fantastic array of US surveillance aircraft around in the Gulf at the moment must have images of a missile or whatever heading for the Apache. If that's the case, then Trump's decision to retaliate was the right one. Central Command said the response was proportionate. Centcom is investigating. Meanwhile the ceasefire between Iran and the US has already been breached so many times that it puts in danger the "oeace" negotiations which, amazingly, are still going on to end the war and reach a settlement.

A deal with Iran in two or three days, says Trump

Claims about the war in Iran coming to an eed at any moment have been made so many times that it is difficult to take any predictions from the White House seriously. But the fact is that while the US naval blockade of all Iranian ports continues, Iran and its poor people are being bled dry. No oil exports, no trade, nothing coming in except humanitarian shipments. At some point there is going to ba another total breakdown of society in Iran and the streets will be filled with thousands of people protesting. This is what Trump is probably counting on, so that even though there are still breaches of the ceasefire, the rulers of Iran do actually want the war to end so that the country can benefit from at least partial lifting of international sanctions. If there really is a deal waiting in the wings will it be the victory for the US that Trump has been boasting about for so long? In his latest remarks, Trump said that the deal would be sigbed in two or three days and as soon as the signatures are on the agreement, the Strait of Hormuz will open. As for the nuclear issue, Trump is saying he has got it in the bag, ie Iran will pledge not to build a nuclear bomb. But Iran has said this before, so only if the Tehran regime starts to dismantle what's left of its uranium-enrichment programme and hands over the 440 kilos of 60-per-cent-enriched material will anyone believe that the nukes question is finally resolved. If Trump's latest pledge about an end to the war falls apart, like all his previous promises, then the missiles could start flying all over again. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Israel and Iran back to war

Donald Trump has told Israel to stop bombing Iran but Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has ignored him. This tells a lot. Trump has said he is in charge and if he tells Netanyahu what to do or not to, he obeys. This simply isn't true. The ceasafire is now so shakey it's as good as dead and buried. Iran fired a barrage of missiles at Israel, supposedly in return for Israel's continued launching of attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Trump told Netanyahu not to retaliate. But how could he expect Israel not to fire back when Iranian missiles have come hurtling towards them? Of course Israel retaliated, just as Trump has retaliated against Iran when the mullahs have fired missiles and drones at US military forces in the Middle East. Tit-for-tat is an accpeted form of warfare. So, the ceasefire, already a misnomer after masses of breaches since it was announced in April, is over for now. Meanwhile, how will the resurgence of missile attacks affect the negotiations to end the war? Basically, there is never going to be a deal unless there is a comprehensive settlement which involves the US, Iran, Israel, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen. And that sort of agreement, ie no more attacks from any quarter, looks as far away as it has ever been. Even if there is a sort of deal between the US and Iran, there will still be plenty of scope for war if none of the other parties are signed up.

A sense of drift in Washington

Most images of Donald Trump on social media and in the newspapers these days show him with his eyes closed as yet another interminable meeting takes place in the Oval Office. He will be 80 this year and it looks like he's getting tired, especially since so many things are going wrong for him. There is a real sense of drift at the moment because there is still no breakthrough in the war with Iran. We don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but Tehran and its injury-recovered supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, seem to be putiing their foot down and insisting on having all Iran's frozen assets released, totalling around $24 billion, before any deal is discussed about limiting their nuclear programme and reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Does Trump fall asleep when the subject of Iran crops up in conversation? Trump has to be careful. If pictures keep on being published of him nodding off in the Oval Office, comparisons will increasaingly be made with his predecessor, Joe Biden, who invariably closed his eyes during the latter part of his term in office. Trump would not like to be compared with "poor old Joe".

JD Vance has a thing about Britain

The vice president of the United States doesn't have much of a role to play and it must be pretty frustrating which is why perhaps the current holder, JD Vance, spends so much time haranguing Britain over one thing or another. In his latest verbal outburst, he has blamed the appalling murder of the young Henry Nowak by a Sikh called Vickrum Digwa on mass immigration into the UK. If he believes that, ok, but keep his views to himself. What makes him think we are interested in what the US vice president believes, especially when it is simplistic nonsense. He has done this bfore, as has, of course, Elon Musk, who loves to take the side of the Reform leader Nigel Farage in rebuking Britain and the British government for its immigration policies. The more one hears the views of JD Vance, the more unlikely, it seems to me, that he will be a suitable candidate to succeed Donald Trump in 2028. In fact, if things continue to go badly for the Trump administration it is far more likely that the winner of the 2028 presidential election will be a Democrat. The Democratic party just has to get its act together and find a candidate who will wow America and the rest of the world. He or she hasn't emerged yet. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Putin sitting down to talk with Zelensky? Can't see it

In Vladimir Putin's eyes, his bete noir, Volodymyr Zelensky, has been a dead man ever since he failed to be toppled and then fought back against his invasion troops. But now Zelensky has written an open letter inviting Putin to hold face-to-face talks to find a settlement. Zelensky must have known that he would be rebuffed. Putin is not remotely in the frame of mind to talk real peace with anyone and certainly not at the same table with his arch opponent from Kyiv. It would play very badly back home unless of course Zelensky had given the impression beforehand that he was ready to do a deal that would deliver more Ukrainian land into Putin's hands. And he's not going to do that. So the Zelensky letter was fairly pointless except that it forced Putin to respond. Even then, I can't envisage Putin agreeing to be in the same room as Zelensky, let alone sit across from him at a table. This is why it's going to be so difficult for anyone else, whether Trump's special envoys or some selected European chief negotiator, to persuade Putin to make some concessions. He doesn't want a compromise deal, he wants to crush Ukraine, and in particular, its leader.

