Theresa under constant attack

I don't know Theresa May personally, but I really do wish she could summon up the courage to order her ministers to shut up, get on with their job and stop plotting behind her back. What's wrong with these people, ministers and backbench MPs? They are all in the same political party but they seem to spend most of their time trying to make the Conservatives look like a bunch of backbiting, sniping, ungrateful, schoolboyish, pathetic idiots who would prefer to see Theresa May ousted at all costs whether it brings Jeremy Corbyn into Number 10 or not. How stupid is that? I have actually heard of Tories talking about the Corbyn nuclear option: let Labour win and after a year or two of a disastrous Corbyn government, there would be an election and the Conservatives would win an overwhelming majority under a New Leader. People who think like this should get out of Westminster more often and experience the real world. If Corbyn were ever to win, he might just survive and then how foolish would the Tory plotters look? As for a New Tory Leader, there isn't a single person currently in government who would make a better prime minister. That's not to say that Theresa is perfect, she is not. But none of her potential rivals would be any better, and most of them would be worse. So, you revolting (as in rebelling) Tory MPs, get with it and start backing Theresa to the hilt and boost her confidence a little. As of now, wherever she is, whether in Westminister or in Beijing, as she is currently, she has to fend off questions about her suitability to remain as prime minister. Leave her alone, she seems determined to stay as long as she can, and after all she has been through she should be allowed to pursue her intention of getting the best Brexit deal possible without having disloyal Tories whispering murder and mayhem behind her back to the parliamentary lobby journalists who sweep up every spittal and rumour and splash it all over the front pages. No disloyalty on my part towards my estimable colleagues. That's their job. But it wouldn't be so easy for them if there weren't so many Tory MPs around ready to spread the dirt. Apart from anything else I am tired of reading splash after splash about how Theresa May could be forced to step down in May or October, or before Brexit or after Brexit or.....Then what? Prime Minister Boris or Prime Minister Gove or Prime Minister Gavin Williamson or Prime Minister Jacob Rees-Mogg or Prime Minister David Davis? Or, of course, Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn? Stick with it, Theresa, just be a bit tougher and tell all these would-be prime ministers to toe the line and keep their mouths shut. That would also send a message to the EU negotiators that Theresa IS in charge after all and force them to do a proper deal beneficial for all of us on either side of the English Channel.

Trump in full flow

The White House has already put out a flyer about Trump's State of the Union address in Congress later today. It sounds like all the same stuff he imparted to Piers Morgan on ITV at the weekend, all about how wonderful everything is. Now I don't blame the president at all for wanting to get across a positive message, in fact he would be an idiot to make a speech about how all the things that have gone wrong in the White House since he took over 12 months and ten days ago. So tonight it will be all about the booming economy, his plan to build up the military and his strategy on immigration. Oh, and how he's going to spend $1 trillion - why is it always $1 trillion dollars? Perhaps because it's such a great throwaway line - on America's deteriorating infrastructure. If anyone watched Piers Morgan's softly softly interview with his old Apprentice mate, Donald, at the weekend, they will know that Trump thinks everything is going swimmingly well. When asked for his views on the UK, he just replied that he loved Britain, loved Scotland even more, loved his Turnberry golf course, and was sure everyone in Britain loved him. But what about Jeremy Corbyn who has vowed to lead protests against him if he visits Britain, Morgan asked? "I don't know him," Trump replied. Actually, that's a terrific response. Who knows or wants to know Jeremy Corbyn? But Morgan left it at that. Trump and Morgan spent the 45 minutes chatting to each other with their knees almost touching. They must have chosen the smallest room in the building to hold the interview because it was definitely kneesie kneesie. Trump came up with his now familiar refrain, that he is the least racist person on God's earth and loves women. But was he a feminist, Morgan daringly asked? "No," replied Trump. So on the basis of the illuminating responses to "Piers", as Trump called him throughout, I think Congress is due to get a long list of wonderful, beautiful achievements completed in the first 12 months and the wonderful, beautiful projects and policies he has up his sleeve for the next 12 months. Oh I nearly forgot, one of the unbelievable revelations we got from the Piers Morgan exclusive interview was that Trump's first tweet of the day is generally written while he is still under the duvet in his pyjamas! Wow, hold the front page!! (ed. I thought we knew that!!)

Hillary and the Grammy sketch

I was intending to be critical of Hillary Clinton for appearing in the Grammy sketch last night, reading an excerpt from Fire and Fury by Michael Wolff, along with some hot-shot high-profile showbiz dudes. I mean, Hillary, has it come to this, you lost the presidency and now you have sunk so low you join the "let's take the p... out of Trump brigade" and boost the book sales for Michael Wolff. Judging by the excerpts read out at the Grammy awards evening, the writing is pretty atrocious, no style at all and rather predictable. But hey, having girded my loins to point out to Hillary that this sort of public behaviour should be beneath her, I then watched the sketch on my laptop this morning. And in her briefest of cameo roles, she was sensational. The familiar Hillary voice but slightly softer, and then an election-winning smile when she joked with James Corden, the Grammys host, about her winning the Grammy award for reading from a book. She reminded me of the Hillary Clinton who turned up at the Pentagon for a farewell in 2013 before she stepped down as secretary of state to start her run for the presidency. Leon Panetta, Defence Secretary, hosted the occasion. I was there too. She was glowing, elegantly attired in red jacket and smart skirt, and super-confident. She was unquestionably a superstar. The election campaign destroyed her and she lost. But at the Grammys, she was back to her old self, natural, self-assured, slightly flirtatious and clearly enjoying herself. So how could I possibly scold her for taking part in the sketch? It probably wasn't wise but, never mind, it was fun and she looked goooood.

UK, Russia and Monty Python

There are occasions when people in powerful positions make fools of themselves. They just can't help making stupid, alarmist comments. And for once I'm not talking about Donald Trump. The UK Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson, very new in the job and exceptionally young for such a cabinet post after no previous ministerial experience, told a newspaper in a recent interview that "thousands and thousands and thousands" of Britons could be killed by a Russian cyber attack on Britain's electricity and other energy supplies. I cannot imagine what encouraged him to say such a thing. Is there intelligence that this is what Russia is planning to do in the next few weeks? Are we about to go to war with Russia? Or was he just hypothesising? If so, what on earth for? Was he making a bid for more money for the defence budget or did he just want a nice huge headline for himself? Well he got that, in the Daily Telegraph first, and then in every other newspaper. It seems to me to be staggeringly alarmist. Moscow responded by saying that such a remark was right out of a Monty Python sketch. I assume/hope Williamson was seriously embarrassed and severely upbraided by Number 10. I'm not downgrading the potential threat Putin's Russia poses. Putin is a pretty cold fish and maybe he does have dreams about crippling the West with cyber attacks. But he now knows that if he did such a thing to the US to destroy America's economy, Trump could respond with nuclear weapons. That's what is implied in his Nuclear Posture Review to be published next month. So Putin is not going to do any such thing and why would he pick out Britain for cyber annihilation. It's all nonsense. Williamson might just as well have warned in his interview with the Daily Telegraph: "If the Martians land in Britain we could face total oblivion." Alarmist and unfounded talk like this should be beneath a minister holding one of the most important jobs in government. He could easily have confined his remarks to saying that countries such as Russia were developing highly sophisticated cyber warfare technology and that this posed a serious threat in the future. OK, it doesn't make such good headlines but at least it would have been sensible and responsible. Moscow couldn't have responded then with the Monty Python jibe.

