When you walk away it's difficult to come back

So Donald Trump walked out of his second summit with Kim Jong-un, ended the meeting prematurely and cancelled a planned lunch. It all sounds tough stuff, the Big Man refusing to kowtow to the short fat bloke. But when you walk out of a meeting because you are not getting what you want, it just makes it more difficult to get back in the room again at a later date. It's not like the classic carpet-seller routine when a would-be buyer walks out of the shop unwilling pay the price offered and is half way down the street when the carpet seller comes running out and shouting "Ok ok you can have the carpet at your price". When Trump walked out, Kim Jong-un made no attempt to call him back in, let alone shout out, "Ok ok you can have my nukes!". The question now is, not what went wrong with all the pre-summit planning, but what happens next. If Kim demanded a total lifting of sanctions before even considering removing some of his nuclear installations, what will persuade him or Trump to come back for a third summit? It's a Catch-22 situation. Trump wants all of Kim's nukes dismantled. Kim wants all sanctions lifted. Unless there is a bit of give and take on both sides, there is unlikely to be any deal at all in the future. The looks on the faces of both leaders summed up the problem. They claim to like each other, but the solemn downbeat expressions made it clear friendship is not going to be enough. Kim has spent too much of his country's income on building a nuclear arsenal to give it all up just because the leader of the free world asks him to do so. On the assumption that Kim is never going to give up ALL his nukes but might give up, say, half of them, is this ever going to be enough for Trump or some future US president to agree to lift, say, half the economic sanctions. That would normally be the half-way stage of any serious negotiations. But this is different from most negotiations because it's about nuclear weapons that threaten world peace. Trump can hardly say, in private or especially in public, "Ok Kim, I'll allow you to keep 20 nuclear warheads and three nuclear installations and eight ballistic missiles, and in return I'll help you build your economy." North Korea would eventually thrive as an economy but would still be a nuclear power. In the nuclear game it has to be all or nothing. That's why Trump walked out. And that's why it's going to be so difficult for Trump and Kim to get back into a room together. It doesn't bode well.

Kim Jong-un prefers his nukes to a flourishing economy

Donald Trump believes he has found the perfect answer to Kim Jong-un's intransigence: give up your nukes and the US will help you build the fastest upward-moving economy since, well, since South Korea and Vietnam. Perhaps he has in mind a huge Trump resort on the coast and half a dozen Trump golf courses. But surely there is a fatal flaw to this solution. Do Kim and his family really want to improve the lives of their citizens or do they want above all else to stay in power and benefit from the luxuries that come their way through illegal deals with countries who don't care about international sanctions? North Korea old hands will have tried to get the message across to the White House that promising a glowing economy isn't going to cut it with Kim. Has he ever shown sympathy for the rural workers who barely eek out an existence on poverty income? Does he want North Korea to be another South Korea or Vietnam? It's a nice try but Kim comes from a ruthless dynastic dictatorship with an appalling human rights record. He wants total power and he must worry that if he agrees to Trump's plan and turns North Korea into an economic miracle, in return for surrendering his nukes, what leverage will he have over his potential enemies at home and overseas? He needs his nukes and long-range ballistic missiles. When Trump has gone will his successor be as nice to him? I fear these sorts of questions are running around in Kim's head and he won't move towards denuclearisation unless the US agrees to withdraw all 28,500 troops from South Korea. He knows China will be on his side because it's very much in Beijing's interest for the US military to disappear from the region. I want this summit in Hanoi to be a success, I would love to hear Kim say he will dismantle all of his nukes and missiles and open up his country to outside investment. But every time I see Kim smiling or waving from a train window, I feel he is exactly the same person he was when he was test-firing nuclear-capable missiles in 2017. Is he excited by the prospect of having Walmart supermarkets estalishing themselves across North Korea and Starbucks on every street corner in Pyongyang? No he is not. Because if his people get too used to prosperity and enjoying life they might turn against him and his military henchmen. So Kim will keep his nukes as his permanent insurance policy.

Theresa May's Brexit deal or No Brexit At All.

