The UK in political shambles

This poor country has had so many political upheavals in recent years it is hardly surprising everything seems so depressing and down-at-heel and pessimistic and dreary. All political leaders promise to change things and make everyone happy but invariably fail. In fact most of the time they achieve the opposite. This is the case with the government of Keir Starmer. All the promises have fallen by the wayside. Growth in the economy is minimal, everyone is over-taxed, borrowing by the gobernment is sky-high which means having to pay billions of pounds in interest - what a waste - young people can't get jobs and can't afford housing, and millions upon millions of people are living off benefits. It's a dire situation. Amidst all of this bad news, the Labour government which won a huge majority at the last election is disintegrating. Keir Starmer is surviving as prime minister by his fingertips and probably for not much longer, and eager contenders for the top job are queuing up and stabbing everyone in the back in the process. Everyone seems to think that Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, will be the great Labour hope, provided he wins a by-election to become an MP again. But what has he really done in his political career so far to give us voters any sense of excitement that he will be The One. The same for the other contenders, Wes Streeting who speaks like a robot, Ed Milliband, who led the Labour party in opposition and was ineffectual, and Angela Rayner, a character no qiestion but a political liability, backed by the unions which means some pretty daft socialist ideas in her head. So whoever steals the premiership from Starmer is going to have to start all over again and instil some sense and intelligence and bravery into the whole political system. Will any of these candidates for Number 10 have a real clue how to go about it? WHAT YOU NEED IS SOME ENTERTAINMENT. SO BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Trump tells Taiwan not to go for self-determination

There have been two comments from Donald Trump since he left Beijing which will alarm Taiwan. First he gave no promise that he would authorise the $14 billion in arms package which Congress has presented to the White House, and, second, he warned Taiwan not to go for self-determination. Well, first of all, the US has been supplying arms to Taiwan for ever to help them defend against a possible attack from China, and it would be an extraordinary move if he stopped the weapons sales, although it would be greeted with hurrays by Beijing if he did. Second of all, Taiwan already sees itself as an independent country, separated both geographically and politically from what is always called mainland China. It has a flourishing economy and is the world's largest producer of micro-chips. Taiwan does not want to become another Hong Kong, independent to a degree but still governed and controlled by Beijing. But of course Hong Kong was in a different situation. It was a British colony with a leae that ran out in the 1990s and Britain had no choice but to hand it back to China. Taiwan, formerly known as Formosa, became a republic when it broke away from Beijing after the Chinese civil war in 1949. So, there is no expiring lease as with Hong Kong. But for Trump to tell Taiwan that it should not go for self-determination is a bit rich when the Taiwanese consider themselves to be a totally separate and self-governing republic. These words will have pleased Beijing no end. Trump also said he didn't want to have to travel 9,500 miles to fight a war with China. What does that tell Taiwan, and what does it tell Beijing? PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Donald Trump and Xi Zinping best mates

They certainly made every effort to show that they wanted to be friends, or at least partners in strategic stability, as the Chinese president preferred to put it. The Chinese leader is always full of these sort of homilies. He loves the big language, the elegant phrases, to sum up relationships with other countries. Trump is more direct, he just likes to tell everyone how well they got on. But the big summit in China between Trump and Xi got off to a tricky start when the Chinese president insisted that Taiwan was at the forefront of the relationship he woud have with Trump. In other words, he was telling Trump to leave Taiwan well alone because it was a matter for Beijing to sort out and had nothing to do with Washington. Not once did Trump mention how he might help Taiwan if China tried to take it by force. So, unless something else was said in private to give Xi concerns about how Trump would respond to an attack on Taiwan, the Chinese leader will no doubt be satisfied that he got his message across nice and early. The rest of the summit was all about trade and AI and the need for a fair and just partnership on the global stage. Trump came away with claims of huge success and big deals. But I suspect Xi was also very satisfied with the way things had gone. Over the next few days we will probably get different versions of the summit. But at least there were no diplomatic hiccups.

