Talking to Kim - what about?

Rex Tillerson is quite a tease. He has revealed that Washington is talking direct to Pyongyang. So who exactly is talking to whom? Surely not Kim himself? After all his vows to annihilate the US, how do you start the conversation? Perhaps it's one of his fawning generals, but he wouldn't be able to say anything without the authority of Kim. So, again, how does the conversation develop, unless Kim is in the same room?i That could make for a very tricky chat, with Kim mouthing from across the room about refusing to give up his nuclear bombs. Still, it's a breakthrough. It has to be good that Washington and Pyongyang are having a little talk, even if it's about the weather. So when did these chats begin? Surely not during the mad, crazy rhetorical sniping that has been going on between Trump and Kim Jong-un. That would be weird to say the least. This dialogue must have begun AFTER the threats of war, to try and calm things down. So I'm assuming there'll be no more "Rocket Man" stuff in Trump tweets. Who knows, perhaps Trump and Kim will get to like each other!! Despite what Tillerson revealed, I for one do not feel totally reassured because I'm still convinced that whatever words are passed down the telephone line, Kim wants to be a nuclear warlord, he wants parity with Trump. Only then will the little chats have any real meaning. But we shall see. Better talk talk than war war.

Isis leader alive and well

I never thought Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was dead. The Russians made great play about the intelligence they had received that they, the Russians, had killed him with a precision airstrike more than three months ago. Every newspaper in the world grabbed the story and wrote big headlines. Well, I'm sure the Russians were pretty well convinced but it was always going to be a risk to pronounce it in public. US intelligence was not exactly dismissive. They just said they had no evidence that Baghdadi had died. In other words, no body on display, and no chatter on signals intelligence that Isis had lost its leader. Assuming the latest video of Baghdadi calling on his supporters to continue fighting the fight is genuine and current, and not a clever techie job, then the Russians will be feeing somewhat chastened. Claiming successful hits from 15,000ft is a bit of a mug's game. Generally the Pentagon waits quite a long time before declaring the death of an Isis operator, even when the victim's supporters have acknowledged the death on their social media platforms. A multitude of checks have to be made but eventually they usually get the confirmation they are after. In Osama bin Laden's case, of course, it was all very different. The US Navy Seal climbing the stairs at bin Laden's compound in Pakistan saw the al-Qaeda leader peering out of his upstairs room. There was never any doubt that this was the man they were after. The codeword, "Geronimo" was signalled to the White House and up bobbed Barack Obama to give the news to the rest of us. It was Obama's most dramatic moment. When/if Baghdadi is killed, and there is positive confirmation, I doubt it will have such a momentous feel about it. His grand plan for an Islamic state caliphate has failed and most of his hierarchy has been eliminated. But it will still be big news when it happens. Every aspect of the American intelligence-gathering capabilities, from eavesdropping satellites to special forces, are hunting for him. Will there be another Geronimo moment? If it's the Americans who find and kill Baghdadi, Trump will surely give it the Hollywood touch when he announces it from the Rose Garden.