Taliban terror

Recently there have been optimistic reports that the Taliban, facing a surge in attacks by Trump-authorised airstrikes, was beginning to move towards the idea of negotiationing for a peace settlement. This has to be totally false. The Taliban has been happy today to accept responsibility for killing 95 people and injuring about 160 others in an explosives-packed ambulance suicide attack in Kabul. The driver calmly drove through TWO checkpoints without being stopped BECAUSE it was an ambulance. Terrorists always, it seems, manage to keep one step ahead of the security authorities. But this latest Taliban outrage shows that however many airstrikes and special forces raids the US and its Afghan partners carry out this year, the Taliban wants nothing to do with peace. They just want the US out and all other foreigners out and then take over Kabul again. They are ruthless, murderous, totally amoral non-human beings who will never honour anything to do with peace. They despise peace, they are addicted to violence, killing and control. They are as bad as Isis. They will never negotiate while the Americans are still in Afghanistan, but the Americans can never leave Afghanistan while the Taliban are still killing and wounding and hating. This conflict is going to continue for ever. It is bleak bleak bleak. Fanatical people, whether Islamic or not, will never understand the word compromise. Isis has been driven from Mosul and Raqqa but has that changed their ideological hatred? Of course not. The same with the Taliban. The Taliban leaders and their friends, Osama bin Laden-led al-Qaeda, were defeated and driven out of Afghanistan in 2001 and have been engaged in revenge ever since.

Trump's U-turns and double U-turns

There are certain things we know, definitely definitely absolutely definitely that Trumps wants to do, and then there are issues that are full of so many U-turns and double U-turns that we're not sure what the hell he really wants. In the first category is the Mexico Wall. It seems. almost above anything else, he wants The Wall built. The Democrats will never agree, they say building a wall is repressive, undemocratic and a ridiculous waste of money. A huge high wall along the Mexican border to keep people out would probably be all of those things. Certainly a waste of taxpayers' money. But Trump has The Wall fixed in his head and it seems that he is prepared to carry out all sorts of policy U-turns provided he gets The Wall at the end of the day. So the Dreamers immigration issue - allowing 700,000 illegal immigrants who came in to the US as children - to stay and get citizenship is now firmly on the Trump desk and he will approve it PROVIDED etc etc. He will also allow a whole lot of other illegal immigrants to stay PROVIDED etc etc. So the Democrats are going to get a lot of their treasured ideas through the Trump hands but only if they say yes to the wretched wall. I can foresee a time when the Democrats will throw up their hands and say to the president: "Ok, build your wretched wall." But they will anticipate protracted delays in Congress for the finance and meanwhile get on with passing legislation to keep the Dreamers. Trump is no fool. He is not going to allow the Democrats an inch if he thinks they're going to screw him over on The Wall. So it looks like another maddening impasse and logjam next month when the whole budget issue comes up again. Yet another government shutdown in the offing and all because of That Wall. Surely someone like General John Kelly will be able to make Trump see sense? But Kelly was formerly Homeland Security Secretary. Maybe he has a sneaking regard for the Trump idea, who knows! One way or the other, something has got to give. It could be Trump that blinks but he cares more about The Wall than the Dreamers and I can't see him backing down.

The Trump style of diplomacy

You have to say that one thing Trump does NOT do is pussyfoot around. He says what's in his head, not what his advisers advise him to say. In some ways that's good and in some ways that's bad. In Davos where he and most of the world's leaders are currently engaged in chatting about globalisation and America First and other things, Trump was asked about Israel and Palestine and he just came out with it. He decided to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital and to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv because he wanted to take that element of the impasse between the Israelis and Palestinians out of the peace-settlement equation. In other words, live with it, Palestinians, was his message. As for the Palestinian leader's refusal to countenance the US as a peace negotiator ever again, Trump had this to say: "Don't disrespect the United States!" It was right out of the Godfather movie. Then he said the US had been paying millions of dollars to the Palestinians but had decided to hold back some of the payments because he felt they were giving nothing back in return. You help us, we help you - another Godfather analogy. Then, sitting next to the Israeli Godfather, Bibi Netanyahu, Don Trump questioned whether there could ever be meaningful peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine and it was all the Palestinians' fault. Well, it was when Yasser Arafat, the ultimate peace BLOCKER, was alive and in charge. But somehow I think poor Mahmoud Abbas is probably a good guy who thinks the whole thing is desperately unfair and blames Israel because of its continued occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank and the continuing construction of settlements. But Abbas is now in real trouble, especially after he refused to meet with Mike Pence, the US Vice-President, when he was touring the region. "You disrespected my lovely vice-president," Don Trump, or perhaps Don Donald, bellowed. If Abbas is not careful he's going to find the head of a dead racehorse at the end of his bed.

Terrible news about terrible men

Today is one of those days when, as a member of the male species, I despair about the terrible things going on involving men. The newspapers are full of horrific stories but no explanation about why such awful acts could possibly take place. Take the Danish submarine designer Peter Madsen who took on board a female journalist and proceeded to torture her, then murder her, then cut up her body, and is now facing 15 years, FIFTEEN YEARS, in prison. Surely some mistake. 115 years more like. This revolting non-human being planned everything from the moment he agreed to allow Swedish journalist Kim Wall to spend time in his stupid submarine. As a fellow journalist, my heart aches for this girl, trying to do her job and not ever imagining that she could possibly be signing her death warrant by so doing. The last hours of her life are too terrifying to ponder on. Then there is this totally bizarre case of the US Olympic gymnastics doctor, Larry Nassar, convicted of sexually abusing 160 of the young girls for whom he was responsible over a period of years. Most of them were too young even to fully realise that he was taking advantage of them while supposedly carrying out medical examinations. At least he is going to spend the rest of his miserable life in prison. But these girl gymnasts, now grown up and aware of what he did to them, will they ever again trust men in authority? I wouldn't. And now in the UK, we have this gross story of old men attending a men-only charity fund-raising event and groping the waitresses, all of whom had been told to wear skimpy clothes. There is only one word for it: disgusting. But in this era of sexual harrassment awareness, how can such a charity dinner be organised and condoned? Dirty old men are dirty old men whether they're wearing raincoats or dinner jackets. These despicable men should be identified and taken down to the nearest police station. Right, I've had my say!

