Trump in attack mode vis a vis Iran

President Trump has given every indication that he plans to launch limited bombing raids on selected Iranian military targets to encourage the Tehran regime to bow to his wishes. However, based on Iran’s previous responses to US and Israeli military strikes and the determination of the regime to hang on to power, Trump could find himself confronting a larger-scale war with potentially unpredictable consequences, none of which would meet the president’s primary objective – to force Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, to stop the country’s uranium-enrichment programme. As a result of this uncertainty, why is Trump so eager now to resort to military action once again? Does he really think it will be easy, as he claims his top military adviser, General Dan Kaine, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggested? What are Trump’s mission objectives? It could be argued that the main mission, the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities, has already been achieved. Operation Midnight Hammer last June caused severe damage to Iran’s three main nuclear plants. Trump warned at the time he would come back for more if Iran tried to rebuild the facilities. But there is no evidence that any of the targeted plants are being reconstructed, let alone operational. So, an attack on the crippled nuclear sites would be largely symbolic. Far greater a threat are Iran’s ballistic missiles which have multiplied since Operation Midnight Hammer. Missile production plants, targeted in the joint US/Israeli raids in June, were damaged but not beyond repair, and now, according to Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, “our missile power today far surpasses that of the 12-day war [the June attacks]”. Medium and intermediate-range ballistic missile launchers are reported to have been deployed to western and southern coastline positions in readiness for attacks on US forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, and against Israel. If regime-change is on Trump’s list of mission objectives, a limited bombing campaign would not achieve that. Long-lasting regime change requires “boots on the ground”, and Trump is not going to order troops into Iran. Only Israel, with its unique Mossad capabilities embedded in Iran, could attempt a ground-based targeting of regime heads. But even if partially successful, it would not bring about a new-look government in Tehran which would satisfyTrump. Is the US military ready and what difference has it made that the UK has banned bombing flights from British bases? Judging by the massive redeployments of fighter aircraft and bombers in recent weeks, sufficient firepower is now in place for a short-lived attack operation. But the UK government decision and similar restraints imposed by countries in the Middle East (notably Jordan and Qatar) have forced US Central Command – in charge of the planned strikes – to rewrite the mission blueprint. RAF Fairford, RAF Lakenheath and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean had to be crossed off. As a result, a dozen F-22 Raptor stealth fighters, one of America’s most advanced combat jets, flew out of the UK last week and are now based in Israel which, unlike Britain, will be happy to have the aircraft on its territory, either for bombing raids on Iran or to help protect Israeli cities from retaliatory strikes by Iranian ballistic and cruise missiles. Diego Garcia, the key British-owned (still) base for US long-range strategic bombing missions, is currently full of American military aircraft, notably F-16s and a range of air-refuelling tankers, but no B-2 Spirit stealth bombers. The F-16s would be there to protect Diego Garcia from Iranian attack. Six B-2s arrived in Diego Garcia in April last year for attacks on the Houthis in Yemen, after permission was granted by the UK government. This time, as with the Midnight Hammer operation last June, if B-2s are used, they will have to fly from their base in Missouri – a round trip of about 13,700 miles, double the distance from Diego Garcia and back. Why now and what could go wrong? A limited strike, especially if the US is joined by the Israeli air force, would unquestionably cause huge damage to targeted sites in Iran. The US has Tomahawk cruise missiles on board many of the 17 or so warships in the region, as well as the most advanced precision weapons carried by ground-attack aircraft on the two nuclear-powered carriers off Iran and in the eastern Mediterranean. Trump it seems was initially stirred to action by the deaths of thousands of protesters opposing the Tehran regime. But the build-up of US firepower has laid the foundations for a potential historic confrontation between Washington and Tehran. Is this really what Trump wanted, or has the massive show of force taken over the debate and added a momentum too rapid to stop? Prior to war, military commanders give their assessment of likely casualties. The worst-case scenario might be grim reading. In recent confrontations, Iran retaliated in relatively low--profile manner. The deployment of ballistic-missile launchers along the coast suggests Tehran has a mind to answer back with maximum force. American and Israeli lives will be at risk. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES.

