Trump rejects Iran's peace offer

Donald Trump didn't take long to dismiss Iran's new peace offer. The reason is not difficult to understand. Effectively, Iran wanted all the goodies available first before opening the Strait of Hormuz: a lifting of the US naval blockade, an end to all conflict across the region, including Lebanon and Yemen, and the ban on Iranian oil to be lifted. Then and only then would Iran be prepared to talk about everything else, such as the nuclear programme. Trump doesn't like to have the terms dictated to him and not only said no but also suggested that after the midterm elections in the US in November he could be back to bombing Iran once again. That was presumably said to put the maximum pressure on the Tehran regime to accept Trump's terms which would be - open the Strait of Hormuz totally and then we'll talk. It's a game of bluff and counter-bluff. Iran said that if the US returns to strikes, it is ready to retaliate. What we do know now, thanks to revelations about the huge damage done to US bases in the Gulf region from Iranian ballistic-missile and drone attacks, is that Iran can retaliate in a big way. So, Trump must be hoping that the economic crisis for Iran, deprived of any income from oil sales, will fall to its knees and beg for mercy. This is what should happen, but I fear it won't. Trump has an enemy he can't really fathom.

Iran offers new deal

It is one of those ironies that if there is to be a deal between Iran and the United States to stop the war it will probably be something like or something very like the 14-point Memorandum of Understanding that was drawn up by the Trump administration and Iran and then fell apart after someone stupid in the Islanic Revolutionary Guard Corps decided to attack a ship in the Strait of Hormuz. The main ingredients of the memorandum are being picked over by the US and Iran, but basically what it says will probably do. The Iranian foreign minister has produced a slightly revised version, suggesting that instead of waiting 60 days for talks to begin on Iran's nuke programme after the war has come to an end, it could be just seven days. That's really the only change being offered. Since the US was happy with the Memorandum of Understanding, the Trump administration might as well go for the new idea. Why not? If Washington thought the memorandum was ok in Jine, then why should it not think it's ok today? Go for it and end the war and bring to a close the nightmare economic crisis around the world.

No leader knows how to cope with the world anymore

As Donald Trump and Xi Zinping meet for their summit in Washington you wonder whether either of them has a clue about how to save the world from a rapid downhill journey to chaos. If it's not wars, it's AI or economic disaster. There is much pageantry and handshakes but whatever the two leaders agree to will make very little difference. Why? Because they have almost nothing in common. President Xi Zinping wants China to be the dominating economic force on the planet, and Trump thinks the US IS the dominating force on the planet and won't let go. People who want to have their own home, their own ability to feed their families, and forge their own future play little part in this big-power battle. Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, has come up with some sort of alternative way for the world's divisions based on multi-culturism but it's all just words. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair announced a Third Way but whoever hears about that these days? There is no plan for the world ahead. Massive climate change is going ahead whatever anyone does, AI will destroy the world's workforce and no one will be able to afford to drive their cars, whether petrol- or electrical-driven. Big summits like the one we have in Washington today solve nothing. They just tinker round the edges.

Fire and brimstone from Donald Trump

Donald Trump used his speech before the UN General Assembly to warn that he had it in mind to "annihilate" Iran. To achieve that, he will need a heck of a lot of bombs and missiles and in the process could kill a lot of civilians. So, it's just rhetoric. But if he isn't going to do it, why give such a warning at the UN which is supposed to be all about respecting countries' sovereighty and rights? Well, he did also say there could ne negotiations, and the president of Iran, who was present, was listening and soon after we heard that Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy, had met up with the Iranian foreign minister in a room somewhere in the UN. Probably nothing will come of it. But there is always hope. Trump does not want to restart the war, not with the midterm elections just a few weeks away. He wants a deal above all else. Iran will be hoping to have enough leverage to ensure it gets a deal it likes. Trump won't care too much provided the Strait of Hormuz is opened and running smoothly and there is a clause which guarantees Iran will never seek to build a nuclear weapon. He will say that's a victory even though that was exactly the position before the US and Israel attacked Iran on February 28. What, in other words, was the war all about?

Andy Burnham to Saudi Arabia's rescue

Out of the blue, Andy Burnham has announced that he has approved the deployment of an RAF midair refuelling tanker to help Saudi Arabia in its fight against the Houthis in Yemen. When asked for help, Donald Trump said no, not wanting to get involved in yet another war. But a phone call to London, and suddenly the UK is happy to help out. I don't know how meaningful it is to send a tanker to the Saudis. But the timing is so obvious a three-year-old could work it out. Burnham has left for New York today for the United Nations General Assembly where he has fixed to have a special meeting with Trump. That's it, it's the real reason for the tanker. Burnham can boast to Trump that the UK is helping him in his Middle East war. Trump has been pretty pissed off with the UK government for failing to give full support for his war against Iran. Even though UK bases were used for some of the strikes on Iran, when Keir Starmer gave his aporoval, subsequently supported by Burnhan, the strikes were limited to defensive missions, ie when defending US and Gulf assets from attack. Although the line between offensive and defensive is pretty muddy, it was an attempt by the UK government to keep out of the war per se. Now, Burnham, having seen that Trumnp was reluctant to help out the Saudis against the Houthis, realised this was an opening for him. That may be a bit cynical but I can just imagine the arguments that must have gone on in Number Ten. Anyway, it's almost bound to achieve the result Burnham wanted which is a friendly session with Trump in New York.

Trump's triumphal arch with drone and sniper accessories

Donald Trump has come up with a brilliant idea. Instead of just building a 250ft-high Arc de Trump near the Arlington cemetery as part of his architectural legacy, he has decided to placate all his critics by announcing that in reality it's going to be a super stronghold for drones and snipers to protect Washington in particular and the whole country in general. He really does plan to stuff the golden arch with drones and men in boilersuits with fancy rifles. He did the same for his ballroom, after knocking down the whole east wing of the White House. It wasn't going to be just a place for dancing and banquets, no no no, it was going to house underneath a massive new security bunker for his safety and the safety of the nation. So a ballroom and an arch will be just a front for a military power base. The super bunker I can understand but an arch full of drones? For what purpose exactly? According to Trump, he was asked to include a storage place for drones by the Pentagon and so he obliged by offering his planned arch. Of course, it's all about politics. What Trump wants he gets, but to avoid criticism and prevent legal action, he can quote national security, the be-all-and-end-all excuse for getting something past any opposition, whether it be local residents or the courts. It's a smart move but almost laughable.

Donald Trump versus fake news

Ever since he became president the first time round, Donald Trump has raged against the media, claiming they pedal fake news. What he really means is that certain parts of the media don't like him and, therefore, write and report negative stories about him and his administration. There's a huge difference, but Trump sees all these stories as fake, ie made-up, deliberately aimed at harming his presidency and attacking him in person. There is no question that much of the media in Washington, newspapers and TV stations, are generally opposed to Trump and all his works. But then so is an increasing number of politicians and citizens in the US. His poll ratings are wildly unfavourable. Does that mmake opinion polls fake news, too? The latest organisations to be selected for Trump's anger are CNN, Politico and MS Now (a TV channel). Their journalists are all banned from entering the White House which means they can't attend any of his press briefings or other events. The reporting credentials have been axed. This is a sign of Trump's increasing determination to eliminate any stories which are critical of him. It won't work, of course. CNN will carry on doing what it does, whether it has reporters inside the White House or not. It's very easy to shout "Fake News" but I don't think his latest attempt to suppress freedom of speech, enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, will make a blind bit of difference, except make it a lot more challenging for the banned news organisations to do their job.