The alternative Oscar nominations

The much-awaited Oscar nominations have been published. This is what you might call an alternative list: Best films: Fire and Fury, an every day tale of White House chaos, The Bannon Syndrome, a story of nuclear meltdown, Me and My Cheeseburgers, a fantasy about a president addicted to fast food, Bling and I, an every day story of a narcissistic billionaire, Stormy Daniels, The Porn Queen, a true story about an "actress" with big...ambitions, Shutdown, a gripping drama that runs for three days, and Russian Collusion, set in Washington and Moscow with sub-titles. The big money is on Fire and Fury. Best director nominations: Michael Wolff for Fire and Fury, Jared Kushner for the little known film, My Father-in-Law, Mike Flynn for Treachery, Lies and More Lies, Donald Trump for Me and My Cheeseburgers, John Kelly for You've Got To Be Kidding, and Mike Pence for The Forgotten Man. Best male actor nominations: Donald Trump in the biopic, TRUMP!, HR McMaster in You've Got To Be Kidding, Steve Bannon in Fire and Fury, Donald Trump Jr in Russian Collusion, and Vladimir Putin in Russian Collusion. Best actress nominations: Hillary Clinton in I Cannot Believe It, Oprah Winfrey in Move Over Trump, Sarah Huckabee Sanders in TRUMP! and Nikki Haley in Who Is Rex Tillerson? Supporting actor nominations: Robert Mueller in Treachery, Lies and More Lies, Rex Tillerson in Who Is Rex Tillerson?, Jeff Sessions in You've Got To Be Kidding and Christopher Steele in Trouble. Supporting actress nominations: Melania Trump in the silent movie, What's Going On?, Ivanka Trump in Bling and I, Theresa May in The Special Relationship, and Angela Merkel in The End Is Nigh.

Trump tweeting for America

Trump tweeted 2,608 times in his first year in office. That's more than seven times A DAY. And this is the president who said he wouldn't tweet once he had become president. That's some tweeting. Many of them have been highly critical, some have praised his "wonderful" achievements in office, and others have been downright rude. Perhaps he already has a shelf-full of tweets already to go for 2018. Along perhaps these lines: "What do you call a steaming dog poo which has no owner to bag it up? A Democrat." "Government shutdown on my watch? I call that treachery. Send for the Marines!" "Stormy Daniels claims I asked her to spank me on the bottom with a copy of Forbes magazine. That's rich." "I deny knowing anyone called Stormy Daniels. This is all the work of that MI6 spy Christopher Steele. He made up that stuff about me and my golden showers in the Moscow hotel. Now this." "By the way, I've never been spanked. I suffer from antispankingitis and my doctor will confirm it. It makes me come out in red spots." "It's time that Froggie Macron was taken down a peg. He's swanning around the world like he owns. I OWN IT." "I hear my friend Angela Merkel might survive. Good on yer Ang, you know you can always count on me." "Off to Davos soon where I will be the superstar of the show. Everyone is dying to hear my speech. Can't believe they asked Modi, that Indian, to make the opening address. What do they think I am, a pile of trash?" "2018 is going to be a beautiful year, The Wall WILL happen. Don't listen to General Kelly." "In fact, never listen to General Kelly. He's so finished." "All I will say about the Winter Olympics is to remind the judges, America First." "All the Fake News outfits will be proved wrong. Watch the economy sky rocket, watch jobs go UP, watch the military get bigger and better. FAKE NEWS is yesterday."

Trump's new approach to political democracy

After days of pointless argument back and forth between the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, the great United States government shut down, unable to spend federal money to pay its workers. So perhaps it's not surprising that Trump asks for a change in the system under which there has to be a 60-vote majority in the Senate to end what is charmingly called a fillibuster; in other words,a total impasse between the two parties. With their own majority of only 51 in the Senate, the Republicans need to persuade nine Democrats to vote for them. It's a crazy system especially when there is such total and bitter division on almost everything between the Republicans and Democrats. So Trump's argument is, if we Republicans have a 51 majority in the Senate, then that should be enough. Let 51 be the key voting figure from now on and scrap the 60-vote minimum. Well, I can see his point. It does seem daft that if one party has a majority it can't get stuff through the legislative machine without having to browbeat some Democrats to go along. But that's the system and it's unlikely the Senate will change it because at some time in the future when a Democrat is in the White House enjoyng only a slim majority in the House and Senate, the Republicans will want to screw the Democrats under the 60-vote rule as much as the Democrats are screwing Trump at the moment. So the so-called nuclear option recommended by the president, changing the majority rule, will probably fall on deaf ears. The political system in Washington, as it stands now and as it has stood for a long time, invites gridlock every year because of the need annually for Congress to authorise federal spending. It's democracy gone mad. Obama had exactly the same problem, only he made it worse by signing the Budget Control Act, an attempt to cut the growing federal deficit which has put untold pressure on the biggest departments, notably the military and social services, causing many of the problems we now see before us. Unless there is a magic wand - and I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't own one - this political/economic gridlock is going to come up every year for the foreseeable future. I fear there aren't enough - if any - inspiring politicians around in the US, to persuade the Republicans and Democrats to get off their "me me me" butts and act like responsible, patriotic I-love-my-country-first human beings. Robert "Bob" Gates, long-term servant to the US in the Air Force, CIA (director) and Pentagon (Secretary of Defence) openly hated Washington, especially the annual logjam embedded in Congress. I suspect most people, especially Trump of course, have joined the I Hate Washington Club.

Trump's bitter anniversary

Timing is everything, they say. Poor old Trump must be thinking to himself, “if it wasn’t for that wretched book by that despicable Michael Wolff, I could have looked forward to my State of the Union address next week but now everyone will be pointing at me and laughing”. The one-year-later stories in all the papers have been pretty withering, and much of it was cribbed from the Wolff book. All the world now knows how he behaves in the White House and how everyone working for him apparently thinks he’s a moron. All of this and much more is in the papers this weekend, a terrible summing-up of his first year in office. I can see some sackings coming up this year. Chief of Staff John Kelly, perhaps? Rex Tillerson, the first person openly to admit that he thought Trump was a moron, is hanging on to his job at State by his fingertips. Melania Trump, she’ll have to go. Oh no, sorry, that’s his third wife. But who knows! After all the revelations of what he allegedly got up to with the Porn Queen not that long ago, maybe Melania might decide to pack her bags and go back to New York. Not a single portrait of Trump this weekend produced proof that Donald and Melania ever watched TV together holding hands and eating popcorn. All the images are of a lonely man sitting on his own in his executive wing. Where is she every night? I think we should be told.