Four years of war and Ukraine still resilient

In his worst nightmare, Vladimir Putin could not have imagined that after four years of attacking Ukraine with everything bar tactical nuclear weapons, his neighbour would still be fighting back, and, what's more, launching long-range drones and missiles into Russian territory. Ukraine has been hit so relentlessly with Putin's bombs and missiles that the country, in the depth of a freezing winter, has only 60 per cent power supply to keep the lights and radiators working. Amd yet, Ukraine and the Ukrainian people have never given up and are intent on striking back however long it takes. This won't lead to victory, as some Ukrainian commanders still insist is possible, but the resilience and determination shown means Putin is facing a for-ever war. He may have a war economy to keep his arms factories going, but is he seriously prepared to prosecute this war for another year, two years, three years or much longer. Russia is already struggling economically and the casualty level is so high that the figure of 1.2 million dead, injured or missing, seems realistic. In the last year, the Russian army in Ukraine has managed just a few metres of land-grabbing a week. And this sort of advance after four years! If Kyiv is sensible, it should now spend much more time attacking Russia over the border, bringing the war closer and closer to Moscow. No restraint is required any longer because Putin has shown no interest in doing a deal. So, Ukraine has only one way forward. Give the Russians a real taste of their own medicine. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY SPY THRILLER PAPERBACK, WITH A STRONG RUSSIAN THEME. AMAZON, RNWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES.

Trump's top military man not happy abut attacking Iran

If it's true that General Dan Caine, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Donald Trump's top military adviser, is unsure about the wisdom of attacking Iran, will the president listen to him? Trump doesn't like to be told what not to do, he wants to know how to do what he wants to do. So, General Caine better watch his step if he's warning that a strike on Iran might not be that easy. Well, of course it won't be easy, especially if the objective is to end the regime and turn Iran into a western-loving nation. You can't do that with a bombing campaign. It;s not the wyt it works. But what Caine seems to be worried about it is the likelihood of a war spreading throught the Middle East and lots of people being killed in lots of countries, including Americans. Everyone in Washington is trying to tell Trump that Iran won't be another Venezuela. But I guess Trump knows that. But the key thing here is, Trump wants a quick in and out war where the damage is so great for Iran the ayatollahs will concede and all will turn out fine.Then along comes his top military man who says, no, Mr President, it won't be like that, it could go aon and on and, by the way, we're pretty low on arms because of Ukraine and the previous op against Iran eight months ago. So, a long campaign against Iran could seriously reduce stocks. None of these arguments will hold water if the president is determined to hit Tehran hard. He will expect the Pentagon to deliver the goods, and to stop whingeing. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES.

Can anything stop a Trump attack on Iran?

Normally, in fact always, the US president, current and past, wants to know whether a war, about to be launched, will definitely lead to victory. If the odds are against you, you don't want, as president of the most powerful nation on earth, to contemplate the possibility of defeat or failure. Vietnam has to be the marker for all US presidents. It was a disastrous failure in every possible way. Afghanistan was a failure. Iraq was disastrous but technically not a failure. Venezuela was a success, a huge success, militarily, and so far, diplomatically. A war with Iran has no guarantee of success. Of course, the US will be able to prosecute massive attacks and cause huge damage, and even, possibly, effect a change in leadership in Tehran. But there are no gaurantees it will be a victory for Donald Trump for a number of reasons: even if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme leader, is assassinated/exiled, another Shia cleric will succeed him and carry on the fight. There will be no regime-change as such, unless the US is prepared to send tens of thousands of troops to defeat the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the battlefield. That's not going to happen. So, in fact, what a US military strike from the air and from warships will do is cause a lot of destruction and probably many deaths but with the Tehran regim, albeit with different people, still in business and still hoping one day to develop a nuclear bomb. They have the scientists and engineers to do it. Iran also has the backing of Russia and China, so Tehran won't be isolated. So, if there is no guarantee of victory, why will Trump go ahead? Probably because he thinks he WILL succeed. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER IN PAPERBACK. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Is Iran resigned to war with the US?

