Tillerson OUT Pompeo IN

It looks like the much-rumoured ousting of Rex Tillerson as secretary of state is now high on Trump's mind. He wants Mike Pompeo, his trusted like-minded outspoken CIA director to take over at State. The State Department is located in Washington's Foggy Bottom district, but Trump thinks Tillerson's brain has been much too foggy of late, particularly over Iran and North Korea, so he has fallen out of favour. Pompeo, on the other hand, wlll not let Trump down. He knows what his master wants and he agrees with him anyway on all the key issues. There will be nothing very diplomatic about Pompeo when he confronts Iran over the nuclear deal and Kim Jong-un over his nuclear weapons. Pompeo gave a brilliant insight into his way of thinking in the summer during an interview he gave at the Aspen security forum in Colorado. He was asked why he felt dubious about the Obama nuclear deal with Iran which was signed by all the five major nuclear powers plus Germany. In exchange for restricting its nuclear programme over the next ten years, Iran was promised a phased lifting of the heavyweight sanctions which had helped to cripple the country's economy. Pompeo revealed, presumbaly based on classified CIA intelligence, that Iran was cheating and getting away with it, despite a tough verification programme agreed with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as part of the nuclear deal. This is what he said: "I kind of think of Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal like a bad tenant. How many of you have had a bad tenant? You now, they don't pay the rent, you call them and then they send a cheque and it doesn't clear and they send another one. And then the next day there's this old tired sofa in the front yard and you tell them to take it away and you know they drag it to the back. This is Iranian compliance today. Grudging, minimalist, temporary with no intention of doing really what the agreement was designed to do, it was designed to foster stability and have Iran become a reentrant to the Western world, and the agreement simply hasn't achieved that." He went on to say he didn't know what would force Iran to honour the agreement in the proper manner. "But I can tell you what won't, is continued appeasement, continued failure to acknowledge when they do things wrong and forcing them into compliance." So, with Pompeo at the State Department, there would be a new tough approach with Tehran. Trump has already refused to certify the deal the last time he was supposed to put his initials to the continuing agreement, despite Tillerson's recommendation that he should. Pompeo in the background obviously told the president to step back. The rest of the world community condemned Trump. But if Pompeo is moved to State, then Tehran is going to face a much tougher secretary than Tillerson who was persuaded by his counterparts in Moscow, Beijing and London that the deal was good and that Iran was NOT cheating. Pompeo believes Tehran IS cheating and getting away with it, and is making more gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment than the deal allows, is stalling over allowing IAEA inspectors into the military/nuclear complex at Parchin and is generating more heavy water tonnage than is laid down in the deal - all signs that Iran is slowly pushing ahead with its nuclear programme under the noses of the IAEA, AND getting sanctions lifted. Incidentally, the plan is for Senator Tom Cotton to go to the CIA as Pompeo's replacement. Cotton and Pompeo are birds of the same feather. They were the ones who discovered, by accident, that there were secret annexes at the end of the nuclear deal, relating to the powers and limits of the verification programme which not even Obama had seen. The secret annexes were for the eyes only of the IAEA and Tehran. How scary is that? With Pompeo and Cotton in top positions, the Iran nuclear deal is going to be changed to suit Trump, whatever the likes of Boris Johnson in London says.

Trump and the empty chairs

The empty chair routine, of course, has been done before. Donald Trump used the image of two empty chairs when he tried to explain why he was so disgusted that two veteran Democrats, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic leader, and Senator Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority leader, boycotted a meeting at the White House which the president had called to discuss his proposed tax reforms. It was a colourful moment which summed up not just Trump's extreme irritation at being spurned by the two most senior Democrats but also the state of relations between the two parties. Those two empty chairs said more about Trump's problems in Congress than almost anything. The other most notable empty chair image was given to us courtesy of Hollywood legend Clint Eastwood. That was back in 2012 when Eastwood, one of my all-time favourite icons of the movie business, was making a hugely promoted address to the Republican National Convention. The empty chair was supposed to contain Barack Obama. It was intended to be a clever joke, with Eastwood chatting to the invisible Obama to put across his view that the "sitting" president did not deserve a second term. Most people thought it was a ghastly embarrassment. Another guy who thought an empty chair would make a good theatrical device was William Shakespeare, or as one of my American friends one said to me, "Bill Shakespeare". In Macbeth, there is one empty chair at the banquet given by Macbeth in Act III. The missing guest is his old friend, Banquo, who had just been murdered by Macbeth's henchmen. The chair, of course, for those who know the play, is suddenly filled by Banquo's bloodstained ghost whom only Macbeth can see. Take it from me for those who haven't seen the play performed, it's considerably more dramatic a moment than when Eastwood addressed the empty chair at the convention. Trump's two empty chairs idea was pretty effective although it only helped to underline the predicament he is facing in everything he is trying to do. There is not a whisper of compromise in Congress right now. It's a dire situation. Extra extra! Just a quick comment on the latest big cheese American broadcaster to lose his job over sexual harassment allegations. Matt Lauer has been sacked by NBC because a female colleague came forward with a detailed description of his conduct which the high-ups at NBC considered was sufficiently awful to send him packing. The list of big names being accused of "inappropriate conduct" is getting longer by the week. The fall of Charlie Rose of CBS was a huge surprise to those of us who enjoyed his interview style but knew nothing of his bizarre personal behaviour. Matt Lauer is also an excellent interviewer and presenter and we don't yet know what he is supposed to have done wrong. But where will it end? When Charlie Rose was outed as an alleged female abuser, Matt Lauer appeared on NBC and asked searching questions of people on his programme about the dramatic end of Rose's previously distinguished career. Did he by any chance have any sneaking fear at the back of his mind as he asked the questions about whether he too might be found out and exposed? And how many other high-profile American presenters are even now carrying on their broadcasting jobs in a state of permanent suspense and dread?

Could we face nuclear war?

Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and a very pleasant fellow, has admitted that he is really worried there could be a nuclear war. It's the sort of comment which sends shivers down one's spine. Mullen is retired but it wasn't long ago that he knew all the secrets in the Pentagon and still knows to this day what sort of contingency planning the Defense Department has done in the event of an imminent nuclear attack. In other words, he knows his stuff. He admitted in an interview that the potential for a nuclear war was scary. He was talking about North Korea, envisaging a scenario in which Kim Jong-un, having acquired long-range nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, might feel tempted to use them. He must have thought this through and felt impelled to make his views known. I was Pentagon Correspondent for The Times in Washington when Admiral Mullen was the military chief for the Obama administration, and most of my fellow Pentagon Press Corps colleagues liked and respected him. He was approachable and very quotable. But does that make him right when he says he believes a nuclear war is more possible than it was some years ago? Theoretically his fears are sound. There is no question that a North Korea armed with intercontinental-range nuclear ballistic missiles will make the world a far more dangerous place. But will it be like the Cold War or something totally different? Will the mutual assured destruction in the hands of Trump and Kim Jong-un prevent war, as in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, or invite war? I suspect what is in the back of Mullen's mind are his cncerns about the temperament of President Trump and what he might do if facing a nuclear-armed Kim Jong-un. Mullen was an Obama man, and it doesn't sound, from his interview, that he could ever contemplate being a Trump man. He was even critical of General John Kelly for being what he thought was overly supportive of Trump in his capacity as White House chief of staff. He also imagined that if an order was ever given for US nuclear weapons to be launched it was very likely that such orders WOULD be obeyed, a view running slightly counter to the recent stories when current senior military commanders said an order to launch a nuclear weapon would only be carried out if it was considered to be legal and proportionate. So Mullen's worries appear to be as much about Trump as they are about Kim Jong-un. All very scary!!!

Kushner put in his place

There's no real contest when a retired four star Marine Corps general is set against a flippertijibett young businessman even if the latter is the son-in-law of the president of the United States. Sure enough, after months of trying to sort out the chain of command in the White House, General John Kelly, chief of staff, has reigned in Jared Kushner and basically told him what he can and can't do in terms of representing the Trump administration. There was a period when Kushner seemed to have his fingers in every pie, whether it was Russia or China or the Middle East or Afghanistan. He could see or chat to his father-in-law whenever he wanted and generally ruled the roost, as it were. He was Chief Chicken!! Under the previous chief of staff he got away with it. But Kelly really has stamped his authority on the White House, and Kushner, being an official loose cannon, definitely did not fit into his way of doing things. He must have got fed up with Kushner waltzing into the Oval Office and bending Trump's ear the whole time. He had the same trouble with Steve Bannon when he was running all over the shop as Trump's chief strategist. There's nothing a four star general hates more than chaotic management. Generals like firm lines that are all joined up in proper mathematical fashion. There's no room for freelancers and that's how Kelly would have viewed Kushner and Bannon. Powerful and influential freelancers getting in the way of sound judgments and strict management. Trump, like all US presidents, needs structure, even though Donald T probably doesn't believe in structured administration. Just look at his Tweets. I'm sure Kushner will continue to have a key advisory role, but it will now be firmly constrained within the Kelly management format. It's quite a victory on Kelly's part. The chain of command has been set in concrete and woe betide anyone who tries to slip into the Oval Office without Kelly's permission! Kushner has struck up a good relationship with the Saudi Crown Prince and I expect that channel will be exploited to best advantage, so the Trump son-in-law will still have his uses. But he now knows who is boss, and I'm not talking about Father-in-Law Trump.

Saudi crown prince speaks his mind

Some new leaders make waves as soon as they take over. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia isn't strictly speaking the new Saudi leader, he's just the heir apparent to King Abdullah, but since being appointed he has certainly taken on the mantle of the man in charge. But he's already showing the same tendency as his friend Donald Trump to mouth off about other leaders. He has called Ayatollah Ali Khameini, Iran's supreme spiritual leader, the "new Hitler". Personally I don't think it helps for someone with huge power such as the Crown Prince to call the leader of another country, albeit a hated and feared one, the new Hitler. It's stupid, totally counter-productive and unimaginitive. Just like Trump calling Kim Jong-un the Little Rocket Man, it doesn't actually serve a purpose in the great scheme of things other than to annoy the person being insulted. Neither bin Salman nor Trump advanced the search for peaceful relations by their gratuitous comments. The Crown Prince is a man to watch on the world stage. He is clearly intent on not only stirring up Saudi Arabia - not a bad thing - but also playing a big power role in global, particularly Middle Eastern politics. Judging by what he has done so far - for example, bombing the Houthi militia out of existence in Yemen, with widespread collateral damage (killing civilians), and ordering the arrest of 200 fellow princes and others who have been milking the Saudi economy - he seems to be in a hurry to make a splash wherever he goes and whatever he does. If that brings desperately needed genuine reforms to Saudi Arabia, then his leadership will be positive. But there must be better ways of dealing with the threat posed by Iran than calling the supreme leader a new Hitler.

The Crocodile takes over

On the face of it, the last person you would want to succeed Robert Mugabe as president of Zimbabwe is his former vice president, Emmerson Mnangagwa. You only have to read an account of his personal involvement in the slaughter of innocents during the rebellion against whites in the country to realise that he has a past reputation for ruthlessness. He is no kindergarten school teacher. He was Mugabe's enforcer. So why is everyone cheering and waving flags and talking of a new beginning? This is not a new beginning, it's just the old ways painted in a different light. Unless Mnangagwa has seen the error of his ways and has transformed his personality and approach to life, Zimbabwe is not going to be blessed with a political Messiah. The Crocodile, as he likes to be called, is no liberal. But, hopefully, given the chance to rule the country and to do something that will actually benefit its citizens, he will use his enforcer techniques in a more benign way. Perhaps he will create thousands of jobs. Perhaps he will go on a charm offensive and persuade other countries to invest in Zimbabwe. Perhaps he will not order the jailing of opposition leaders. Perhaps he will seek unity, as he promised in his take-over speech. But I say, beware The Crocodile. Let's wait for next year's elections and see how fair and lawful they are. Now he has power, I can't see Mnangagwa relinquishing it to a soft opposition leader if he fails to win the right number of votes. Of course, if he waves a magic wand and improves the lives of Zimbabweans between now and the election, he may well win and be president for a long time. But if he shows any sign that he remains at heart a Mugabe enforcer of notorious brutality, democracy is not going to flower in one of the most beautiful countries in Africa.