Mattis the magnanimous warrior

General Jim Mattis had his day today, outlining the Pentagon's national defence strategy, with Trump by his side. Mattis is quite a cool customer. He is not particularly media-friendly, he doesn't hold that many briefings for the press and on the whole keeps a low public profile. With the president doing the opposite from the White House, in terms of public profile, it seems to me to be eminently sensible for the retired four-star Marine Corps general to get on with his job without blowing his trumpet in the manner of his commander-in-chief. There was one little gem during his press conference today to launch the national defence strategy document. Mattis said he was very happy to listen to allies and partners to get their views on the big defence subjects - and to be persuaded by them. He then added: "Not all good ideas come from the country with the most aircraft carriers." Now that's what I call magnanimous. The US has ten aircraft carriers, all over 100,000 tonnes, and there isn't a country in the world that can even dream of matching that. China is doing its best to catch up but won't have anything like this sort of capability for 30 or 40 years. But then China isn't an ally, so Mattis won't be asking the Chinese for advice. So he's thinking of countries such as Britain, France, Poland, Italy, Spain etc etc. The French have one carrier that often goes wrong, the Brits have a new one built but has no aircraft and another one being built but still way off, and the rest of the alliance has a handful of what they claim are carriers but really aren't. But Mattis says, never mind, he will listen to America's allies and consider their views. I'm sure he meant what he said. But if you're the defence secretary with ten nuclear-powered aircraft carriers behind you and an array of stealth bombers, fighter aircraft, ballistic-missile defences, the Marine Corps and all the other superpower stuff, is he honestly going to take notice, for example, of little old Britain with an army of 78,000 soldiers and a fast dwindling supply of warships if some Brit general advises: "Oh please Secretary Mattis, I think you're on the wrong track there, now what I think you should do is......" Ah well, it was very nice of Jim Mattis to say what he said. But forgive the chuckle!!

Trump passes the mental test

Trump's mental agility is up to scratch apparently. So says his doctor. Would he dare say otherwise? Think of the consequences for him and for the US administration if the doctor, Dr Ronny Jackson, had told the world, "I agree with Michael Wolff (author of "Fire and Fury", the president has the mental cognitive ability of a child." Well quite, there's no way he was going to say that. But, anyway, I'm sure Trump was perfectly capable of answering all the quick-fire questions thrown at him. Here's a selection: Jackson: "What is your name?" Trump:" Donald Trump." Jackson: "What year is it?" Trump: "2018, the year after I became the most powerful man on the planet." Jackson: "Just answer the question without extras please, Mr President." Trump: "Get on with it." Jackson: "Where is North Korea?" Trump: "Next to South Korea." Jackson: "What's the name of the North Korean leader?" Trump: "Little Rocket Man, and my best friend, probably." Jackson: "Do you have a nuclear button on your desk?" Trump: "I couldn't find one." Jackson: "Name four African countries." Trump: "Shithole ha ha, just joking, Nambia, Zambia, Gambia and Zimbabwia." Jackson, somewhat startled: "What's the Eurozone?" Trump: "Like the erogenous zone, but more French." Jackson, looking shocked: "Do you believe in climate change?" Trump: "Yes, it's freezing out there." Jackson: "A train driver called Dave picked up 23 passengers at the first station, 29 the next, 49 the next, 103 the next and 15 at the last station. What was the name of the train driver?" Trump: "How the **** should I know?" Jackson, taking notes:"HR McMaster, what does HR stand for?" Trump, grinning: "Human Resources." Jackson, scribbling furiously: "What's the most important thing you have ever done in your life?" Trump: "Tweet." Jackson: "Sorry?" Trump: "Tweet tweet." Jackson: "Why did you cancel going to the UK?" Trump: "Can't stand those stuck-up Brits." Jackson: "Word association. Just say the first thing that comes into your mind when I say a word." Trump: "I love this game." Jackson: "Black." Trump: "White." Jackson: "Friend." Trump: "Enemy." Jackson: "Enemy." Trump: "Bannon." Jackson: "Flynn." Trump: "*********." Jackson: "Media." Trump: "Fake". Jackson: "Collusion." Trump: "Fake." Jackson: "Mueller." Trump: "Sack." Jackson: "Thank you, Mr President." Trump: "Now go and tell the world I'm a genius."

Nukes race

The US and Russia seem to be entering a new nuclear arms race. Next month, Trump's nuclear posture review will be published, and leaks of early drafts suggest the Pentagon is going to get two new systems, a submarine-launched nuclear-armed cruise missile to replace a nuclear Tomahawk missile which was retired a few years ago and a low-yield submarine-launched strategic ballistic missile. Low yield means limited destruction, not annihilation. I'm not sure it makes much difference. A nuclear missile is a nuclear missile. But the idea is that a smaller-yield nuclear missile acts as a deterrent on a different level, just in case there is anyone around, such as Russia, which might in the future consider the possibility of actualling launching a lower-yield atomic weapon on the gamble that the US, without an equivalent weapon, might balk at retaliating with the full force of its heavyweight ICBMs. The theology of nuclear deterrence is complex and no one truly knows what might happen were Moscow to be so rash as to launch, for example, its much-vaunted nuclear torpedo in anger. So, the argument goes, whatever Russia has, the US better have too, to make sure the mutual assured destruction (MAD) Cold War concept is fully understood. This is what arms races are all about. In the Cold War both sides were constantly frightening each other with often dud intelligence about how one or the other had surged ahead in nuclear potency, both in terms of missile numbers and payload. But, the deterrence theologians have always argued that MAD worked because neither the Soviet Union, as it was, nor the United States thought annihilation from the Earth was a good idea. But MAD is now getting a little worn round the edges. Russia has for some time had a military doctrine which actually contemplates the need for nuclear weapons. The only possible explanation for that is that some clever general in the Russian army or some Russian academic steeped in deterrence theory has persuaded Putin and co that in the new era a nuclear weapon can be used without it leading to retaliatory annihilation. Because that seems to be Moscow's thinking, the Pentagon now feels it has to think the same way. Trump obviously thinks it's the right way to go. So the Pentagon will probably get its two new lower-yield nuclear weapons, costing billions of dollars. So we will go from nuclear restraint under Obama to what-the-hell-let's-have-it-all under Trump. Is anyone really surprised?

Is it true Trump is lazy?