We have come round full circle so many times with the Brexit negotiations and divisions and options and disagreements that I would like to think we Brits now have two options facing us before March 29: Thesesa May's deal with added stuff that won't mean much from the EU and then a chance for a popular or parliamentary vote on whether to scrap the whole thing and stay in the EU. According to a story in the New York Times, there is just one word that sums up what has been going on between Brit and EU negotiators in Brussels in recent weeks: NOTHING. I have a terrible feeling this is true. May and her acolytes just go round and round with the same old arguments about the Northern Ireland backstop and the EU bureaucrats come up the same old fatuous pledges about writing a legal letter or addendum which basically says, "Don't worry, the backstop won't last for ever, we promise, but we can't put an exact timetable limit to it because without this insurance policy everything else falls by the wayside." So if nothing has really moved to help Thesesa May get her deal through Parliment, then when the vote is held again next month she will be defeated again. Now she has said that if she is defeated she will allow a vote on whether to keep a no-deal Brexit on the table, and assuming 90 per cent of MPs vote in favour of abolishing the no-deal option, the next option will be a vote on whether to delay the Brexit leaving date of March 29 to sometime in June to give more time for negotiations. But sorry, it doesn't matter whether the exit is delayed for three months or six months or a year, nothing is going to change radically to make Theresa May's deal look significantly different (better). What's the point of delaying the exit date? The prime minister hates the idea of delaying it because she feels personally obligated to fulfill the maority of the people's wish which is to leave the EU on March 29. Jeremy Corbyn's five-point solution to Brexit - leaving the EU but not really - is meaningless because, whatever my personal feelings about it, it is effectively a total surrender to the EU, a treacherous snub to the people who voted to leave, and it will emasculate Britain's powers for ever within the European community. I travelled back from Spain today and before we took off a very loud argument broke out between a bloke behind me and another bloke across the aisle. All about Brexit. The guy across the aisle who was garrulous to a fault, wafted on about why the UK should stay in the EU, which was too much for the big guy behind me who shouted for the other chap to get real and what about the meaning of democracy and basically told him to bugger off and leave democracy to take its course. Everyone started to get uncomfortable. It made me realise that probably if the UK fails to leave the EU on March 29, my friend behind will be marching to Parliament Square to protest. Along with 17 million others. Spurred on by the garrulous bloke who didn't stop talking the whole flight, the big fella behind me said it was nonsense that mayhem would follow if we left the EU without a deal. So I am somewhat wary of mentioning the one option which we could and should take which is to let Parliament vote between two options: Theresa's deal or no Brexit. Simples, as Mrs May said in Parliament today. Everyone says the May deal is a bad deal so the only alternative is to stay in the EU and forget all this democracy rubbish!!! Apologies to the fella sitting behind me on the plane. And to the fast and furious Leavers/Brexiteers, stop thinking of yourselves and think of the next generation who want to stay European.

Kim Jong-un lookalike told to leave the country

Easily the funniest story of the day - although not funny for the individual concerned - is the decision by the Hanoi government to fly a Kim Jong-un lookalike out of the country while the real Kim Jong-un is in the Vietnamese capital to meet Donald Trump. Howard X, a resident of Hong Kong, so resembles the North Korean leader and sounds like him that the Vietnamese authorities decided it was just too risky to have him around and spoiling the impact of the summit. He had already appeared on television alongside a Trump lookalike pretending to be at a summit. It must have been hilarious. Perhaps some viewers thought it was the real thing. Anyway it was all too much for the Hanoi government whose reputation as a summit host was at stake. So Howard x suddenly found he had a visa that had run out and he was "escorted" to the aiport under orders to stay away. The Trump lookalike was allowed to stay but told to remain out of the public limelight. No TV interviews. This could never happen in the US or the UK. Any incoming foreign leader has to take the rough with the smooth, the serious with the hilarious. Poor old Trump had a big fat balloon shaped like him as a baby in a nappy hanging over Parliament Square when he was last in London. I said at the time I thought this was very disrespectful but if you're in a democracy I guess you have to put up with that sort of nonsense. Anyway Howard X has had his 15 minutes of fame and I expect he will soon be back on the TV somewhere impersonating Kim Jong-un, although not in Vietnam. Meanwhile Trump (the real one I think) and Kim will be getting down to business. If they don't achieve very much, perhaps the two impersonators can be brought back to sort out the world!