Assad wins

Isis may have been defeated in Syria but what about Syria itself? The situation is totally different from the political landscape in Iraq where Isis has also been vanquished. In Baghdad there is a recognised government and prime minister and the country is, relatively speaking, unified, although the Kurds, having played such a huge role in the defeat of Isis, have been thwarted from achieving their goal of an expanded independence in northern Iraq. Syria is still a political mess, with Bashar Assad "in power" in Damascus. But there is also a glorious hotch-potch of rival opposition groups who began this whole war in Syria to oust Assad, and then got caught up in the anti-Isis campaign. They will want their slice of the Syrian cake. The group formerly known as the Nusra Front with its affiliation to al-Qaeda, will also be eager to hang on to what they have managed to grab and occupy in the last four years. Putin reckons he has sorted out Syria's future, after his deal-making summit with the leaders of Iran and Turkey the other day, but who is he kidding? And what is Trump going to do to make sure that all the investment, military and financial which the US has ploughed into Syria over the last few years is not going to be wasted? Whatever happens, it seems likely that Assad will survive. He is looking increasingly confident these days, and with three such influential and powerful countries backing him, it's not surprising. Asad is not going to talk to the Americans. Why should he when he's got Putin, President Erdogan of Turkey and President Rouhani of Iran at his side? So, despite the appalling war crimes committed in the civil war, despite the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons to kill and injure civilians, Assad remains supreme. He's not going anywhere. I predict that Trump will go along with this, allowing Assad to stay in power but with the promise of elections at some time in the future and involvement in the reconstruction of Syrian cities blasted by bombs, artillery and suicide explosions. He will hope that a slice of the reconstruction action will help Washington to retain some influence. But I seriously doubt there will ever be a photograph in the future showing Trump, Putin, Erdogan and Rouhani all shaking hands and smiling to the cameras after an historic four-part agreement for Syria's future.

Bosnia monster gets his due

General Ratko Mladic was a monster, a military leader of unbridled brutality who was the cause of thousands of deaths during the three-way ethnic war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. At last his trial at the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague is over and he has been sentenced to life imprisonment. He was ejected from the court for screaming at the judge, professing his innocence. There is no one less innocent on this Earth than Mladic. There were no good guys in the war, the Bosnian Muslims, Croats and Serbs all hated each other and killed out of revenge for deeds committed three hundred years ago. It was mass slaughter and rape for more than three years. Mladic, with his rock-like face, was the worst of the bunch. He never differentiated between his "military" opponents and civilians. The latter were legitimate targets, in his view, for his artillery and sniper teams and mortar rockets and machineguns. The Bosnian Serbs did not commit every war crime during the civil war. The Croats, for example, fired shells on Bosnian Muslim families in East Mostar for two years, reducing the ancient district of the city of Mostar to ruins. Muslims killed Croats and Serbs, Croats killed Muslims and sometimes Serbs, Serbs killed Croats and Muslims. It was mayhem. Mladic stood out as the monster of monsters. He was the one who masterminded the killing of more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys in the town of Srebrenica because he wanted that whole area to be exclusively Serb. I covered the Bosnia war as The Times defence correspondent, along with other excellent colleagues, and can say without exaggeration that it was the most dangerous time in my life. I went on to cover the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Sierra Leone. But none of them came anywhere near as life-threatening to me personally. Every day was dangerous. The press and media in general were targets as much as anyone else. Having MEDIA spread all over your flak jacket and vehicle was almost asking for trouble. There was no such thing as a safe journey whether you were in Muslim, Croat or Serb-held territory. I was shot at and mortared by the lot. Nevertheless, the one ethnic group you never wanted to come across when driving around a corner was the Serbs. They were always better armed and more likely to open fire first and see who you are second. I once was a passenger in a BBC TV armoured vehicle driven by my comrade Malcolm Brabant, a doughty war correspondent for the Beeb. He drove around a corner near the Serb-held town of Turbe and straight into an ambush of Serb tanks and armoured vehicles, their gun barrels pointing at us. Without a moment's hesitation, Malcolm performed the fastest U-turn his vehicle would allow and accelerated back round the corner. I think the U-turn took the Serbs by surprise because they didn't fire a shot. Ratko Mladic will spend the rest of his miserable life where he deserves to be, in jail.

No end to sex harassment cases

Charlie Rose, one of the great American talk show hosts, always watchable, is the latest to be caught up in the sex harassment scandal. What is being claimed is almost beyond credible, especially the allegation that he walked around naked in front of female colleagues! Did he really do that? He must have been mad! The "past" is a dangerous word. Now 75, I'm sure Rose behaves impeccably but his past has found him out. But before he can make a proper account of himself, and certainly before any proof is provided, he's suspended and tarnished for ever. It's punishment by media. The women making the allegations went to the Washington Post and they published their claims. And, bang, he's finished. It's a brutal world. No mercy. But that's the way it is. Anyone in a high-profle position, whether it be in politics, business, media or Hollywood who has said anything or done anything in the past which can be catergorised as sexual harassment is going to be pilloried and shamed. If they're genuine cases, especially if they involve serial offences, then the action being taken is justified. If they are minor, one-off cases, then the individual involved should be treated with more mercy and not have his career ruined. But right now, there is a hunt underway (I won't use the cliche word witchhunt because it seems rather inappropriate since it's men being hunted not women). I guess there are going to be many many more cases dredged up over the coming months before it runs out of steam. The most positive result out of this scandal would be for bosses everywhere to enforce a new code for all their employees, men and women. As part of their contract for employment new recruits should be made aware that harassment of any kind, whether physical or verbal, is prohibited. The US and British military went through all this a long time ago. The old tradition of the screaming parade ground sergeant-major instilling discipline into fresh recruits is now frowned upon. And when cases arise, as they have done recently in the US, where an instructor is facing court martial for abusing a Muslim trainee who subsequently jumped from a balcony to his death, military commanders are quick to take action. If the allegations against Charlie Rose are true, he is lucky to have survived this long as America's premier talk show host.

Mugabe and his president for life dream

Being president for life is, for some people - very few people - an obsession. After leading the war campaign to overthrow white rule in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe always felt he was entitled to be president for life. And if he hadn't abused the system so much and hadn't allowed his wife and her cronies to feed off the country's dwindling finances, he might have made it. But having been president for 37 years, an absolute ruler, you could see from his rambling, longwinded speeches, often very critical of Britain, that he was in his dotage and no longer capable of running a country, let alone his wife. He's still hanging on, but it won't be for long. The trouble is, what does a president of 37 years standing do in retirement? It must need a counsellor of unbelievable tact and cunning to explain to such a man that he is no longer in charge and must start reading all those thrillers he meant to read while he was running the country. I often wonder what President Putin will do when he eventually relinquinshes power, although I bet he sees himself as president for life, just like Mugabe. By the time his term is up, he will no doubt find some clever legislative clause to allow him to stay on. He did it before. Can you imagine Russia without Putin in power? I can't. The same goes for Angela Merkel. She has been around for so long that it is difficult to envisage her being ousted and going into retirement. She's in real trouble because her coalition partners are no longer happy being her coalition partners. So she will have such a small minority backing her as leader that she may have to call another election. Theresa May must be looking with grim foreboding at what is happening in Berlin. Now Theresa obviously would never have considered being UK leader for life. She couldn't anyway under our political system. But she certainy wants to hang on for as long as possible. That thing about power does become obsessional. There's nothing worse in politics than being in opposition. Mugabe is going through the withdrawal symptoms right now, hanging on for dear life because he can't bear the thought of someone else coming in to replace him. Putin just won't let it happen, full stop!! Trump, dear God, has, theoretically, another seven years to go, and Angela Merkel could be out on her ear if there is another election athough somehow I think she will survive. Her country needs her. Mind you, that's what Margaret Thatcher thought and then all those nasty Tory grandees stabbed her in the back, and she was finished, shedding a very visible tear at the back of her official car as she left Downing Street as ex-Prime Minister. Perhaps it all ends in tears, whoever you are. Take note, Mugabe, Putin et al.