One of the things that bothers me from all the stuff in Michael Wolff's book is the accusation that Donald Trump is incredibly lazy. I can't see how you can be president of the United States and just sit around not doing a lot. Is that really possible? So he spends quite a lot of time playing golf. But so did Obama and George W Bush before him. But according to Wolff and a vitriolic review of the book by Andrew Sullivan in the Sunday Times, Trump spends as little time as possible being the most powerful leader in the world. He spends hardly any time at meetings and, as everyone now knows, he doesn't read. Instead he watches endless news programmes and stuffs his mouth with fast food. Having kept up with the daily itineraries of past presidents over the last few decades, I find it beyond belief that Trump can get away with doing so little every day. How can the man who sits in the Oval Office actually not read? General JOhn Kelly, his chef of staff, must have a nightmare every day. Everything must have to be reduced to a few pars. What Kelly needs is a reputable tabloid sub-editor who knows how to turn a few thousand rambling paragraphs into a snappy 250 words. I can't imagine Kelly, with his military background, could compare with a really good sub-editor out of the Fleet Street mould. But if it's a really complicated issue, one that requires deep thought and a wise decision, can it really be true that Trump just isn't interested? He just gets the fundamentals and no nuances. I think this is dangerous, in fact very dangerous. The man in the Oval Office needs to be superbly briefed. Even without knowing all the detail, he still needs to be able to grasp the arguments and to come to a conclusion based on a fully active brain working at full stretch. It sounds like Trump has none of these qualities. He just relies on instinct and prejudice. At least that's the picture now embedded in most people's mind after the Fire and Fury book was published. It is truly alarming.

No nuclear attack today

The most alarming thing about the ballistic missile attack on Hawaii that never actually happened is that one individual, at the press of a button, can cause total panic and chaos. Why wouldn't the people of Hawaii take it seriously? They are, as it were, on the frontline between the United States and North Korea. Trump and Kim Jong-un had boasted about their respective nuclear buttons. So a warning that a ballistic missile strike, perhaps nuclear, was on its way, could not be ignored. So what is the set-up in the Hawaii missile-warning centre? Does one individual sit in front of two buttons, perhaps one red and one blue? And does he or she have the power to press one or the other whenever he or she sees fit? Was this person a madman who thought it would be fun to cause a stir on a Saturday morning? Was it a joke? Was it an intern who hadn't been told about the difference between red and blue? There are a million questions. The statement that it was done in error hardly covers it, does it?! Why press either button? Was they're supposed to have been a test that morning? Or did someone else see something in the sky which he thought might be a delivery from North Korea and then shouted to the Button Man/Woman, "Press press press attack attack attack!" There was I thinking that the only command centre in the US with the responsibility of deciding whether the country was under attack or not was the mighty North American Aerospace Defence Command (Norad), buried in a mountain in Colorado. But, no, little old Hawaii has its own warning centre which appears to have taken precedence over Norad. I got a comforting email eventually from the Pentagon which said there was no attack alert. But by then hundreds of people who had spotted the ALERT on their mobiles were scurrying off the streets, heading for shelters or basements or the bath - in one reported case. But, strangely, tourists sunbathing on the beach seemed blissfully unaware of the approaching Armageddon and just carried on enjoying their holiday. Very wise as it turned out. Although it does open up the awkward question for the Hawaiian authorities: if there had been an attack, when would they have cleared the beaches? The "don't worry it was human error expanation" won't cut it, I'm afraid. We, and especially the Hawaiians, need to know the full story. I loved the snippet that said President Trump had been informed. Did he blink and carry on with whatever he was doing or did he summon the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the phone and demand a retaliatory strike? Perhaps it was a UFO!!! FOOTNOTE: after a passenger plane skidded off the runway at Trazbon in Turkey, then slid down a steep earth embankment and ended up with its nose nearly touching the ocean, the explanation from the carrier, Pegasus Airlines, was that there had been "a runway excursion incident". Not exactly an apt remark for those few minutes of sheer panic and terror on board the aircraft. But congratulations to the airline's customer relations department who thought up that wonderful damage-limitation statement.

Did Trump mean shithole or Sithole?

I've got the perfect get-out explanation for Donald Trump. He has, quire rightly, been villified for referring to African countries as "shitholes". The whole of Africa has demanded he apologise. But amidst all the back and forth, with some Republicans present at the "shithole" meeting saying they didn't hear him say it, I suddenly realised what Trump had been trying to say. Being a student of African politics, I think what he was trying to say was that he objected to having to take so many immigrants from Sithole's country. For the uninitiated, Sithole, or Ndabaningi Sithole to give him his full name, was a leading figure when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe in the 1960s. So, for Shitholes, you should read Sithole!!! All Trump has to announce, or get his press flunkies to accounce, is that in the heat of the arguments about immigration with the Congressional leaders, he had meant to refer to the distinguished freedom fighter and founder of the Zimbabwe African National Union, Ndabaningi Sithole. He obviously wouldn't have tried to say Ndabaningi because that name always confused even the finest BBC news reader in the 1960s. So it came out as just "Sithole". It doesn't quite get Trump off the hook, because it would still have sounded rude whether he said shithole or Sithole. But it would still give him a chance to rectify what sounded to everyone like a racist comment. So, a word of advice, Mr President, stick to Sithole in future.

Harry wedding invitation: Trump or Obama, both or neither?

Dear Prince Harry, I thoroughly enjoyed being interviewed by you on the BBC the other day. It was cool. As for your kind suggestion later that you would like me to come to your wedding, obviously Michelle and I would love to be there. Meghan is a jewel. You'll make a great pair. The problem is Trump. I don't want to pry into your private arrangements, but, basically, what I'm trying to say is: are you going to invite Trump? Because if he is going to come, I can't be seen in the same room with him. He would also spoil your wedding day just by being there. Michelle says if he turns up within 12ft of her, she will spit in his face, and I doubt that would go down well with his security boys. Michelle might get arrested. I would ignore him but you know Trump. He likes the limelight and he might well spill champagne down my tuxedo, for the hell of it. My security boys wouldn't like it, but we can't have a rumble between my security boys and his security boys. Not at your wedding. So I hope you don't mind me asking but could you possibly let me know if you're planning to invite Trump? My acceptance or not will depend on your answer. No pressure at all, Your Highness. Best regards, Barack Obama (President of the United States BEFORE Trump). Dear Prince Harry, I haven't yet received my invitation for your wedding, so I'm assuming it's either lost in the post or it went to the wrong person. Did you perhaps send it to Obama by mistake? Or maybe it has gone to my place in Florida? Anyway, whatever, I want to come because I am the president of the United States, and Queen Elizabeth knows I should be there. Unlike many places I know, Britain is not a shithole country, so what's right is right. I MUST be there. I WILL be there. I'm too important not to be there. You get my drift? By the way, forget about asking Obama. He's so yesterday. Let me know as soon as you can that you have sent me an invite. I will need to bring 200 Secret Service types to protect me from all those left wing layabouts who might want to protest against my august presence. See you in May, Harry! Best to Beth when you see your Granma! Melania sends her you know...Sincerely, Donald Trump (THE President)

Did Trumpism influence Kim Jong-un?