Maduro and his 2,000 corrupt generals must go

Why is the whole world not condemning Nicola Maduro? How can Putin actually support this monster who is desroying his country and killing his own citizens? When Bashar Assad started killing his people in the civil war in Syria there was worldwide outrage. But here we have a so-called leader of a country doing everything he can to stop the outside world from helping his people with food and medicine, even burning the aid which is totally outrageous and sickening. Some of his soldiers have defected, but just a handful. The only way forward now is for the military from the top to the bottom to rebel and escort Maduro and his henchmen from their residences. But in dictatorships like Venezuela, there is the fear of the unknown. When middle-ranking officers have defected and have tried to engineer a coup they have failed, and the price of failure in Venezuela has terrible consequences. People act when they know for sure that everyone around them is going to act as well. But in an envronment of fear, you can never be sure. This is why the 25 or so soldiers who have refused to act against the people have made a brave but pointless gesture. The military as a whole needs to rebel. This is what the US is counting on. But there seems no sign of mass defections, and the 2,000 generals in the Venezuelan army are so cosseted from the suffering experienced by the rest of the population that they have no incentive to turn against Maduro. He is their protector and provider. By the way, how is it possible that in an army of only about 67,000 active soldiers there are 2,000 generals? What on earth do they do every day, other than check on their bulging bank accounts? I fear that something terrible is going to break in Venezuela. At some point there is going to be a massive confrontation between the military and the people, and spurred on by Maduro and the 2,000 corrupt generals, there will be large-scale casualties. Then, pehaps then, the world will act, or more specifically the US will act, and Putin will have to be warned in the strongest terms to keep out!

Will Trump and Kim Jong-un achieve anything in Hanoi?

The only person in Washington who seems to be optimistic about next week's second summit with Kim Jong-un is President Donald Trump. Unless he knows something which none of us or any of his most senior officials know, then Trmp is due for a big disapointment. I genuinely hope that the sceptics are wrong and Trump's unreal but apparently genuine liking for the North Korean leader will bear some fruit at the meeting in Hanoi. But it is difficult to be too hopeful because since the first summit in Singapore last June there has been very little progress, in fact pretty well nil progress towards the ultimate goal of denuclearisation. This inevitably raises the question: Is Kim Jong-un ready to get rid of his nuclear weapons or is he just tring to bamboozle Trump by flashing his smile in the hope that he can persuade the president to offer some nice juicy concessions, such as lifting some of the sanctions which have been hitting his country's economy. Trump has said all along that sanctions will not be lifted until AFTER all the North Korean nukes have gone. But no one who knows North Korea from way back believes Kim is ready to do that at any stage in the near future and probably never. Mike Pompeo, secretary of state, who started off being very bullish about the prospects for denuclearisation is now by all accounts gripped by reality and feels the Hanoi summit might just turn out to be window-dressing. This would be depressing indeed. Trump has obviously been warned not to give anything away and to make sure that Kim makes more than just general promises about denuclearisation. The truth is that North Korea is not as dangerous as it was because not that long ago Kim was threatening to launch long-range missiles at the US and was talking about setting off a hydrogen bomb in the atmosphere over the Pacific. There has been no such talk since the Singapore summit and I don't believe Kim will utter such warlike rhetoric in Trump's presence in Hanoi. So, taking that as a positive, what we need from Hanoi is some sort of timetable for denuclearisation, linked to sanctions-lifting and a formal ending of the war between North and South Korea. A timetable, signed by both Trump and Kim, will increase the chances of an eventual breakthrough that actually does lead to nuclear warheads being dismantled. It could happen, and despite the pessimism in Washington, especially from that old warhorse John Bolton, the national security adviser, Trump's "special" relationship with Kim might deliver the goods.

