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.

A deal with Iran in two or three days, says Trump

Claims about the war in Iran coming to an eed at any moment have been made so many times that it is difficult to take any predictions from the White House seriously. But the fact is that while the US naval blockade of all Iranian ports continues, Iran and its poor people are being bled dry. No oil exports, no trade, nothing coming in except humanitarian shipments. At some point there is going to ba another total breakdown of society in Iran and the streets will be filled with thousands of people protesting. This is what Trump is probably counting on, so that even though there are still breaches of the ceasefire, the rulers of Iran do actually want the war to end so that the country can benefit from at least partial lifting of international sanctions. If there really is a deal waiting in the wings will it be the victory for the US that Trump has been boasting about for so long? In his latest remarks, Trump said that the deal would be sigbed in two or three days and as soon as the signatures are on the agreement, the Strait of Hormuz will open. As for the nuclear issue, Trump is saying he has got it in the bag, ie Iran will pledge not to build a nuclear bomb. But Iran has said this before, so only if the Tehran regime starts to dismantle what's left of its uranium-enrichment programme and hands over the 440 kilos of 60-per-cent-enriched material will anyone believe that the nukes question is finally resolved. If Trump's latest pledge about an end to the war falls apart, like all his previous promises, then the missiles could start flying all over again. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Israel and Iran back to war

Donald Trump has told Israel to stop bombing Iran but Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has ignored him. This tells a lot. Trump has said he is in charge and if he tells Netanyahu what to do or not to, he obeys. This simply isn't true. The ceasafire is now so shakey it's as good as dead and buried. Iran fired a barrage of missiles at Israel, supposedly in return for Israel's continued launching of attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Trump told Netanyahu not to retaliate. But how could he expect Israel not to fire back when Iranian missiles have come hurtling towards them? Of course Israel retaliated, just as Trump has retaliated against Iran when the mullahs have fired missiles and drones at US military forces in the Middle East. Tit-for-tat is an accpeted form of warfare. So, the ceasefire, already a misnomer after masses of breaches since it was announced in April, is over for now. Meanwhile, how will the resurgence of missile attacks affect the negotiations to end the war? Basically, there is never going to be a deal unless there is a comprehensive settlement which involves the US, Iran, Israel, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen. And that sort of agreement, ie no more attacks from any quarter, looks as far away as it has ever been. Even if there is a sort of deal between the US and Iran, there will still be plenty of scope for war if none of the other parties are signed up.

A sense of drift in Washington

Most images of Donald Trump on social media and in the newspapers these days show him with his eyes closed as yet another interminable meeting takes place in the Oval Office. He will be 80 this year and it looks like he's getting tired, especially since so many things are going wrong for him. There is a real sense of drift at the moment because there is still no breakthrough in the war with Iran. We don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but Tehran and its injury-recovered supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, seem to be putiing their foot down and insisting on having all Iran's frozen assets released, totalling around $24 billion, before any deal is discussed about limiting their nuclear programme and reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Does Trump fall asleep when the subject of Iran crops up in conversation? Trump has to be careful. If pictures keep on being published of him nodding off in the Oval Office, comparisons will increasaingly be made with his predecessor, Joe Biden, who invariably closed his eyes during the latter part of his term in office. Trump would not like to be compared with "poor old Joe".

JD Vance has a thing about Britain

The vice president of the United States doesn't have much of a role to play and it must be pretty frustrating which is why perhaps the current holder, JD Vance, spends so much time haranguing Britain over one thing or another. In his latest verbal outburst, he has blamed the appalling murder of the young Henry Nowak by a Sikh called Vickrum Digwa on mass immigration into the UK. If he believes that, ok, but keep his views to himself. What makes him think we are interested in what the US vice president believes, especially when it is simplistic nonsense. He has done this bfore, as has, of course, Elon Musk, who loves to take the side of the Reform leader Nigel Farage in rebuking Britain and the British government for its immigration policies. The more one hears the views of JD Vance, the more unlikely, it seems to me, that he will be a suitable candidate to succeed Donald Trump in 2028. In fact, if things continue to go badly for the Trump administration it is far more likely that the winner of the 2028 presidential election will be a Democrat. The Democratic party just has to get its act together and find a candidate who will wow America and the rest of the world. He or she hasn't emerged yet. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.