Huawei is getting desperate for the UK 5G contract

Huawei, the huge Chinese telecommunications company, is now getting desperate. In an inducement to the UK to persuade the Theresa May government to buy into its 5G technology, the company has offered to sign a document that makes a pledge it will never use the technology for espionage purposes. It's like when a naughty boy promises his Mum he will never be naughty again. The 5G issue is not going to go away until the UK government fnally makes up its mind whether to believe the US insistence that Huawei WILL spy on everything once it gets its technology into the network or to trust the Chinese company to be an honest business partner and, one, especialy, who will say NO when asked by one of the nefarious Chinese intelligence services to start spying on the Brits. In the end it will all come down to politics, not technology. The reason why the UK Government under Theresa May (not for long I fear) is finding it difficult to make a final decision about a Huawei contract (the leaked decision from the UK National Security Council to allow Huawei partial access has not yet been confirmed as the final decision) is because it wants to retain good business relations with China in general. If the UK Government says no to Huawei as the US is demanding, May and co fear that Beijing will be so angry it will undermine/destroy the business partnership which Britain and China have been developing ever since David Cameron was prime minister. On the other hand, the UK Government doesn't want to anger Trump by going for Huawei and risking the special intelligence relationship with the US. Trump has today issued an executive order banning companies from engaging in any business with anyone that might endanger the country's national security. That's a far-reaching edict and clearly is aimed at Huawei even though he doesn't mention the company by name. The UK Government has responded by saying it is reviewing the Huawei issue. Well that's hardly a new development because despite the leaked "decision" from the National Security Council, the Huawei conundrum hasn't stopping being under review. I suspect the decision will now be put off until there is a new Tory leader. If it's to be Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, he might just say no to Huawei to keep in with Trump.

British general in Iraq speaks out of turn

British military commander Major-General Christopher Ghika was pretty much unknown until now. He is a deputy commander (there are several of them) of US-led coalition forces for Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq and Syria. His title is deputy commander for strategy and information, the sort of job where you need to know your facts and get them right when you speak in public. General Ghika who started his army life with the Irish Guards was giving a briefing from Baghdad via a video conference system to members of the Pentagon Press Corps in Washington. He was asked if the threat from Iran and/or Iranian-backed militia in the region had risen. Remember, the White House was full of war-with-Iran rhetoric and warning of alarming intelligence that Iran was plotting to attack US interests in the Gulf. But this was the day before The New York Times story broke about the Pentagon offering the White House a plan to send 120,000 troops to the region to prepare for a confrontation with Iran. General Ghika very calmly informed the reporters that nothing had changed and all was fine. He said the threat level was the same as ever and there were no signs of Iranian proxy forces preparing to launch attacks. "Am I concerned about the danger? No, not really," he said, presumably to the reporters' astonishment. He said threat assessments were made regularly and he was qute satisfied with the way things were. Oops!! His comments must have caused mayhem in the Pentagon and at US Central Command forward headquarters in Qatar, and in Baghdad. At a stroke the general had undermined the message the White House had been putting out for days. The Pentagon had sent an aircraft carrier battle group and B-52 bombers to the region to try to deter the Iranians for heaven's sake. What was the British general thinking? Hohoho, I suspect General Ghika was just telling the truth as he saw it. There were no signs of Iranian-backed militia gathering with guns and artillery to attack the Americans in Baghdad or anywhere else. Presumably he saw the same intelligence everyone else had. He just interpreted it differently perhaps. Well, he knew he had misspoken within a few hours. Once the transcript had been sent around, Centcom issued an extraordinary rebuke, basically saying in a formal statement overnight that the British general was wrong and that what he had said ran counter to the intelligence which had set off alarm bells throughout the Trump administration. Centcom said the threat level HAD been raised, and later the State Department ordered all non-essential staff to leave the US embassy in Baghdad. The Centcom statement was an unprecedented scolding of such a senior coalition commander. I predict General Ghika won't be briefing Pentagon reporters again!