Trump's dilemma over Strait of Hormuz

With its control of the Strait of Hormuz, the hardline regime in Tehran is holding “a gun to our head”, a former American intelligence and defence chief has warned. CIA director and then defence secretary in the Obama administration, Leon Panetta has a sombre assessment of President Trump’s chances of ending the war in Iran with a satisfactory settlement. “My sense is that it’s very likely this war which was supposed to end after six to eight weeks, is probably going to continue for a number of months,” he told The Times. “This is because we have not found the key to how we achieve, not just a continuing ceasefire, but a resolution to some of the crucial issues which will then allow us to end the war. The president, frankly, has very few options,” he said. Trump has rejected as “garbage” Tehran’s latest response to the White House one-page memorandum of understanding which laid down the principles for a settlement that would be acceptable to the president, including the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, the ending of all uranium-enrichment and the disavowal of any ambition to build a nuclear weapon. Trump has met with military leaders to discuss possible options for a new phase of attacks on Iran, aimed at forcing Tehran to come round to Trump’s way of thinking. But Panetta sees little point in resorting to more bombing. “I question whether additional military action is going to produce any real change in the regime. They’ve been able to withstand a great deal, and from our own intelligence the indication is that they can continue to withstand that kind of impact. So I’m not sure military action provides a key to trying to apply leverage right now,” he said. “The president is going to have to decide: does he continue to seek some kind of quick end to the war? If so, that means he’s got to deal with the Strait of Hormuz, and, at the very least, he has to provide a negotiating mechanism for the nuclear issue. But that process is not there right now,” he said. As CIA director between 2009 and 2011, Panetta was in overall charge of the agency's successful tracking of Osama bin Laden to a compound in Abbottabad in Pakistan. The al-Qaeda leader was shot dead by Seal Team Six special operations troops on May 2, 2011. Panetta served as US defence secretary from 2011 to 2013 during which he lifted the ban on women serving in combat roles and was responsible for implementing President Obama’s decision to pivot more naval power to the Asia-Pacific region to counter China’s rapidly growing military presence. Could Trump, despite his proclaimed reluctance, send troops into Iran to sort out both the reopening of the strait and recover the 400 kilos of highly-enriched uranium buried under at least two sites that were bombed in last June’s Operation Midnight Hammer mission carried out by US and Israeli bombers? “The only justification for putting boots on the ground is if you want to make sure that Iran never controls the Strait of Hormuz,” Panetta said. “When I was secretary of defence, [we concluded] you’ve got to have enough troops to cover 50 miles on each side of the Strait of Hormuz and 100 miles further in to control that entire area. There will be casualties as a result of that kind of effort.” He said there was no support in the US for a mission of that kind - which could require around 200,000 troops - either in Congress or among American people. “The only other way to approach this is to recognise that Iran will have some control, but that the main passage will be operated by an allied coalition which will guarantee free movement of ships without fees. I think that’s a preferable approach. But at this moment in time, Iran has a gun to our head with the closure of the strait. Somehow, we’ve got to find a way to make sure that that gun is not there.” “The reality is, we always knew that Iran would ultimately close the Strait of Hormuz, and we should have had a plan,” he said. “We missed that opportunity. As long as the strait remains closed, as long as they continue to put tremendous pressure on the US and the world economy, we’re not going to get anywhere because they have the leverage.” Reopening the Strait of Hormuz should be the priority for the moment, he said. The nuclear issue could only be resolved with long negotiations, involving experts on both sides who specialised in the subject. Panetta said he wasn’t impressed by Trump’s two negotiators, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law. “They are just two business guys from New York,” he said. “If Iran refuses to deal with the nuclear issue, we always know what the ultimate option is, and in many ways, it’s the gun we have [vis a vis] Iran. They have got to negotiate some kind of approach here, or they will continue to face attacks with regards to their nuclear capability. So, each side is in this situation where they’re waiting for the other side to blink. In many ways, they both consider the other side to be a paper tiger.” He emphasised that both sides’ priority should be to end the war. “rather than continue with this hit and miss approach to the ceasefire, this hit and miss approach to the Strait of Hormuz, and have this thing just continue to ultimately become another permanent Middle East war.” “My biggest concern is that we cannot trust the regime. It’s a hardline regime. We have to wake up to the fact that the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] and the military basically run that country right now. I can’t trust them and I don’t think the United States can trust them,” Panetta said. “I think they’re also in a position where they wonder if they can trust Donald Trump as president, to stand by whatever agreement is made. My greatest fear is that within another four to five years, no matter if we arrive at any kind of agreement, that ultimately the United States and Israel will be back at war,” he said. Apart from rocketing energy prices around the world as a result of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the other negative repercussions of the war in Iran has been the deterioration in the Transatlantic alliance after European leaders largely refused to back Trump’s war. “[It’s] a period where the United States is increasingly acting alone in terms of whatever objective it’s trying to achieve, and the experience in my 50 years of public life is that the US, if it wants to protect our security, cannot afford to just act on its own.” BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS

Trump's Golden Dome missile shield will cost more than expected!!!