It's difficult to say if Trump's shouting, insulting, warning rhetoric aimed at Kim Jong-un played any part in finally persuading the North Korean leader to back down a touch. The South Korean president, Moon, believes it did, and he thanked the US president for taking such a tough line on Pyongyang. Well I can understand why he praised Trump. It makes good diplomatic sense to be warm and cosy towards the one nation on earth which is going to protect you in time of imminent war. But what does Kim Jong-un believe? Does he privately admit to himself that the dire warnings of destruction from the White House were the final straw that drove him towards the Olympic ski slopes, as it were? Of course he doesn't. His plan all along, I suspect, was to shout as loudly as Trump while he got on with his nuclear and ballistic missile testing and then, just when Trump was probably starting to think more seriously about the military option, he pops up with an olive stick (not branch, yet), and offers an Olympic Games concession. Then, as was totally predictable, all the world's clever people start saying, "Hey look at this, it could be the first sign of a new era, there are bound to be other concessionary moves and the threat of war is off." Actually it probably means no such thing. Kim is just playing a very calculated and very smart game. He has taken one tiny step back for mankind but there are plenty of giant steps forward he can make in the future, such as carrying out a mighty nuclear test shortly after his Olympic skiing team comes 34th. Would Trump declare instant war as a result, so soon after the glow of universal friendship arising from the Winter Olympics? No, I don't think so. Kim might wait a bit longer, giving hope that at last he has given up or at least suspended his nuclear and missile programme. But I'm afraid the chances of that happening are at odds of about a trillion to one against. Kim's very existence is based on his need and desire to have a credible nuclear deterrent - just like in the good old Cold War days. And to have a credible deterrent - credible, above all, in the eyes of the United States government - he needs to carry on testing, because right now the considered opinion in Washington, based on all the intelligence available, is that North Korea is not quite there yet. So after the fun and games of the Winter Olympics, with photographs of North Korean skiers drinking hot chocolate and beaming at their South Korean brothers-in-ski-boots, Kim will return to the business of proving to the world that, if pressed, he could annihilate a US West Coast city or even a city anywhere in America. So I'm sorry to say that Trump's robust tweeting has probably played no part in Kim's strategic thinking except in so much as it has helped him to put a foot into the door of the previously rock-solid alliance between Washington and Seoul. The chatting at Panmunjom on Tuesday and the whisper of future talks on military matters has slightly taken the wind out of Trump's sails. Of course, Trump doesn't want war and he has welcomed the talks and raised, not for the first time, the possibility of a telephone call with Kim. But none of this will stop Kim from his pursuit of his ultimate goal. Trump must know that. Moon must know that. But right now we're in the cosying-up period which sounds good on paper but is filled with potential treachery, lies, deceipt and danger.

Trump has lost his ventriloquist

Now that Steve Bannon has been banished from both the White House and Breitbart News, it will be interesting to see whether Donald Trump becomes a totally different president. When Bannon was his chief strategist and was in his ear every minute of the day, pushing Breitbart News's most radically conservative views, it was tempting to regard the top adviser as an expert ventriloquist, with him secretly spouting policy from the side of his mouth while the president sat on his knee with a glazed, wooden look on his face. In other words, Trump was Bannon's dummy. But The Ventriloquist has gone, and after his unwise comments to Michael Wolff to help make his book on the Trump White House an instant bestseller which produced a torrent of angry tweets from the Big Man, Bannon can't even pick up the phone and chat to his erstwhile friend. So not a whiff of Bannon anymore. Trump is on his own. The change is already showing. So pissed off was the president at being called mentally not there that he invited the media in to eavesdrop on his talks with Congressional leaders about immigration, just to prove that, mentally, he is really a genius! And then came the surprising very-non-Bannon remark. Despite everything he has said in the past about the so-called Dreamers, the 700,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the US as babies and feel they have a right to stay, he told the Congressional types that he would consider the Dreamers as a separate issue - separate, that is, from The Wall. He had always linked the two before. You want the Dreamers, he used to tell the Democrats, you've got to give me my wall. But this time, he said he would be happy to have a "clean" bill to protect the Dreamers from deportation - no conditions. Everything the Democrats said during the meeting got Trump noding his head in agreement. The Republicans looked increasingly alarmed. Where was The Ventriloquist, they must have been thinking. Someone ring Bannon, for God's sake. But no, The Ventriloquist is history. Trump is on his own. Maybe, just maybe, this might be good for everyone.

China's burgeoning naval power

China’s dream of reaching parity with the US by having ten aircraft carriers has moved one step further with the construction of a third home-designed platform now beginning to take shape. The carrier programme is at the heart of China’s long-term plan to develop a navy capable of defending its expanding interests in the Asia-Pacific and to create a maritime force with a global role to rival the US. Beijing plans to have ten carriers within 30 years.The third Chinese-designed carrier now being built at Shanghai Jiangnan shipyard will be on a different scale both in size and technological capability compared to its two predecessors. For its new platform, China appears to be taking on board design innovations that replicate features introduced by the US and British navies for their latest aircraft carriers. These include two lower-profile control-tower islands on the flight deck, similar to the design for the Royal Navy’s HMS Queen Elizabeth, and an electromagnetic aircraft launch system pioneered by the US for the new-generation USS Gerald R Ford supercarrier which has recently completed equipment-testing sea trials. The first Chinese carrier to become operational was the Liaoning, but this was a refurbished Soviet warship bought from Ukraine and has been used to train crews for carrier operations. The first indigenous carrier, dubbed Type 001A, was launched last April, and could be in service by the end of this year. The second, Type 002, is nearing completion and is expected to be launched in the next few months.The rate and scale of the carrier programme matches the rapid development of China’s military capabilities in other areas, including its short-range, medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, its submarine and destroyer forces and cyber warfare expertise. A former senior Pentagon official and current adviser to the US defence department, says China’s intent is to create a maritime force capable of conducting major offensive operations. “There appears to be no end in sight for China’s naval expansion,” Andrew Krepinevich concludes in an analysis of the growing challenge faced by the US and Japan in the region. The Type 003 under construction will be closer to the American Nimitz and Gerald R Ford class carriers. It will carry between 70 and 100 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, and is expected to be nuclear-powered. To complement the construction programme, China is steadily building up its escort destroyer force in order to have four carrier strike groups by 2030. The latest is the Type 055 destroyer which was launched in June last year. China is currently building four of these destroyers, two of which are earmarked to escort the Type 001A carrier when it comes into service. “From a fleet of very modest capabilities some two decades ago, the PLAN has been built up into an imposing force that stands as the largest in Asia, with more than 300 surface ships, submarines, amphibious ships and patrol craft,” Dr Krepinevich says. FOOTNOTE: So Theresa May was thwarted in her now infamous Cabinet reshuffle yesterday. All the rumours prior to the reshuffle were that Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, was going to be promoted to be Theresa's number 2, unofficially deputy prime minister. That was being put about to all the Westminister political editors and correspondents. But on the day of the reshuffle, nothing like that happened. Theresa told Hunt she wanted him to swap from running the NHS to being Business Secretary. He refused. He REFUSED!!! He argued for two hours that he wanted to stay at the Health Department to see through the hard winter. Unbelievably, she caved in and said oh all right. So then she had to keep the current Business Secretary, Greg Clark, in place, even though she had wanted to boot him out. Beyond belief! She's the PM, she should have told these upstart blokes to do as they were bl.... well told and get the hell out of her office. Maggie Thatcher would have done!