Pentagon dusts off military plan to confront Iran

My analysis in The Times today: ROBERT Gates, ever a realist as US defence secretary from 2006 to 2011, once said that any Pentagon chief who advised the president to launch another land invasion in the Middle East would need his head examined. After the prolonged insurgency in Iraq following the US-led invasion in 2003, Mr Gates had Iran in mind. Seven years ago, in retirement, he warned that any military strike against Iran, whether by the US or Israel, would have “catastrophic” consequences. Despite his predecessor’s misgivings, Patrick Shanahan, acting defence secretary but now selected by Donald Trump for the top job if confirmed by the Senate, has dusted off and revised the Pentagon’s contingency plan for military confrontation with Iran. Mr Shanahan has insufficient Washington clout as yet to do anything more than obey his master’s orders in the White House but his military advisers will be urging extreme caution. The headline figure is the recommended dispatching of 120,000 US troops to the Gulf region to deter or retaliate against any Iranian strikes on American interests and to be ready if there is evidence of Tehran “breaking out” from the 2015 nuclear deal and enriching uranium to bomb-grade level. However, as Pentagon officials have pointed out in the past when a strike on Iran was mooted, the US military has no plan for an Iraq-style land invasion. Marines, special operations troops and army brigades would play a role in such a scenario. But air and naval power would be the first choice. In the current circumstances, the 120,000 troops, if deployed, would be sent to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain, with Marines on board amphibious ships, but as a back-up force to boost the US naval and bomber presence in the region in the event of an Iranian attack on Gulf shipping or oil installations. Any more ambitious contingency planning involving strikes on nuclear facilities or to effect regime-change would necessitate a massive bombing campaign, potentially leading to the regional catastrophe Mr Gates predicted. Putting the current Pentagon troop plan into context, the US and allies deployed 750,000 military personnel to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait in the 1991 Gulf War, as part of Operation Desert Storm. For the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, America sent 150,000 troops although this rose to around 235,000 in the region by the time Baghdad fell. Six US carrier battle groups in the Mediterranean and Gulf were also involved. In the last 50 years, US forces have been engaged in Vietnam, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and the Horn of Africa. The Pentagon has contingency plans for every eventuality but no American military commander wants a war with Iran.

Tories are surely on the way out!

It's increasingly difficult to see how the Conservatives are going to survive in this country of mine. Because of the Brexit farce , the Tories received a drubbing in the local council elections, losing 1,300 councillors throughout the country. Now we have the European parliamentary elections coming up and no one, expert or otherwise, thinks the Tories will do well. Those who bother to vote - and the chances are a lot of people won't bother - are expected either to put their cross in the box for the newly formed Brexit Party, led by the incorrigible Nigel Farage - friend of Donald Trump - or go for the Liberal Democrats who want to stay in the EU. The Conservatives and Labour will be the least popular of the parties. So what will Theresa May and her government do if they get annihilated in the European elections? Will they realise no one loves them and so go for a general election? Absolutely not!! This is Jeremy Corbyn's dream. He believes that if there is an election he will end up walking into 10 Downing Street as the new prime minister. I believe he is right. No one any more is going to vote Conservative because Brexit has been so badly handled. So for Theresa May to survive she has to do what she has been trying to do for three years, find a Brexit solution that the majority of people in this country actually want. Her talks with Corbyn and co are really a waste of time because if she goes along with Corbyn's demands - to have a customs union with the EU - it will ineviably lead to a general election because Parliament will never agree to this. Well, not the Conservatives anyway because they will argue that this is not what the people of the UK voted for in the 2016 referendum. They voted to leave the EU, not to be attached to the EU for ever in a customs union arrangement that will prevent the UK from winning trade deals as an independent nation. The UK will not be independent. People like Boris Johnson will never agree to that. So Theresa is not going to get her newest version of Brexit past the hard Brexiteers in the House of Commons. Then there will be two choices: a general election or another referendum. Corbyn is counting on the general election option. And he will win oh my God. I'm told by Labour sources that even though most Labour MPs can't stand Corbyn there will be nothing they can do to stop him becoming prime minister. A midnight coup in which a more sensible leader is anointed just can't happen, they say, because if Labour wins the election it will be seen as a victory for Corbyn and his potty radical mates. They will rule!! We have to prepare for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn.

US firepower pours into Middle East

It's quite like old times - under George W. The White House is sending such a potent force to the Gulf region that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard must be thinking twice about going ahead with its apparent plan to attack American troops and/or assets in Iraq and elsewhere. The mighty carrier strike force headed by the USS Abraham Lincoln is in spitting distance of the Gulf, and now another warship, USS Arlington, an amphibious transport ship, has been deployed to join the carrier group. B-52 strategic bombers have already arrived in Qatar and they are being joined by Patriot anti-missile systems. The key thing, of course, is that none of this movement of warships and bombers is being carried out in secret. It's all being announced either from the White House or from the Pentagon. It's what a US president and his military advisers love to do because it "sends a signal" to the potential adversary - Iran in this case - to watch its step and put down its guns or face the wrath of a superpower. It's a great moment for Pat Shanahan, now finally to be nominated to be the proper defence secretary, rather than an acting one. He can now feel far more confident about making decisions because everyone in Washington knows that he is, at last, the chosen one for the Pentagon job. It's like being given four stars instead of just three or two. His standing in the Washington establishment has shot up overnight. So it must have given him a real boost to announce that he was sending Patriot missiles to the Gulf to see off those nasty Iranians. That decision was actually vey easy. The boss of US Central Command had asked for them some days ago, presumably explaining that they were needed to shoot down Iranian missiles. The intelligence that everyone is talking about without giving any details must have been pretty specific: ie the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was planning to attack shipping in the Gulf and American troops in Iraq, or something ike that.Shanahan in his new role as acting but soon-to-be-nominated Pentagon chief, gave his approval to the Patriots, although if he hadn't agreed, the Boss in the White House might have withdrawn his nomination pledge haha!