What surprises me is that anyone in Washington should be surprised that a congressional report claims Donald Trump's Golden Dome space-based anti-missile interceptor programme is going to cost, wait for it, $1.2 trillion instead of $175 billion. There is no such thing as an affordable missile shield aimed at preventing any or all missiles fired at your country from wherever. Ronald Reagan discovered that when he came up with his famous Star Wars project in the 1980s. He envisioned a total shield consisting of lasers and particle beams and goodness knows what sitting on platforms in space but it just ran ran ran out of money and was largely abandoned, although all the work done then will no doubt help the Trump Golden Dome concept. But it still won't be affordable. And the truth is that no system will be fullproof, so the word 'shield' is over-egging it. I'm sure Trump will pursue it and get Pete Hegseth to try and deliver the goods. But if at the end of the day the programme really will cost $1.2 trillion or possibly a lot more, then Congress might just dismiss it out of hand. The Pentagon has put forward a defence spending plan for next year of $1.5 trillion, a 40 per cent increase on last year's request. That's a seriously huge increase. But how much of that wil go towards the Golden Dome? I haven't managed to spot the answer yet. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Trump will find it hard to outsmart Xi Zinping

Trump will want to come away from his trip to Beijing with a long list of successes. But if all he gets is a pledge by the Chinese leader Xi Zinping to buy more soya beans from American farmers - one of the things on his to-do list - then that will be a very small diplomatic achievement. Basically, what he wants is for Xi to say he will intervene with the Iranians to open the Strait of Hormuz, probably with the quid pro quo that the US lifts its blockade of Iranian ports. That would be good news indeed. In fact such an arrangement would make a lot of sense. The trouble is, Iran has geography on its side, and once the US warships have gone home, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will still be there and they can interfere with the Strait whenever they want. But if China backs the deal, then there might be a reasonable chance of it sticking, at least for the forseeable future. The Strait of Hormuz is the absolute key to this crisis. Trump hasn't got the combat manpower in the region to force open the strait, so a deal via Beijing will have to do. But Xi will want a lot in return, like a new arrangement for getting hold of US technology, a lifting of trade tariffs and, best of all, a softer line on Taiwan. Will Trump be prepared to offer such concessions in return for a guaranteed agreement over the strait? He will be tempted.

When Taiwan is raised Trump must remember to stick to the script

The question of Taiwan and Beijing's insistence that the the breakaway republic must be brought back into the Chinese fold has caused problems for previous US presidents. Sticking to the strict format of words to emphasis the American diplomatic approach towards Taiwan has been the crucial factor in developing relations with Beijing. The approach is called strategic ambiguity. In other words, the US agrees not to support Taiwan's battle for independence from Beijing but also does not back China's ambitions to reabsorb the island under its wing. President Joe Biden on four occasions forgot about the carefully drafted words and told questioning reporters that if China invaded Taiwan, the US military would rush to defend the Taiwanese. Each time officials had to clarify his response to point out that the US policy on Taiwan had not changed. Now Donald Trump is heading for Beijing for a two-day meeting with President Xi Zinping, and there are officials in Washington who are keeping their fingers crossed that the president doesn't change the wording of the script and say something that will give hope to Beijing that the US policy has altered. Like, for example, instead of saying that the US does not support Taiwanese independence he might tell Xi he, Trump, opposes Taiwan's independence. Only one word difference but it would be huge for Beijing. No one knows for sure what Trump might say. But there is a possibility he might think he could persuade Xi to urge Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in return for a change in the language over Taiwan. He probably won't but Trump has proved on numerous occasions that he is unpredictable, which is why US officials are so anxious about this summit between Trump and Xi.