Will Putin want Trump to win a second term?

It would be fascinating to attend a Kremlin session between Vladimir Putin and his tightest net of cronies when they discuss Trump Part Two. Does Putin want Trump in the White House for a second term and, if so, what will he do to help him get there? According to the US intelligence community, Putin did everything he could to get Trump into the White House in 2016, presumably in the expectation that Trump and not Hillary Clinton wohld be more conducive to improved relations between Washington and Moscow. But since then, relations between Trump and Putin have got so bad that they have returned to Cold War-style rhetoric. So why would Putin want Trump for another four years in 2020? Well, despite the on-the-surface deterioration in relations, Trump still hopes to get on with Putin and still hopes that the two can be friends. I think Putin knows that and would much prefer to have someone like Trump to deal with than, say, Kamala Harris or Joe Biden or any of the multitude of other Democratic presidential hopefuls. So watch out Kamala and Joe, expect some Kremlin trouble over the next two years. Putin is probably saying to all his insider cronies, "let's make sure we can help Trump as much as possible". Robert Mueller, special counsel, is supposed to be on the verge of producing his report on the collusion allegation and I'm sure that whatever conclusions he comes to, Moscow will be ready to dismiss any suggestion of a plot as nonsense. Trump of course will also have his "witchunt and fake news" explanation ready to go. So, bizarrely. some people might say that will be another example of Moscow and the White House indirectly working together! What Mueller says will be crucial, but the real threat facing Trump and his hopes for a 2020 reelection is the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. Post-Mueller the Nancy Pelosi phenomenon will take off. So far she has restrained her colleagues from launching immediately into an impeachment drive. But if Mueller leans towards the collusion argument, the House will accelerate its own investigations and it will be a torrid time for the president. He will need all the friends he can get, and Putin might be one of them.

What to do about Isis wives and children?

Isis has been responsible for the slaughter of thousands of people, some of them executed in the most barbaric fashion. It's a record of brutality not seen on this Earth in modern times. Hitler and Stalin remain the greatest serial killers of anyone's memory. But Isis brought to the world an era of horrific killings, torture, intimidation and hatred. Yet in between the murders and beheadings and abductionss, the Isis killers gathered around them a flock of women and produced children on a large scale. It's not perhaps surprising. Even monsters can procreate. But somehow it seems almost obscene that in between the wholesale slaughter these men who have devoted their lives to a vicious and hateful ideology still want to indulge in the sort of experiences which the rest of us on this planet regard as normal and healthy: passion, love, affection, intimacy, children. So, amidst the bloody mayhem, something like 1,500 children have been born to Isis men and their women, many of whom have rushed to Syria in order to marry or cohabit with the thousands of foreign fighters who have joined up from every country in Europe, as well as the US, Canada, Russia, Chechnya and all over. What on earth to do about these children? It's not their fault they were born to mothers and fathers wrapped in hatred. They deserve a better life. But the hundreds and hundreds of Isis "brides" as they are strangely called cannot expect to be treated like deserving citizens just because they have delivered children into this world. It's a conundrum. The case of Shamima Begum, the British national who now wants to come home and to bring her latest and only surviving baby to the UK, is one of many. Two American Isis wives also want to return home. But at least they have shown regret and remorse over what they have done. Shamima Begum regrets nothing. But if all the nations respond to the dilemma like the UK, and make these women stateless and refuse to let them back in, what is to happen to them and their children? Are they to be permanent residents of refugee camps in Syria, their children neglected, uneducated and poorly fed? It's a desperate situation. I feel for the children but have no sympathy for their mothers. That solves nothing I realise. But in the end, for the sake of the children, governments will have to take responsibility for them.