Brad Pitt for president?

After a year of Trumpism, the dear American people, and especially those who live and earn their millions in Hollywood, are beginning to think about who could be the next president. It appears to be on the basis of two ideas: first is Anyone But Trump, the second is, Someone With Real Glamour. That's why Oprah Winfrey is now leading the field. She looked good and sounded good on Global Globes night when all the most fancied lovies gathered to flatter each other. Oprah is definitely a superstar, she has been around for years, appeared in some fabulous films, especially one of my favourites, Colour Purple, been one of the best talk show hosteses and is an all-round Beautiful Person with a huge fan club. She also owns a fabulous spread in Antigua. I've seen it. She arrives twice a year in a yacht with a bunch of family and friends. So she has the trappings to be president of the United States in 2020. Well, according to the latest desperation stakes. This could only happen in America and who knows, it just might happen. President Winfrey would be terrifically popular. For my money, while talking of superstars, I would vote for Michelle Obama who is a total gem. But I somehow doubt she would want to go through the White House wringer all over again. She'd be mad to go for it, but I'd support her. But while we're on this subject, what about other superstars? How about Brad Pitt for president? He could lean on all the experience of his toughest roles to run the country. Mind you, all the skeletons in the Angelina Jolie marriage cupboard might trip him up during his election campaign. But, like Oprah, he'd look good, certainly a helluva lot more handsome than Trump, and younger. Also he looks all right with an Abraham Lincoln-type goaty. He wore one in that rather boring, overlong film, 12 Years a Slave. So President Pitt could be an outsider. Then, of course, there's Gorgeous George Clooney. He's probably the most handsome guy on the planet, has a beautiful and brilliant wife, and a liking for things political. He'd be terrific. I'd put President Clooney on 6-4 odds for ousting Trump. I'd mention Clint Eastwood, but he's a bit too old for the job and that moment when he talked to an empty chair at a 2016 Republican Convention would get in the way. My most favourite Hollywood actress is Julia Roberts, but please, Julia, don't even think about it. That amazing smile would be wiped off your face very quickly after a few weeks in the White House. So it looks like a close-run battle between Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney. Make your choice.

When will this all end?

The New Year has started so badly for Donald Trump I wonder whether even someone like him - a "stable genius" as he claims - can survive the pressure. He may be technically the most powerful man on the planet because of the nuclear button and the size of the US economy, but everyone seems to be trying to reduce him to a pitiful wreck with no life, no hope and no future. Michael Wolff, rather grandly, believes his book, Fire and Fury, could bring Trump down. I think Wolff doth think too highly of himself. But the depictions of life in the Trump White House do not engender confidence in the president, to put it mildly. Then there's the Robert Mueller Russia investigation saga. Surely that has to end this year! So, basically, Trump's survival as president will be resolved this year whatever else he does, such as declare war on North Korea. Everyone is going on about the 25th Amendment under which Congress and the vice-president can have a little chat and order the president to step down on the grounds of mental instability. But, unlike Ronald Reagan who began suffering from early Alzheimer's disease in the last two years of his second term of office, Trump has a clean bill of health, apparently, whatever Wolff says. Trump is different, a totally different type of president, unlike any of his predecessors, but that doesn't make him a loony. Not certifiable anyway. But Mike Pence and Congressional big guns have a duty to make sure Trump is not veering towards a mentally unstable state. Good luck with that. I doubt Trump is behaving differently from the way he has always behaved. And half the voting population liked the way he conducted himself when they chose him and not Hillary Clinton. So, once the Wolff book furore has died down and it falls off the bestsellers' list, life might just get back to normal. Well, as normal as it was before this wretched book came out. Until of course, the next book is published, perhaps to be entitled America in Crisis - the Trump Meltdown.

Trump hit by insults

Poor Donald Trump. As more comes out from this new book about life in the White House, the president is being described as a child with tantrums who always wants his way but knows nothing. He never reads, apparently. I find this book disquieting, not because it's putting flesh on stories that have pretty well been aired in the newspapers for the last 12 months but because it is so totally rude about the president of the United States. There appears to be no balance whatsoever. It's a "literary" slanging match, a gutter view of Trump. No one seems to have a word of support for Trump, not even his daughter and son-in-law. I suppose I'm a bit old-fashioned, I think whoever is in the White House, whether Democrat or Republican, has earned at least a little more respect than Michael Wolff, the author, is prepared to show. Trump was bashed from the moment he started campaigning for the presidency, and since he entered the White House, his leadership has come in for scorn. I understand all the reasons for it and if I was an American citizen I would be truly worried about the man in the Oval Office. But this book, Fire and Fury, is like a machinegunfire of insults. Wolff claims he spoke to everyone who is anyone in the White House, including Trump himself and has clearly seized on every possible snippet that casts a poor light on the president. It is relentless. But did Wolff talk to General John Kelly, General James Mattis, Lieutenant-General HR McMaster, for example? Would they have talked to the author about how terrible and childlike Trump is? Surely not. That would be treasonable. I cannot believe these fine generals would talk about their commander-in-chief in this way. So where did Wolff get all his "facts"? The White House is always full of rumours and backbiting and frustration, that's not a new phenomenon just becasue someone like Trump is sitting in the chair. But this author clearly set out to destroy Trump, and his book and radio and television interviews to promote his work have done a comprehensive job on making the president sound like a pathetic, whining, incompetent fool. In Britain Wolff would be sent to the Tower of London!!!

Did the Brits spy on Trump?