Brexit dilemma

There have been non-stop complaints about what is going on with Brexit. No one, not it seems even the British government negotiators, knows how it's all going to end up. Are we going to be half in and half out, in other words staying in the single market and the EU customs union but exiting everything else - is there anything else? - or is going to be a total break-up with no trade deal or will it be a decent trade deal but not in the single market, and who knows about the free movement of labour and the future of EU citizens in the UK and British citizens living and working in the EU? That about sums up the ignorance. We haven't a clue what life is going to be like after March 2019 - deadline month for leaving the EU - and it's no wonder everyone, not just the politicians, is beginning to get seriously fed up. Can you imagine being someone who runs a business with a lot of European sales or links? How is he or she going to plan for the future when the future is so uncertain? The UK Government's position is: leave it to us, we're in the midst of negotiations and we can't reveal our hand. Well, ok, if you're playing poker you keep your hand to your chest and only display what you have when you've got what you want, your rivals have either throw in their hand or have begun to look vaguely suicidal and you have calculated what huge sum you're going to win by bluffing all the way to the very end. But this is not a game of cards. This is about our lives, our way of life and the lives of our children. We cannot remain in total ignorance of what the politicians are up to. If Theresa May indicates she is prepared to pay out, say, £40 billion to the EU as an exit fee should we not have a say in that? What will it mean for our eoonomy? That is more than our total annual defence spending for example! Where will the money come from? And why do we need to feel obliged to pay the EU all that money? As I have made clear before, I voted Remain, so I'm not happy about anything to do with leaving the EU, but as this country seems set on doing just that, I don't want the EU bureaucrats to screw us and our economy. We will still be part of Europe even when we leave the EU, so let's get this new arrangement sorted out fast, without all this pussyfooting around and disagreeable whispering. Do a deal that will make sense for this country and for Europe as a whole. It can't be that difficult.

Zimbabwe's bizarre coup

Well, this has got to be the strangest coup of all time. Mugabe ousted, military chiefs take over, tanks on the streets, the old dictator forced into house arrest (very nice house, mind you), and then, suddenly up pops Robert M in his finest suit attending a college graduation as if he was still the president and nothing had happened. All very bizarre and kind of creepy. The military I'm sure never left his side throughout the ceremony, but Mugabe seemed quite happy. I noticed that the day before, he was reported to have "chuckled" during a meeting with the miitary top bods and visiting South African delegates. You don't generally chuckle before your execution, so I guess there's not going to be any Mugabe blood shed. Nothing like the moment when Colonel Gaddafi was overthrown for example when he was summarily lynched. So, all very pleasant in Harare at this stage. But Mugabe must have got the message surely? The man called Crocodile is beathing down his neck and at some point he will have to step aside and spend the rest of his days looking at his medals, presumably without his beloved wife, Grace, who seems unlikely to be able to make a triumphant return. Mr Crocodile will see to that. When he takes over, assuming he does and not the poor long-suffering Opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, old Crocodile is not going to want Mugabe wandering the streets looking for trouble, let alone Grace, his hated rival. But in the meantime, perhaps Mugabe has a few other longstanding engagements which he would like to fulfil during this strange hiatus, such as opening a new school that hasn't actually been built or visiting a tractor factory. Does Zimbabwe have tractor factories? Probably not. The house "sort of arrest" of old Mugabe mirrors the bizarre arrests that have taken place in Saudi Arabia courtesy of the new Crown Prince. A whole host of princes, government ministers, officials and members of the military detained for questioning in the Crown Prince's huge corruption investigation are not chained to the walls of a dungeon but have been housed in the five-star luxury Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Riyadh where room service is legendary. So the wealthy Saudi princes, including one of the richest men on the planet, billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Al Saud, share one thing in common with Robert Mugabe. They have all been ousted one way or the other but they are still enjoying the sort of standard of living to which they have for long been accustomed. But, despite Mugabe's little visit to the graduation ceremony, none of them are free men. Their future will depend, on the one hand, on the whim of The Crocodile, and on the other, the very smooth and very rich Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Mugabe might wish he was currently living at the Ritz-Carlton in Riyadh.

Putin comes to Maduro's aid

There are some stories which make me boil. President Putin agreeing to go to the aid of President Maduro of a once great country called Venezuela is one of those stories. Maduro, not a man with much economic brain sense who has successfully turned a wealthy country into a bankrupt state with no hope because of his idiotic and corrupt management, desperately needed someone to help him out with cash. So along comes Putin, ever ready to prop up anyone who claims to like him, or more likely, ever ready to help a country that offers Russia a military base or port. Maduro will now survive because Putin has agreed to reschedule Venezuela's debts so it can stagger on for another year or so. The people of Venezuela will still be living in in a twilight world, unable to buy the food they need, unable to sell their homes because they are worthless and unable to leave the country for a better life elsewhere because they can't take out their life savings with them. This country DOES need help but not if Maduro and his cronies are still in power. Putin, if he had been a better man, would have said to Maduro: "We'll help you with your debts if you do something about the economy and look after your people and be a democrat instead of a dictator." But that's about as likely as Trump saying sorry to Hillary Clinton and inviting her to dinner at the White House.