Pelosi tells Nato and Europe: don't listen to Trump

Nancy Pelosi is certainly not holding back in her dismissal of Donald Trump as the emperor of the United States of America. She believes that the real power lies with those who hold the purse strings and that means her beloved Congress. Well in many ways she is right. Congress is supposed to be the one with the cash who can approve or disapprove presidential directives. But in meetings with Nato and EU officials, Pelosi, Speaker of the House, has been trying to put across a picture that is much more than about the role and power of Congress. Her messsage could not have been clearer when she met with officials in Brussels today: "Don't worry whatever Trump says or does, we will keep him in check because he can do nothing without our money." She was tring to reassure a very bruised Europe and Nato alliance which have so fallen out with the US president, they now feel quite ready to throw all caution to the wind and oppose his every move. So, when Trump demanded that Britain, Germany, France and other European nations take back their Isis nationals in prison in Syria to prosecute them, they all cried "NO". When he tweeted he was going to hoist up tariffs on cars exported from Europe to the US, Angela Merkel snorted in disgust, pointing out that Germany's fine automobile beasts, BMW and Mercedes, that were bought by devoted American inividuals and companies were manufactured in America, creating thousands of jobs. The whole of Europe said if Trump put up tariffs, they would too. This is what Pelosi was tryng to get across. This is just Trump being Trump. "Don't listen to him, listen to us at Congress." It's said this total breakdown in relations between Europe and the US executive is the worst since the invasion of Iraq, but I'm sure Pelosi's reassuring words will have helped a little bit. But by all accounts Nato ministers were not that reassured when acting US defence secretary Pat Shanahan rolled up at Nato HQ in Brussels the other day and said how much he loved them all and the alliance. Trump has made it patently clear he can't stand Nato and is fed up that the US remains the biggest troop and financial contributor to the organisation. Sorry, Mr President, but the US is an economic and military superpower, and being the Big Cheese in Nato goes with the superpower status. Enjoy it while it lasts. I agree the rest of the alliance should contribute more, but the more aggressive Trump gets towards the allies, the less chance I suspect they will want to jump. It's the same with Trump's demand for Europe to take back Isis nationals from Syria. Now I happen to agree totally with that. Of course it's the responsibility of individual nations to take back their own nationals and prosecute them for joining up with a terrorist organisation like Isis. Why should anyone else have to do it on their behalf and suffer the burden for ever? An Isis terrorist with a British passport should be sitting in a prison in Britain. But Trump has so antagonised everyone that no one wants to cooperate with him, whatever issue it is. That's how bad things are.

Senator lindsey Graham is a man to watch

I kinda like Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican chairnan of the Senate Judiciary Committee and great pal of the late and missed Senator John McCain. He seems to me to get angry about the right things most of the time. He supports Trump, and Trump seems to respect him, but if he disagrees with the president's policies he says so, like the decision to withdraw the 2,000 US troops frm Syria. He thought and thinks that was daft. He has firm opinions, as did John McCain of course, and what angers him at this moment is the extraordinary business about the plot or considered plot against Trump after he had fired James Comey as FBI director. It's extraordinary because despite desperate denials and clarifications it seems pretty clear that a group of officials at the Justice Department and FBI actually discussed (conspired?) getting rid of the president using the 25th Amendment. Now this is old news. When it first broke in The New York Times last year, the main focus was on the alleged role of Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general. He had discussed the possibility of wearing a wire when going to the White House, presumbaly to get something incriminating from the mouth of Donald Trump, such as, "Tell my Russian friends I've fired Comey." Well nothing hapened and Rosenstein amazingly survived in his job after tryng to downplay if not dismiss the whole story. Then along comes Andrew McCabe, former acting FBI director. He writes a memoir and then appears on CBS "60 Minutes" and talks openly about the Justice Department discussion about removing Trump from power. It is an astonishing situation. Lindsay Graham described it rather neatly as "beyond stunning". I agree. Whatever you think of Trump as president, you can't have the Justice Department and FBI plotting to get rid of him. It's the job of Congress to do that. Graham is now going to investigate the whole story and subpeona McCabe and Rosenstein and others involved. I think the American people have a right to know what the hell was going on.

