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.