Beijing acts at last

Well I'm not in the mood to apologise to China for taking them to task in a blog the other day for doing nothing to stop North Korea from threatening nuclear war against the United States. But Beijing's latest move, ordering all North Korean companies in China to close in 120 days is bold and timely, though belated, and will be another stab in the back for Rocket Man. America's current action to stop North Korean banks from dealing on the American financial market will also close doors and cause problems for the world's only truly Communist country. However, Kim Jong-un is already angry with China for siding with the rest of the UN Security Council in approving sanctions against him and now knows for sure that Beijing is no longer a loyal friend. So will the company-closure order make any difference in Kim's scheming? South Korean intelligence is already picking up indications that Pyongyang is planning something next month, either additional ballistic missile flights or some sort of demonstration to prove that Kim has not been cowed by the world's opposition. It's all about saving face which in his case is nuclear face. He will want to give two fingers to the world and I bet even now he is plotting with his generals to launch another and longer-range ballistic missile over Japan. Putting myself into Kim's mind, which is difficult, I don't think he will do what the North Korean foreign minister suggested, which is to explode a hydrogen bomb in the atmosphere over the Pacific. If he does do that, Trump will summon his generals to the White House "Situation Room" and will select from Option One to Option Six on the list of military action devised by the Pentagon. I think Kim is wary of going too far. That doesn't mean to say he will stop working on his nuclear programme. He will carry on with that regardless until he knows he can announce to the world, but mostly to Washington, that North Korea is a nuclear power capable of sending atomic warheads all the way to any city in the US. But if he were to explode a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific, it would be the most dangerous come-on to Donald Trump since the current war rhetoric between the White House and Pyongyang began. But Kim may think he can get away with another ballistic missile test in the next few weeks without provoking US military action. Russia and China are screaming that any military action by the US would have devastating consequences. So Trump, who knows Moscow and Beijing are right, will get very angry if Pyongyang launches another missile, but I think he would avoid the Pentagon option. As for Kim, he wants to survive and he wants his regime to survive. So I really don't think he will be stupid or rash enough to explode a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific. If I'm wrong, God help us all.

Euro barmy army

When European leaders go on about the need to have an EU army, or as President Macron said today, a European integrated military force, I start to think that Brexit maybe isn't as bad as I thought after all. Actually I do think Britain leaving the EU is a terrible mistake, but the idea of an EU army always sounded to me like a giant step too far. There is a perfectly good military organisation called Nato which embraces all the Europeans, so why complicate the European security framework by having a potentially rival force? Macron said it would be a complementary, not a rival set-up, but we've heard that one before. This debate has been going on for years. There used to be a thing called the Western European Union that set itself up in grand style, had its own headquarters in Brussels but achieved very little and eventually died a death. The best force available for major emergencies, military or otherwise in Europe or further afield is Nato or a coalition of the willing. I'll call it COW, because every organisation needs to be an acronym. COW can be led by the US or Britain or France, all of whom have substantial or semi-substantial military capabilities, and others can latch on if they want to. We've seen COWs work well all over the place, masterminded by the US. But a Euro army, with every member of the EU sending officers and enlisted soldiers and armoured vehicles and aircraft and missiles - I envisage a nightmare. Every time I hear of plans to have a United Nations standing force I think...nightmare. UN peacekeeping missions CAN work sometimes, but more often than not, hundreds of badly trained troops arrive with light blue berets and wander around in uncoordinated fashion or drive brand new Toyota Land Cruisers all day with no particular mission in mind. That's probably a bit harsh but you get the picture. The world does not need or want a huge European army, or an EU integrated military force overseen by Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission and a national of Luxembourg which most Americans have never heard of! So, Mr Macron, suck your thumb and think of something new, forget about a European army, it was never a good idea when it was first thought of decades ago, and it is still a rotten idea and a waste of time and money.

Trump and Kim, stop it!

I think enough is enough. Please, Trump and Kim, stop all this dangerous hate rhetoric. The world doesn't just centre around you two. There are billions of us lesser mortals who would like a peaceful life without having to think of nuclear war in our daily activities and thoughts. The war of words has now got to a point where both Trump and Kim Jong-un need to step back. Neither is going to concede an inch, I understand that, but shouting at each other COULD lead to a military disaster. So, give it a rest. Meanwhile, please someone explain to me what China is up to. Beijing professes to want to be a global power but without taking any responsibility for anything outside its own selfish interests. President Xi Zinping wants to go down in history as a great leader but he is failing to make the moves that will end this potential calamity across its borders in North Korea. He is playing footsie footsie diplomacy even though he has a big stick in his cupboard. Why not take courage into your hands and pay a visit to Pyongyang and get hold of this miscreant nuclear bombmaker and teach him the facts of life. Not on behalf of Trump and the United States but on behalf of the world - in other words, us lot. I don't think he will, because he doesn't have the leadership qualities or the vision to do anything that might help the globe - apart from his climate change acquiesence. I think he likes having a troublesome nuclear bombmaker on his doorstep because it helps to keep the US at bay. Kim's ballistc missiles and nuclear warheads are a better deterrent to America's perceived interference in the Asia-Pacific than China's anti-carrier missiles and South China Sea island-building. That's why Xi Zinping won't move a muscle, and that's why he will never be a great global leader. In the mean time, the rhetorical insults from Washington and Pyongyang must stop. But of course that will not stop the Pentagon's military planning. Kim knows that, but can't he see that it's pretty stupid to invite Trump to blast his little kingdom to hell. Then we all lose, including the self-satisfied Chinese government.