Despite their denials in March last year, is it possible that the Brits spied on Trump during the presidential election campaign of 2016? This has all been dredged up again after extracts from an upcoming book by an American writer alleged that Tony Blair warned Trump that British intelligence may have been secretly listening to conversations he was having while sitting in Trump Tower. In the book, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, author Michael Wolff tries to put a new twist on it by naming Blair as the source for the speculation. It's all a load of rubbish is my view. I appreciate that to get a book published about Trump it's difficult to separate fact from fiction, but I can just see the publishers saying to Wolff, "look, let's hype up the spying story, it'll make good headlines." Well it did. Never mind that Blair has dismissed the account as fabricated, and that British intelligence is probably thinking, "I thought we had officially denied this story, did they not believe us?" When this story first broke in March last year, initially in a claim by a so-called analyst on Fox News, and then repeated by Sean Spicer, Trump's first press secretary, GCHQ, the British Government's secret communications centre - equivalent to America's National Security Agency (NSA) - said it was "ridiculous". This was unusual because GCHQ does not normally confirm or deny anything. So clearly, the top GCHQ chiefs thought it was necessary to put out an official denial to get the story squashed for good. Now you might think, they would deny it wouldn't they, especially if they DID spy on Trump? But British intelligence is a funny old thing. Although spies do lie for a living, the Brits are a pretty honourable bunch. There is absolutely no way that the British Foreign Secretary, political boss of both MI6 and GCHQ, and the person required to authorise all secret operations that might have embarrassing political consequences, would give permission to the signals intelligence agency in Cheltenham to spy on Trump Tower. It would be an outrageous thing to do, and what would be the purpose? No one at that stage thought Trump had a hope in hell of becoming president. So what would have been gained by listening in to Trump? According to the new book, Trump also thought he had no chance of winning the presidency and didn't want it anyway. That has also got to be rubbish. Of course he wanted it, and his ego was big enough for him to imagine that he could and would beat Hillary Clinton. So spying on Trump Tower would have been a waste of resources and terribly risky if discovered. So I do not believe there was any spying by the Brits on Trump. No no no. That part of the book is total rumour-based and I expect GCHQ are pissed off about it. Despite all the denials there are no doubt conspiracy-type people around who do believe the spying allegation. Maybe Trump secretly does, he's paranoid enough. But, using a nice phrase not often heard these days, it's balderdash.

North and South Korea in phone chat

Kim Jong-un makes first phone call to his South Korean counterpart, President Moon Jae-in. Here's how it might go: Kim:"Hello." Moon: "Hello, I'm pleased you called." Kim:"We have very fine high jumpers." Moon: "I'm sure you do. But I'll be for the high jump if I don't first raise the nuclear thing." Kim: "And very fine 1,500 metres runners." Moon: "Now, your programme..." Kim: "My Olympic programme is very fine, shot put, javelin, synchronised swimming, very fine." Moon: "Can we leave the Olympics for the moment?" Kim: "My synchronised swimmers will beat the world." Moon: "I expect they will all be great, but they can't come, surely, if you do more nuclear tests." Kim: "My name is not Shirley." Moon: "I didn't call you....oh never mind. So, let's have an arrangement. You stop your nuclear programme and we will invite your synchronised swimmers to Seoul." Kim: "If you mention that word once more, all bets are off." Moon: "What about missiles?" Kim: "That word, too." Moon: "Reunification?" Kim: "One synchronised step at a time." Moon: "Trump?" Kim: "That fat blubbering demented idiot." Moon: "He's pressing me to stop your Olympic athletes turning up if you don't behave." Kim: "He's a fat blubbering demented idiot." Moon: "So you said. But he has a point, Mr Kim." Kim: "Trump has no point. There is no point to Trump. Don't talk about Trump ever again." Moon: "So shall we have another chat soon?" Kim:"Come to Pyongyang and see my synchronised swimmers in action." Moon: "Thank you. Goodbye."

Trump tweeting off 2018

It hasn't taken Trump long to start 2018 with a series of robust tweets, putting Pakistan and Iran on notice that he is watching them, and showing mild interest in Kim Jong-un's offer of talks with South Korea. In the good old diplomatic days, if the president of the United States was unhappy about something occurring somewhere in the world, he would get the Secretary of State to mutter suitable irritation or tell the US ambassador to the UN to stir up trouble in the Security Council. But Trump has relied on tweets for his foreign policy proclamations since he came into office. I have to say, with due respect to Barack Obama who warned against the overdose of social media communications during his interview with Prince Harry on BBC Radio last week, the Trump tweeting phenomenon has completely taken over the diplomacy game. One tweet about Pakistan, decrying their lack of cooperation in tackling militants on their territory, and Islamabad calls an emergency cabinet meeting. Just one tweet from Trump. Then another one about the poor people of Iran starving in the streets. Well, that was a bit over the top. Perhaps Trump was thinking about North Korea at the time. But the message was clear. The protests in the streets across Iran have got Trump's juices working overtime, and you can be sure that the mullahs in Tehran read the tweet. It's all instant stuff. It's dangerous but brilliant. It's what life is like now. Instant instant instant. Trump wanted a revolution in Washington and he's got it. No more of this namby-pamby diplomatic stuff, just say it how it is, or, rather, how Trump thinks it is. As I said, dangerous but brilliant.

Could Trump intervene in Iran?

Judging by past experience, any intervention by the US in Iran, covert or overt, would be unwise and counter-productive. The CIA has a whole history of covert action in Iran and the fact that we have Mullahs in charge of the country and a fiercely rabid Revolutionary Guard muscling their way across the Middle East and suppressing democracy in Iran is the clearest proof that American interference does not end up with the right result for anyone, especially the long-suffering Iranian people. With the mass protests now exploding across Iran, there are murmurings in Washington about the need for Trump to exploit the seeds of revolution among the Iranian people. That would be a dangerous move. Relations between Tehran and Washington are aready at a low point and any suggestion of US intervention by the CIA or by some other agency would inflame, not calm, the growing disaffection with the clerics in Iran. Sometimes, it's best to sit back and watch and leave the Iranian people themselves to force change. If the Iranian regime ruthlessly strikes back at the protestors - an Iranian version of Tiananmen Sqare - then the world will condemn the regime and change could happen as a consequence. Any discovered involvement of the CIA would give the Tehran regime an excuse to blame the US for the protests and to give them justification for a programe of oppression. The CIA and MI6, Britain's secret intelligence service, were behind the overthrow of the democratically-elected Iranian prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953 when Eisenhower was the US president. The coup was mounted to ensure Britain and the West had control over Iran's oil. The operation, codenamed TP-Ajax, succeeded although almost nothing went to plan, and Mossadegh was replaced by a pro-Western puppet, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi who went on to rule Iran ruthlessly until his overthrow in the Islamic revolution of 1979 which no one in the West foresaw. So it all came round full circle. Since then, Tehran has been in the hands of an anti-West regime intent on building nuclear weapons. Intervention in 1953 worked for Western security interests for 26 years, but finally proved disastrous. Politicians in Washington advocating American interference today should read their history books. For once, President Trump, just watch and comment but keep away from plotting covert intervention.