Mugabe ousted

While most Zimbabweans and leaders around the world - or some of them - breathe with relief at the ousting of the dreadful Robert Mugabe, there has to be an element of fear and concern amidst all the cheering and clapping. Military coups seldom run smoothly, and the risk of a slaughter of opponents to the coup has to be high. I love the semantics used by the coup plotters - not a coup but a bloodless correction. When the military use such terminology, watch out for some brutal correction ahead. When General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi ousted democratically-elected President Mohamed Morsi as president of Egypt in 2013, no one called it a coup, especially not the United States which never liked Morsi. That was also a sort of correction because Sisi and his military chums hated the Muslim Brotherhood taking over the country and judged that Morsi and his cronies were bad for the security and happiness of the nation. So, off with his head. Well, not quite, he was imprisoned and charged with causing the deaths of protestors. There were mass jailings of Muslim Brotherhood members. In subsequent violent protests against the "coup", hundreds of people were killed. Some correction! No military coups are gentle affairs. So we'll have to see how General Constantino Chiwenga, the Zimbabwean army chief, conducts himself and his troops in the next few days, and more importantly, what steps are taken by Emmerson Mnangagwa, the fomer vice-president who was sacked by Mugabe, provoking the military takeover. He seems to have returned from his brief flight from the country and the number one person on his list to sort out will no doubt be Grace Mugabe, the hated shoe and handbag-buying wife of Robert Mugabe who fancied herself as the next leader of Zimbabwe and had gathered a tight bunch of devotees around her. Grace has now fled but Mnangagwa, a big bloke nicknamed the Crocodile - presumably not for affectionate reasons - looks like the type of man who will want to iron out any political wrinkles as he takes over power. What will The Crocodile do with Robert Mugabe? Let him retire in luxury or put him into an old people's home for correction?

Trump and the nuclear codes

Congress is suddenly getting jumpy about Trump and nuclear weapons. No, not Kim Jong-un's nukes, Trump's nukes. As US commander-in-chief, he can loose off as many nukes as he wants without consulting Congress, or seeking consensus with Jim Mattis, his Defence Secretary, and HR McMaster, his National Security Adviser. If he is told the US is in mortal danger of an imminent nuclear attack or if he feels the circumstances are right to launch a preempive nuclear strike, then he has the right and the power to make up his own mind. That has been the case with every president since nukes were invented, but the current president has proven to be so unpredictable and so unmanageable that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee decided it was time to discuss the issue. Today's committee meeting is entitled: Authority to Order the Use of Nuclear Weapons. They already know the answer to all their questions - Yes, he can - but the mere fact that they are debating the issue at all is because they are seriously afraid, it seems, that Trump might do something foolish, like order a nuclear attack for the wrong reasons! I think the senators are overdoing the worry bit, but it's certainly prudent for all of us to remember the power that the president of the United States has to "destroy North Korea", as he once threatened to do. You can't actually destroy a whole country unless you use nuclear weapons. Ergo, Trump must have had nukes in mind when he said it. The protocol for launching nuclear weapons was set up solely to take into account the fact that if Russia or China, for whatever reason, decided to attack the US with nuclear weapons in a first-strike launch, the president would have less than 30 minutes to decide what to do before the ICBMs startd crashing down onto American cities. THIRTY MINUTES! That really doesn't give much time for a chat with Jim Mattis, or a lengthy debate in the White House Situation Room, let alone a telephone call with key members of Congress. Thirty minutes become 20 minutes in, well, just ten minutes, and then suddenly the spots on the radar seem to be getting bigger and bigger and closer and closer. So, under those circumstances, the president would have little choice but to launch a mass retaliatory nuclear strike himself and fire off every missile interceptor available. But not even the most paranoid senator, Democrat or Republican, can really think that Trump would want to unleish Armaggedon like a modern-day Dr Strangelove by launching a preemptive strike on some personal whim.Nevertheless, for the uninitiated, here's the procedure that Trump would need to follow: An emergency meeting would be held with key advisers, including Mattis, McMaster, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and others, and the commander of US Strategic Command would outline the nuclear attack options. With the minutes ticking by, the president would have to absorb all the pros and cons in a matter of moments and, if resolved to launch, whether advised to do so or not, all he would have to do is summon the military officer carrying the so-called nuclear football - an easy process because the officer in question is by his side always. The football which is really a briefcase containing the communications for a nuclear strike would be opened by the aide and presented to Trump. Then he would swiftly search for the codes, contained in a credit-card style plastic device called the "biscuit" which he is supposed to have on his person at all times. The codes would be transmitted to military officers at the Pentagon and Strategic Command, which not only confirm his identity but provide authorisation for a nuclear launch. That's it. In a Hollywood film, the military guys at the Pentagon would refuse to obey the president's orders and by some miracle the world would be saved. In real life, the officers would press the button!

Kim suffers defection

Dear Kim Jong-un, this is just to let you know that one of your trusted soldiers, guarding your side of the Demilitarised Zone, has defected to South Korea. I'm telling you in case your military chiefs have failed to notify you out of sheer terror that they will be blamed. Which they will. Basically he got fed up standing guard like a zombie staring like a waxwork model at his South Korean counterparts staring back at him and decided that there was probably more to life and that if there was more to life there was a better chance of finding it in South Korea than the dreadful North. He had apparently heard about Netflix and was determined to watch every drama series going before he departed this world. The defection of the soldier is only one of three North Korean military chaps to make the break across the DMZ since the end of the Cold War. It's potentially quite easy to run across the relatively short distance of the Joint Security Area in the centre of Panmunjom DMZ which is shared by the two sides in a grim face-off pantomime. But it's also potentially fatal because his comrades have guns and tend to fire them whenever anyone from their side looks like he's about to launch off into the arms of the South Korean soldiers. Sure enough, your man was shot twice, once in the elbow and once in the shoulder, but you will be devastasted to know that your soldiers are lousy shots and he's not going to die and is receiving the best hospital treatment South Korea can provide. Now, I'm not saying this is the greatest coup for the South Koreans. This poor disillusioned soldier probably knows nothing of any great intelligence. After all, all he did was turn up for work each day and try not to sneeze anywhere in the DMZ. He will know nothing about your nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programme, and won't even know what you have for breakfast. But it's all about propaganda, you see. You'll understand that! Especially coming only a few days after Donald Trump was in South Korea, warning you not to trust your luck against the mighty US. So it will no doubt irritate you somewhat and you'll probably blame the US whatever the circumstances. By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, there's a wonderful picture of the DMZ taken by Reuters which shows South Korean soldiers on one side of a high security fence and a large flock of birds on the north side. It's my belief that the birds have collected there to make a midnight escape across the wire. Their defection may go unnoticed but it will be another major propaganda blow for you.

Who is lying: Putin or the CIA?