Ceasefires? What ceasefires?

The wordd 'ceasefire' has a certain connotation. It means, simply, that two warring sides agree to stop fighting and shooting and bombing and all goes quiet. It's a huge relief to the poor people whose lives have been ruined by warfare, and it's a big boost for the negotiators attempting to bring wars to an end. But not today. There is a ceasefire between the US and Iran but almost daily there are tit-for-tat strikes. Even worse ceasefire violations are going on in Lebanon and Gaza. Hezbollah continues to fire rockets into Israel and the Israeli Defence Forces retaliate with airstrikes, In Gaza, Hamas is active as ever and the IDF launches attacks on a pretty comprehensive fashion. People die. Donald Trump has been making light of the ceasefire breaches but the fact is, for the people, the civilians, in all three countries, and in the Gulf nations being targeted by Iran, life remains hellish. The word 'ceasefire' is meaningless for them. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES.

Will Donald Trump really meet with Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei?

Donald Trump, in his usual way, has thrown into the air an idea that he might meet up with Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader to discuss and sign an agreement. Could this ever happen? It's difficult to imagine the two men meeting and shaking hands. Not after the destruction US bombs and missiles have done to Iran, not after the bombing of Iran's three main nuclear sites, and particularly not after Mojtaba Khamenei was grievously wounded when bombs killed his father, the then suprme leader, on day one of the US/Israeli attacks on Iran that began on February 28. However, if Trump has put forward the idea, I guess it's just possible the matter has been raised but I would have thought it was wishful thinking that the supreme leader would agree to sit down with the US president. And where would such a meeting take place? Not in Washington, that's for sure. And not in Tehran. It would have to be somewhere like Qatar or possibly Pakistan. But first of all, we have to have an agreement, and that seems far away at the moment, with bombs and drones falling most days. The Strait of Hormuz is not totally static, a few ships have been going through on the Omani side of the chokepoint with US warships coordinating their safe passage. But we are only talking about a dozen or so. All the rest are still stuck out in the Gulf of Oman or Gulf or Arabia. The crews must be sick to death of their situation. If there is going to be a deal to sign and a meeting between Trump and Khamenei, the sooner the better.

Vladimir Putin is the most dangerous leader in the world

A massive strike on Kyiv and other cities, killing civilians, has underlined how desperate and dangerous Vladimir Putin is. He's not getting what he wants out of his "special operation "in Ukraine, so for a long time now he has just been hitting out without any sort of strategy. It's just blind hatred and a determination to kill and destroy as much as possible. This makes him the most dangerous leader on the planet. He is bitter and vengeful and angry and he is never going to do a peace deal with the Kyiv government. Neither the US nor Europe has a chance of ending this war. Only Putin can end it and he can't bear to conmtemplate finding any settlement with a country he would prefer to wipe off the face of the earth. This dangerous man could be leader of Russia for another two decades. The war in Ukraine could last that long, too, in some form or other. There will never be perfect peace. Not while Putin is the leader. What he doesn't seem to realise is that as he continues attacking Ukraine he is not actually getting any nearer his dream of subjugating his neighbour. He will never achieve that and in the meantime he is doing immense damage to his own country and to his own people. Trump has failed to stop him and whoever succeeds Trump will also fail. It's a total tragedy for Ukraine.

Trump says "just sit back and relax"

Donald Trump is in a very relaxed mood and wants all Americans to stop worrying about the war against Iran. In a Truth Social post he advised everyone "just sit back and relax". It's difficult for most families to do that because the war has caused the cost of living to rocket upwards and most of them can't afford to fill up their cars with petrol (gas, for the Americans). But what Trump I guess is trying to do is calm the waters as the negotiations continue to end the war although there is little sign a deal is coming any day soon. In fact, the longer it all goes on, the more tetchy both side become and, sure enough, they start firing at each other. This is the way with ceasefires. Look what's happening in southern Lebanon where there is supposed to be a ceasefire and also in Gaza where another ceasefire is supposed to be running. With Iran, it's all called self-defense attacks. The US thinks Iran is about to loose off a missile or drone and slams a few bombs into the launch sites. Then the Islamic Rebolutionary Guard Corps fires off a missile and drone towards US bases in Kuwait by way of retaliation. This has happened two or three times since the ceasefire. And I have no doubt there will be more such incidents until a peace deal is signed. Will it actually ever happen? Right now, it seems unlikely. But Trump says sit and relax, so maybe he is convinced there will be a settlement.