Why did so many people love Jeffrey Epstein?

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

Is Greenland really important for Trump's Golden Dome?

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

Should Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor testify to US Congress?

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

Why is Israel still bombing Gaza?

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

China's very limited benevolence towards Britain

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

To strike or not to strike? The big Iran question

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

Surrender Donbas or no US security guarantee? Really?

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