I once asked a senior member of Britain's secret intelligence service how they went about their business. One thing he said was that they were trained to lie on behalf of HM Government, as well as carry out illegal acts abroad to uncover secrets that would help Britain's foreign and economic policy. James Bond lying? Surely not. Well, this is the espionage world, full of conspiracy and covert agent-running and developing contacts at the highest level in foreign governments. So, President Trump, when Vladimir Putin told you it was absolutely not true that Russia had interfered in the US 2016 election, he was replying to your questions as a trained KGB man. Lieutenant-Colonel Putin of the KGB was and is a trained liar. That's what they do, and they do it extremely well, just as the KGB's counterparts in the west lie. So, first of all, there's no point in asking Putin whether his cyber-warfare flunkeys took part in subterfuge to disrupt the US elections and make sure Trump won the presidency because the reply will always be whatever suits Putin's position. He is never going to say: "Sorry, Donald, I've been lying all along, I did it because I wanted you to be president, not that ghastly Hillary Clinton." So, the reply you got from Putin on this latest occasion was never going to be the truth and nothing but the truth. Trump appears to have gone along with his Russian buddy's response by publicly declaring that Putin had denied interfering and that was that. He didn't actually say he believed the Russian leader but he didn't say he didn't either. What a convoluted tangle. Just to make sure it didn't sound as if he was accusing the CIA, FBI and NSA of lying when they all agreed Russia HAD interfered in the election, Trump said he fully supported the US intelligence services. But you can't have it both ways, Mr President. Either you believe, and sincerely believe, your own intelligence services or you don't. Either you believe everything Putin says as gospel or you don't. You can't have it both ways. But then the declaration that Russia had been involved in some skulduggery during the election was made during the administration of President Barack Obama. So Trump probably thinks it was all a political stunt by Obama and his top spies to embarrass him. If that really was the case, then the US is in trouble because a huge amount of American foreign and domestic policy is forged on the basis of intelligence supplied by the CIA, FBI and NSA. If everything they do is politicised, they cannot be trusted. Trump once implied that US spies couldn't be trusted because they claimed Saddam Husein had weapons of mass destruction when he didn't. OK, fair enough, but I firmly believe that America's intelligence services, as well as the intelligence services of Britain, France, Germany etc etc, WERE convinced of the presence of weapons of destruction based on the secret material they were receiving. They were wrong, they put two and two together and made ten, they assumed everything they were receiving was sound intelligence, and they failed to get first-hand evidence: ie no single Western intelligence officer was able to say, hand on heart, that he or she had actually seen a warehouse full of biological and nuclear weapons, and had taken photographs of long-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads at the top. No, it was all word of mouth, and the mouths were telling lies. But that still doesn't mean the intelligence services themselves were lying in order to please their political masters, especially President George W Bush and Tony Blair. They weren't lying, they were duped, like the rest of us. So, President Trump, decide once and for all. Do you believe your own intelligence services or do you believe Putin? Once you have made up your mind, please tell us. A tweet will do.

Carrier triplets in action

Tomorrow is going to be a special day in the Western Pacific. Three, yes three, US Navy aircraft carrier battle groups will begin a naval exercise, showing off the incredible potency of these vast warships, each with up to 90 aircraft on board and an arsenal of Tomhawk land-attack cruise missiles on the escort guided-missile destroyers, cruisers and nuclear submarines. That's a whole war machine right in front of the eyes of Kim Jong-un, President Xi Zinping and anyone else in the region who has reason to fear, hate or depend on the United States. The three carriers are the USS Ronald Reagan which is the US Navy's forward-deployed carrier on station in Japan, USS Nimitz and USS Theodore Roosevelt. Three mighty platforms all together, strutting their stuff in international waters. The US Navy says having three carriers together like that hasn't happened in the Western Pacific since exercises in 2006 and 2007. Apart from providing a golden opportunity to coordinate warfare tactics and fill the skies with fast jets, the military showcase will remind the North Korean leader that a false move by him could bring the wrath of Trump's Pentagon down on his head. Symbolism can be effective or it can be dangerous, depending on who it is aimed at. For President Xi it will reconfirm for him the need to push ahead as fast as his shipyards can go to get more carriers on the high seas. He is undoubtedly green with envy that the US has ten carriers and will probably spend the day trying to ignore the pictures on CNN and dreaming of the time when China will be abe to match the US, carrier for carrier. As for Kim Jong-un, he doesn't have any carriers and never will. But he will be smiling with some satisfaction that the reason for the presence of three American aircraft carriers on his horizon is because of the success he has had in developing nuclear warheads and long-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying them. Three aircraft carriers together don't have as much killing power as a single nuclear ICBM landing on a US city. That is probably his way of thinking. Hopefully the carrier exercises which will last from November 11-14 will go ahead without any stupid gesture of defiance from Kim.

Trump's Chinese take-away

I know Trump is due to meet up with Putin, but judging by the all the fawning going on in Beijing, I reckon the US president has decided that if there's going to be a big love-in with any of his counterparts in the world it has to be President Xi Zinping. The Chinese leader has more to offer than Putin, and with China's economy set to go up, up and away, it makes more sense to talk high politics with the Chinaman than with the Russian whose economy is shakey to say the least. If there's going to be a diplomatic breakthrough with Kim Jong-un it's more likely to come from a Beijing/Washington offensive than a Moscow/Washington duet. The clearest sign that Trump has gone all lovey-dovey with Xi was his bizarre admission that it was America's fault that there was such a big trade imbalance between the two countries, not China's fault. Yet until now, Trump has been swearing blue murder at Beijing for being the Bad Boys in the trading inequalities. In the election campaign he threatened all kinds of trouble for China over trade and currency manipulation, let alone a military face-off over the South China Sea islands dispute. But he arrived in Beijing to a huge red carpet welcome, and before you can say boo to a goose, Trump is falling over with love and devotion for the smiling Xi. It's all a bit hypocritical and paradoxical but who else is Trump going to link arms with? Putin should have been The One but that has become increasingly difficult as the KGB Pootin Interference in Elections Gang has been exposed. Trump had a go at making big friends with the Japanese and South Korean prime ministers, but they're both shorter, and Trump never seemed quite to know whether to hug them or bow his head, and he's not a bowing-head type. Unlike Obama who knew when to come down from his great elegant height and make a suitable bowing movement. Heaven knows what Trump will do when he meets Queeen Elizabeth who is tiny. So, getting back to high politics, there is no one in Europe who Trump fancies being chums with. Not even with Macron although they got on fine on Bastille Day. Certainly not Angela Merkel who seems to shudder at the mention of the Trump word, and definitely not Theresa May who might not be around much longer judging by the superior, sniffy comments being made in Brussels. The presidents and prime ministers of almost anywhere else are not worth cultivating. You can't be buddy buddy with Bibi Netanyahu - far too one-sided. So that leaves dear smiling Xi, the Supreme Panda. Let's hope Trump's gamble proves fruitful.