Government by decree alive and well in Washington

Even senior Republicans are worried about President Trump's declaration of a national emergency to build his Mexico wall. They are worried about its legality but actually more worried that a future Democratic president might invoke the same sort of edict based on the precedent set by Trump. Ok there was a national emergency delcaration by George W Bush after 9/11 but no one disagreed with that. It didn't set the sort of precedent which Trump has now done with his decision to snatch billions of dollars from the Pentagon budget to pay for the wall. The Pentagon has been expecting this development for some weeks. Jim Mattis who resigned as US defence secretary in protest at Trump's decision to withdraw all American troops from Syria apparently even suggested a national emergency declaration as the only way the president was going to get funding for his wall. I can't believe Mattis would have wanted Trump to grab a chunk of his hard-fought defence budget to start building it. But Trump has had it in mind for some time that the Pentagon would be the department to raid for the required funds. His argument being that a wall was all about security, the military was in the security business, ergo let them build and fund the wall. The Pentagon has a huge budget, increasing from $700 billion to $716 billion this year and maybe to $750 billion for 2020. So if the Pentagon lawyers advise that wall-building on the nation's borders is not a legitimate use of military money and expertise, it could cause more problems for the president. But clearly that is not going to happen. Trump said out of the blue recently that he was going to give the Pentagon $750 billion next year, so the defence department is hardly going to quibble over $5 billion for the president's pet project. But there will still be a lot of angst in the departments to be most affected by the wall emergency, particularly those who have been putting money aside for improving living quarters for troops and their families. The one thing I can't understand is that the White House seems to have earmarked more than $2 billion to come out of the Pentagon's drug-interdiction programme. Eh? I thought one of his reasons for wanting to build the wall was to stop drug traffickers entering the United States across the border. But he knows from being told so by his intelligence boys that it's the US Navy and Coast Guard who prevent literally tons of cocaine and other drugs from getting into the US. Any defunding from their efforts would be welcomed by the drug barons!

Mike Pence brings greetings from Donald Trump but no one is pleased!

Being vice president of the United States has rarely been a position of power in any form. Of course there is the one exception, one Dick Cheney. But Mike Pence, a man who looks sort of contented with life but without having any reason to be, turned up in Munich for the annual security conference that attracts A List politicians, spooks and military types. When he stood up to address the audience he declared that he brought greetings from the 45th President of the United States Donald Trump. There was total silence, not even a hint of warmth or noddings of heads, let alone cheers, applause or clappings. Oh dear, how embarrassing. Pence didn't seem to be too upset, perhaps he was expecting it and threw the greetings into the conference hall as if he was throwing down a gauntlet to all the VIPs present. The audience was unmoved. The very name Trump seems to be a conversation killer. A bit like Brexit is here in the United Kingdom. Pence is never going to be a great man. The public knows him as the chap in the same suit and tie always standing at the back behind the president, not exactly smiling but looking serenely content with his lot. Still, he does get to see all the sexy intelligence stuff and attends the early morning presidential briefing, so he knows a thing or too. But he never looks as if he knows anything interesting. Arriving at a conference full of big wigs from around the world, it could have been his moment to shine. But his opening remarks ruined that!

Is the border wall or Donald Trump a national emergency?