Trump's sunset strip

Oh my goodness I agree with Trump. The Iran nuclear deal's "sunset clause" under which the limits on uranium-enrichment are lifted in 2025 is unbelievably irresponsible and asking for trouble. How could Obama's negotiating team which included the incredibly bright, but unfashionably shaggy-haired energy secretary, Ernest Moniz, have effectively agreed to let Iran restart its full-scale uranium-enrichment programme - vital for building a nuclear weapon - ten years after signing the deal which restricted Tehran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb and/or a nuclear warhead for its ambitious ballistic missile programme. It was only a ten-year deal! When I read that after the deal was signed in Geneva in 2015 I thought that was the most foolish small print I had ever read. Why not make the deal last for 20 years or preferably 100 years? I know what Obama was thinking. Hopefully, he surmised, things would change so much in Iran in ten years that any thought of reverting to building a nuclear bomb would be anathema to the vibrant, western-loving Iranian people. The ayatollahs would be replaced by millionaire businessmen and the Iranian Republican Guard who are responsible for all things military, including nuclear, would be turned into boy scouts. Well, dream on Obama. That was never going to happen. In ten years, the same Mafioso will be running Iran, and by 2025 they will have devised a cunning plan to take up where they left off in 2015. So, a nuclear-armed Iran by 2028. Trump obviously thinks along the same lines and has made clear his rejection of the sunset clause. He is right! If the Iranian government wants all sanctions to be lifted, then the sunset clause needs to be extended by several decades. Whether Trump will ever be able to persuade the other signatories to the deal - China, Russia, UK, France and Germany - we shall have to wait and see.

Trump's plan to destroy North Korea

Exactly what does Trump mean when he says he can destroy North Korea? Perhaps Jim Mattis, his trusty defence secretary, has come up with a plan to literally obliterate North Korea from the face of the earth. Is this possible? Is this just Trumpism or is there really a military option which can do this? Well, of course there is. It's the nuclear option. Dropping 500 tactical nuclear bombs on every military/nuclear site and Kim Jong-un's residence, destroying in a wave of B52, B2 abd F35 nuclear attacks North Korea's ability to retaliate. Hiroshima and Nagasaki on a huge scale. Total annihilitation. But even if North Korea had launched a preemptive nuclear strike on, say, Los Angeles, would the president of the United States have carte blanche to eliminate a whole country and reduce its people to a smouldering radioactive graveyard? Is this truly what Trump has in mind when he talks of destroying North Korea? I cannot envisage any other way of annihilating a country. Massive bombing with ccnventional munitions would never have such a result. It would be devastating but North Korea would survive, and would still be able to retaliate. Trump sometimes speaks off the cuff and does so with rhetorical hyperbole, and the world has got used to that. But this was a speech to the United Nations General Assembly. The speech was written down. It clearly included the words, "I will totally destroy North Korea." So there must be a nuclear option on the list of potental military action put together by Mattis. If I'm thinking this, then so must Kim Jong-un. Hopefully, that is what Trump had in mind, to scare Kim. But trying to scare Kim doesn't seem to work. So I'm guessing Trump must have asked Mattis one big question when the retired four-star Marine Corps general presented him with the military options for attacking North Korea: "Can I launch a nuclear attack on North Korea if Kim sends a nuclear ballistic missile to hit the United States?" The only answer I guess is: "Yes, Mr President."