Fog of war

Ho ho ho, so fog foiled Trump's little game plan. He planned all along to visit the Demilitarised Zone at Panmunjom, separating North and South Korea, but got his White House flunkeys to tell the media that he was far too busy to go there. I knew his instincts would be to try and make the traditional presidential trip to the DMZ. It's what US presidents do. But for once I thought Trump had given in to wiser counsel because of the heightened tension between Trump and Kim Jong-un. But no, Trump dismissed the advice and said he wanted to helicopter in and bring all the travelling press with him. But God in his wisdom blanketed the North Korean/South Korean border in thick fog and thwarted his plans. The whole helicopter caravan had to turn back. The language must have been blue in the Trump chopper. Actually it was pretty scary. The helicopter pilots said they couldn't see each other. They were flying blind which could have led to a total disaster, like a mid-air collision, so the sensible decision was taken, and Trump headed off to Beijing after another stopover meeting in South Korea. The incident has served as a reminder of how the weather can play such a crucial role in wars. Had Trump ordered an invasion of North Korea on that very day, using attack helicopters etc, would the fog have delayed the offensive? You bet it would have! Fog is a killer for flying, for dropping laser-guided weapons (lasers don't see through thick fog}, for screwing up ground-troop advances and even for overflying satellites. So Trump was foiled, and Kim probably had a good laugh. The fog of war doesn't have to involve actual fog, but the end result is the same - confusion and mistakes and bad moods. Poor old Trump, his grand moment of theatre taken from him. The only thing of real interest that emerged during the South Korean leg of his Asia trip was his remark to a South Korean audience: "Ultimately, it will all work out." What can that mean? Was this Trump making a throwaway remark without any real content or was he giving way a Big Secret. In other words, diplomatic efforts are beginning to get somewhere with Kim, and if so, whose efforts are they? Is there a secret US delegation even now in Pyongyang? There has been no hint of it to the US media, but who knows. One thing that can be said for certain is that the Little Rocket Man has not fired off a test ballistic missile for two whole months. Hmmm very interesting!

Is Trump wise to meet Putin again?

Trump wants to meet with Putin even though some officials are advising against it. So the get-together WILL happen at the Asian economic summit in Vietnam towards the end of the president's round-Asia trip. The last time they met was at the G20 summit in Hamburg in July. So, in my view, it would be pretty pathetic for Trump to snub Putin this time round just because of all the headlines back home about Russia's interference in the US presidential election and the alleged collusion between Trump's campaign team and Moscow. All the diplomats who are apparently warning off Trump from meeting Putin this month are playing the ultimate cautious game, like diplomats generally do. But if Trump and Putin are in the same building at the Da Nang summit, then they should have a bilateral. That's what big power leaders are supposed to do. The other reservation being put about is that a meeting with Putin will get nowhere. It's true that the US and Russia are at opposite ends of the political spectrum over Syria, for example, and there's little chance of a sudden meeting of minds about a future government in Damascus. But surely there's no harm in trying. There are many examples in the past where personal chemistry between two leaders has helped to broker unexpected deals. Trump is having a terrible time at home but there's no reason why he shouldn't have a good session with Putin and emerge with something of value. Never mind the Robert Mueller Russia investigation, Mr President, use whatever skills and instincts you have to make a difference in Syria. There HAS to be a compromise deal somewhere in the advising brainpower available to both Trump and Putin to make sense of the political anarchy in that poor country which has been ravaged for too long by war and killing. So Syria should be at the top of the agenda, with a close second, North Korea. Russia shares a border with North Korea and has every reason to ensure he regime ruled by Kim Jong-un does not become a fully fledged nuclear weapon power. My view, as outlined in previous blogs, is that Kim will do whatever it takes to get his nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal primed and ready for launch to deter the US from attacking his nuclear facilities. So, it may be too late for an inspired solution to stop him. But, again, if Trump and Putin and their best nuclear/diplomatic brains can work something out and present a package of measures to Kim, who knows! This is being optimistic, I know, but right now in this deteriorating world, we need a burst of optimism and, my goodness, Trump needs a break from all the flak back home. Much of America and the world think Trump is a walking disaster, but he is the elected president of the United States and has huge power at his fingertips. This Asia trip MUST produce a breakthrough somewhere, and perhaps, just maybe, a Trump/Putin love-in might push things along in the right direction. So go for it, Mr President. Prove to all your detractors that you have the right stuff! My fingers are crossed.

Will Flynn be next?

The big question is, has Robert Mueller, the former FBI director, got Lieutentant-General Mike Flynn in his sights for a future indictment? Could he be the next one to face charges? Donald Trump's first national security adviser who only lasted 25 days in the job, seems likely to be at the top of Mueller's list now that Paul Mannafort, ex-campaign chairman, has been dealt with. If Flynn is indicted for "colluding" with the Russians during the election campaign this could be Trump's worst moment. Flynn was one of Trump's favoured people. He was ousted, not because he had talked with some Russians and seemed to be developing a potential back channel to Moscow for a Trump administration but because he denied any such meetings when he spoke to Mike Pence, the vice-president. Lying to the US vice-president is almost as unwise as lying to the FBI. Anyway that did it, Trump had no choice but to fire him. Now we will see how loyal Flynn is to the president. George Papadopoulos, Trump's one-time foreign policy adviser, turned out to be totally unloyal because he agreed to cooperate with Mueller in order to save his skin, or at least to save himself from a custodial sentence. Will Mueller now put maximum pressure on Flynn to get him to cooperate as well, not just offering HIM a deal but also to save his son who is being investigated along with his father? Mueller is a tough old bird and there is no question he is determined to get to the bottom of the Russia collusion accusation, and people like Flynn must have a head full of secrets and plots and confidences which would help the veteran FBI man to conclude his inquiry before Trump sacks him too. Flynn had every reason to be totally loyal to Trump when he was a top dog in the White House but in the intervening nine months since his dismissal, his loyalty may be less guaranteed. It's a tricky time for Trump. If Flynn does do a deal with Mueller, will the president denounce and belittle his former trusted national security adviser in the same way he discarded Papadopoulos as a adviser of no consequence?