Donald Tusk thinks UK may stay in EU after all

Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, has said all along during the Brexit talks that the United Kingdom could change its mind any time and vote to stay in the European Union. He now believes that if there is a second referendum there is a 30 per cent chance of the UK voting to remain, overturning the 2016 decision which was to leave by March 29, 2019 - nearly two months ago. Well, a 30 per cent chance of UK voters deciding to give up the idea of leaving the EU is a fat lot of good, because if it's only 30 per cent, then presumably the other 70 per cent will vote for a Brexit deal of some sort in order to leave for ever. So I'm not sure what Tusk is trying to say. I know what he meant was that there is a growing possibility that Brexit won't happen, but his 30 per cent figure didn't make much sense. Anyway, I'm not sure he is right. Judging by the tempers and anger during last night's BBC Question Time show, most of the applause was for panelists and members of the audience who said they just wanted to get out and the sooner the better. Nigel Farage, former leader of the dodgy UKIP Party and now leader of the so-called Brexit Party, was on the panel and looked increasingly pleased with himself. He gives a very good impression of a frog when he smiles in a satisfied way and there was a lot of that last night. He believes he is onto a winner and fully expects a massive show of support in the European parliamentary elections later this month which Theresa May said would never happen with the UK's participation. One young-looking woman in the audience, speaking excessively loudly, said she planned to vote for the Farage party despite having been a Tory voter for years. The camera swung to Farage and he was giving his frog smile again. You can't tell the mood of the nation by one or two TV shows like Question Time but I would now put money on the outcome of a second referendum if one ever takes place. Even if the Brexit deal is still unpalatable, far more will vote for it just to make sure the UK leaves the EU. Tusk's 30 per cent is irrelevant and probably way off the mark.

Is John Bolton on a war high?

John Bolton, the heavily moustacheod national security adviser in the White House, is apparently a danger to the US constitution. His predecessor, Lieutenant-General HR McMaster, referred in remarks to people in the White House who posed this sort of danger. He didn't name names but he didn't have to. He must have meant Bolton who is so hawkish you can imagine him standing beside Donald Trump in the Oval Office whispering "War, Mr President, it's time for war". Right now Bolton is in the lead on Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. It could be military action at any time in any of these countries. But Bolton is an old hand at this game. He may herald from the Cold War period but he is a cunning fox. He knows that Trump is not a commander-in-chief who wants to send troops to fight yet another war. He wants US troops to have huge influence but preferably without fighting and dying. Despite his strong public rhetoric, particularly against Iran and Venezuela, I doubt Bolton is pushing for war in either country because he won't want to cause divisions between himself and the commander-in-chief. I think he's trying, not so subtly, to remind Trump that the US has superpower military powers and force projection and that they are always available to sort out the bad guys. I doubt Trump needs reminding. But it was interesting that it was Bolton who announced the dispatching of the aircraft carrier to the Middle East as a warning to Iran and that, apparently, it was the Pentagon which asked him to make the announcement. So Pat Shanahan, acting defence secretary, who would normally have announced such a move, wanted it to come from the White House. Jim Mattis must have shuddered in his boots when he realised what was going on. The former defence secretary definitely would have made such an announcement. After all, it's strictly Pentagon business. But Bolton seemed happy to announce the manouevre on the Pentagon's behalf. Sending a carrier doesn't mean there will be a war with Iran. However, Tehran has given the European signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal 60 days to go ahead with lifting sanctions as per the agreement or face a renewal of Iranian uranium-enrichment. The Europeans have refused to buckle under the ultimatum and have told Iran not to renege on any aspect of the nuclear deal. So the presence of a US carrier strike force in the Gulf won't do any harm. As for Venezuela, Bolton can't really think that sending in the US Marines will bring peace and stability to the country but he's clearly playing the tough cop in the debate in the Oval Office about what to do with Nicolas Maduro, the Bad Man of Caracas. And North Korea? There is no way Trump is going to go to war with North Korea because he is clinging like mad to his love relationship with Kim Jong-un and doesn't want to destroy that just because the North Korean leader is firing off a few weapons and missiles. Bolton knows this. So it's very much all rhetoric at this stage.