No one expects Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, suddenly to capitulate and give in to all of the demands made by Donal dTrump. It's just not going to happen. By all accounts, Khamemei is prepared to die, anticipating a likjly assassination plot by the US military in the event of war, and has already made preparations for his successor. So if the Supreme Leader has realised war is inevitable, Trump is not going to win this confrontation by diplomacy. He will have to go to war to meet his objectives. This is a sobering conclusion but, I fear, realistic. It means that all the talking so far is fairly pointless. Trump wants a denuclearised Iran with only limited ballistic missiles, and an immasculated or changed regime which will no longer threaten the world in any way. It looks like Khamenei is preparing his country for war and retaliation, probably against both Israel and US military bases in the Middle East. Ballistic missile launchers have been lined up in the western and southern areas of Iran to carry out these retaliatory strikes. So, now it's a just a question of when Trump orders the bombers to set off. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY SPY THRILLER PAPERBACK. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS

Seventeen US warships are waiting for war off Iran

The armada that was built up in the Caribbean to snatch Nicolas Maduro in his pyjamas at a bunker home in Caracas was impressive enough, with an aircraft carrier and around 11 warships and more than 100 aircraft of one sort or another. Now we have Donald Trump's next and imminent military venture, to bomb Iran and oust the regime. For this much much bigger operation, Trump has assembled two aircraft carrier strike groups, a total of 17 warships, dozens of fighter aircraft and the rest of the paraphernalia required for a superpower military mission Trump says he doesn't want to resort to force, he would prefer a diplomatic deal but he has set the marker so high, Tehran and the ayatollahs are never going to agree. So, military force it will be. With the huge firepower available, there shouldn't be any doubt that Iran is going to have a terrifying few weeks once the go ahead has been given. Plus, Israel is almost bpund to join in. Assuming this scenario is correct, I would imagine the first strikes will focus on taking out as many ballistic missile sites and ballistic missile plants as possible to reduce the threat of a massive response from Iran against Israel and US forces in the Middle East. The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has warned that Iran will sink one of the aircraft carriers. But this is more bluster than genuinbe threat. The US has surrounded the carriers with anti-missile protection on other warships, and the outcome of an American attack is not difficult to predict. Iran will be the huge and overwhelming loser. Will Tehran cave in and agree a humiliating settlement before the first bomb has dropped, or will it, unwisely, take on the might of the US military and try to score a few hits? If Iran follows the latter course, Trump will hit back even harder. There won't be a wider war throughout the Middle East, as so many people are predicting, it will be total defeat for Khamenei and his regime. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY SPY THRILLER PAPERBACK. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Ban on use of UK bases for Iran attack is staggering

We don't know exactly how the conversation went between Donald Trump and Keir Starmer earlier this week but the US president came away with a flea in his ear. He was told, according to the illustrious Times, that if he wanted to use RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean for planned bombing raids on Iran, he could forget it. The UK government, Starmer apparently said, was not going to authorise either base for attacks. In political, diplomatic, military, strategic terms, this is a staggering decision, one that will have angered Trump beyond words. If Trump does order more strikes on Iran, then the US will definitely want to use Fairford and Diego Garcia. Both these bases are specifically structured and adapted for American bombers, from B-2 strategic aircraft to F-22 ground-attack jets, and because both bases are around 2,500 miles from Iran, as opposed to 6,500 miles from the US to Iran, it makes a helluva difference in terms of combat bombing runs, logistics, wear and tear on aircraft and gas costs. The US military can still go ahead with the strikes on Iran without the two bases, but it won't be so easy, and to have an ally, such as Britain, refuse to allow key bases to be used is a massive slap in the face. Unless Starmer changes his mind, this is going to have a longlasting negative effect on relations with Washington while Trump is in the White House. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, THE SECOND IN A PLANNED TRILOGY STARRING PART-TIME SPY REBECCA STRONG.