Invade North Korea

Very helpfully for Trump, some bright military type has revealed that the only way to ensure North Korea's nuclear facilities are destroyed is to invade the country with, presumably, hundreds of thousands of troops. Maybe Trump set it up before he left for Asia, but assuming Kim Jong-un has read the comments of General Vincent Brooks, the North Korean supreme leader will nod his head and say: "There you are, I told you, the US IS determined to invade us." General Brooks, not a household name, put his views to a bunch of South Korean military chiefs. He said invasion was the only real option. Well, this is of course Trump-type language, but it may not have been a suitable moment for this little nugget to slip out into the public domain. Kim and his intelligence apparatus will be listening out for the slightest sign of American plotting against his regime. By all accounts he is already planning a possible 7th nuclear test. The potential for a wrong move is huge. Trump is hoping to have a session with Putin at some point in his Asia trip to ask for his help re North Korea. But I'm not really sure what Putin might have up his sleeve. Putin and Kim are not great buddies. But who knows, perhaps the two men will think of something to stir the pot. Meanwhile, if there are any other General Vincent Brooks types around, could they perhaps keep their thoughts to themselves for the moment!

Watch out world

Everyone better watch out. Trump has set off on his 11-day Asia trip and he's in a steaming mood. First there was the terrorist attack in New York, committed by someone who entered the US as an immigrant, then that "traitor" Bowe Bergdahl was given a non-custodial sentence for desertion in Afghanistan which the president tweeted was a total disgrace, and then, of course, there's Kim Jong-un ahead of him to deal with on the trip. One way or the other he wants to get North Korea sorted out, and now, during his trip to the region, would seem to be as good a time as any!! The Bergdahl sentence was pretty extraordinary. But then it was Trump's remarks way back which provided mitigating circumstances. He denounced Bergdahl as a traitor before his court martial had even begun. So obviously his defence counsel brought this up before the judge. He escaped a prison sentence even though his desertion led to a number of serious injuries among his comrades who went searching for him. They must be pretty gutted as well. Trump was so angry at the judge one wonders whether Colonel Jeffery Nance, the judge in question, will survive. I bet Trump will get onto James Mattis, his trusty defence secretary, and order him to fire the judge. Not that Mattis can do any such thing. So, beware those who are about to meet the president during his Asia trip. He is in a bad temper. Kim Jong-un better not even consider firing off a ballistic missile or carrying out a nuclear test in the next 11 days. There's no knowing what Trump might do, especially as he has three aircraft carriers around with a total of 270 aircraft of varying types on board, plus ships and submarines with Tomahawk cruise missiles.

It's all about sexual harassment

On both sides of the Atlantic there's only one story that's really hitting the headlines: sexual harassment in the workplace, sexual harassment in politics, sexual harassment under the dinner table, sexual harassment in the back of a taxi, sexual harassment everywhere. It's overbearing men versus vulnerable women. The whole topic, buried for decades, probably for centuries, must be making every man think, oh my god, was that party kiss one step too far, did that hug last too long, was that flirty text "uncomfortable" for the recipient, was that sexy joke unpalatable? There is no way I'm attempting to belittle what is now going on. If a woman, any woman, young, middle-aged or older, has had a truly bad experience with a man trying to maul her or, much worse, actually force himself on her and demand a sex act or worse worse still commit rape, then let that man be damned. An overbearing, aggressive, demanding male who thinks he has the right to get what he wants from a woman is despicable and deserves punishment. The trouble with this current sexual harassment mayhem is that it all started with the worst possible example: Harvey Weinstein. Well actually it started with certain executives on Fox News who got sacked for their disgraceful conduct over many years. But Harvey Weinstein and his horrific attempts, allegedly, to trap young Hollywood actresses into submission set the marker for what has been running ever since. The smell of a witch hunt is never pleasant when it produces bigger and bigger headlines until it's not difficult to jump to the conclusion that men are basically a disgusting species. This is pretty well what British actress Emma Thompson implied in a BBC Newsnight programme a week or so back. Now, as a member of the male species, I have to counter that argument. Men, I agree, can be pretty stupid when they spot a deliciously attractive woman across a crowded room. But there's a helluva difference between the man making a fool of himself when he tries, unsuccessfully, to chat her up, and the Harvey Weinsteins of this world who believe that because they are big and powerful they expect women to perform any sex act they fancy at the time. The UK defence secretary, Sir Michael Fallon, has resigned his Cabinet post because, as he said, his behaviour towards women had fallen short of what is expected of a minister who is responsible for the country's armed forces. He, of course, was the politician who put his hand on the knee of a female journalist several times under the table during a dinner. Good for Julia Hartley-Brewer, the journalist involved, who warned him he would get a punch in the face if he did it again. It made Fallon look a proper charlie, well, rather seedy actually. He resigned because he knew there were other women who had received his unwanted attentions. So an honourable resignation but for dishonourable reasons. There may well be other ministers and/or male MPs who have crossed the line. But, again, provided we're not talking Harvey Weinstein, let's not get so worked up that every man who has been stupid enough to push his luck with a member of the female sex gets publicly lynched. Julia Hartley-Brewer, a former colleague on The Times, got it spot on. A threatened punch in the face or elsewhere should do the trick.

Trump sees sense

There are some things which Trump realises can't or shouldn't be done. A visit to the Demilitarised Zone at Panmunjon on the border of North and South Korea was one of those "don't do's". I wrote about this recently and suggested the presence of Trump in the DMZ would have potentially dangerous consequences. But I bet the conversations he had with John Kelly, his chief of staff, and other military types, were lively. Trump would surely have said: "If I don't go, like other presidents have done, Kim Jong-whatsit will think I'm backing down, that I'm weak when I am actually the most powerful man in the whole world." General Kelly would have soothed and smoothed, pointing out that of all recent presidents he was the one most feared by Kim Jong-whatsit and so he didn't need to go to Panmunjon to peer through binoculars, like his predecessors had done. Be different, General Kelly would have said. Trump would have liked that sort of comment - that's what Kelly is paid for - but instinctively he would have loved to go to the DMZ and look, well, pretty tough and omniscient. But diplomacy has won through, and the White House came out with the statement that the president had such a busy schedule he couldn't fit in the time to go to the DMZ. So that's that. Meanwhile Kim has gone all quiet, visiting cosmetic factories, and then there's the extremely suspect story about how 200 people died when the last nuclear test was carried out, with the mountain above the underground test site rocking and wavering. If that's true, then Kim has to start looking for another mountain. But the story, true or false, will give a little breathing space while Trump rushes in and out of South Korea without so much as a glance over the border into Kim Jong-whatsit territory. Nevertheless I'm sure Trump's speeches in the area will include lots of references about how the military option remains on the table. One presumes the table in this case is the presidential Resolute Desk in the Oval Office that was a gift from Queen Victoria in 1888 and was built from the oak timbers of the British Arctic exploration ship, Resolute. The desk no doubt will help Trump to remain resolute in dealing with Kim Jong-whatsit.