Declaring a national emergency if you don't get your way via normal political means is a bit like a dictator arresting thousands of people suspected of plotting his downfall. (A bit like President Erdogan of Turkey for example). Donald Trump, to give him his due, did try the political method but found it wanting. So wham bam up comes the national emergency edict. Trump is now going to face the toughest political and legal fight in his presidency. Everyone against The Wall will pursue the case through the courts and every federal judge in the land, especially ones residing near the Mexico border will be dying to put their pennyworth into the legal system on the one big question: has the president exceeded his powers under the constitution and, if so, can he be stopped? The interesting side issue is that the Pentagon turns out to have a stash of billions of dollars set aside for a whole range of refurbishment and renovation and upkeep programmes which is just sitting there untouched. In fact there's probably enough in the Pentagon construction/repairs kitty for Trump to snatch and build a wall along the complete 2,000 miles of the border. If Jim Mattis was still the defence secretary he would be shouting and screaming by now, telling the president the defence budget is sacrosanct and can't be raided for his pet project. But very cleverly, Trump forced Mattis to resign and replaced him with his deputy with a hinted promise that he might get the job permanently if he behaves himself. Pat Shanahan wouldn't dare tell Trump to go and jump in the lake, so no doubt, thinking he might get the top job for the next few years, he will order his subordinates in the military construction branch to do as their commander-in-chief tells them. Forget about that naval base that desperately needs doing up, forget about the married quarters that are falling apart and forget about the ancient hangers that are housing the brand new and shining F-35 joint strike fighters. "We're going to build a wall instead!" It's a dubious argument but according to Trump the troops he has spoken to all agreed with him that a border wall was more important than havng decent living quarters for military families. Really? I wonder how many Trump spoke to. Anyway there's a long period ahead of legal arguments and it will probably be the Trump-weighted judges on the Supreme Court who will make the final decision. Nancy Pelosi will fight tooth and manicured nail to obstruct Trump, but she should have realised he would do this and should have made some sort of compromise to keep the president happy. Why? Because whether you like the idea of spending billions of dollars on building a huge wall across the southern border or not, Trump DID promise to do it in his election campaign and by winning the presidency, he DDES have a people's mandate to build it. It's called democracy.

British teenage Isis girl wants to come home but without remorse

So Shamima Begum, now 19 and heavily pregnant from one of her Isis lovers, wants to go home to mummy and family after four years living in the so-called Islamic caliphate in Syria. First of all it has taken her four years to realise that she has had enough of all the killings and beheadings going on around her. She said she wasn't fazed when she saw her first decapitated head in a bin. And second, has she shown any remorse or regret by joining up with Isis which has been responsible for thousands of murders and brutalising communities across great swathes of Syria and Iraq? No she is not sorry at all. But she would like to come home. Presumably because her Isis protectors have been driven from Syria. Whether she shows remorse or not she will be arrested as soon as she lands and be taken off into the custody of the Metropolitan Police for interrogation and probably would face charges of having joined a terrorist organisation. Her lawyer is already saying we should be nice to her because she is a "victim". Now I don't know what sort of twisted legal logic can justify the word "victim" because she chose, along with two other schoolmates, to leave their families in 2015 and head off for the murderous mayhem being orchestrated by Isis. They can't have been unaware of what was going on unless they never read the newspapers or watched TV or engaged in social media. Everyone in the universe knew what Isis stood for. If only in her interview with my brilliant Times colleague Anthony Loyd she had said she was truly sorry and wanted everyone to forgive her for being so stupid. Then perhaps there might be a little more sympathy for her. But not an ounce of regret. I've no idea how she will get home, perhaps a benefactor will buy her a ticket. But she will not get a warm reception when she lands. The people I feel most sorry for are the Kurdish fighters who fought Isis so courageously and are now lumbered with hundreds of prisoners and their families and don't know what to do with them. Send Shamima home and let her face the music.

The spying world after Brexit

My stories in The Times today: THE HEAD of MI6 is expected to stay in charge of the secret intelligence service beyond his retirement date this year to guarantee continuity during the critical post-Brexit period, The Times has learned. Alex Younger will have completed the normal five-year term in November but if Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, confirm the extension, he will become the longest-serving MI6 chief since the 1960s. Whitehall sources said it was crucial for key jobs such as the heads of the security and intelligence services to remain unchanged while the country faced unprecedented challenges after leaving the European Union. A security source said no decision had yet been made about Mr Younger’s position. However, Andrew Parker, Mr Younger’s counterpart at MI5, has already agreed to remain as director-general of the security service until 2020. He was appointed in 2013. Security sources revealed he was asked early last year to extend his appointment, “and so it was not Brexit-related”. But with so much uncertainty over the future, his agreement to stay is viewed as a fortuitous decision. MI6 chiefs, known in Whitehall as ‘C’, traditionally serve for a maximum of five years. It’s recognised as a high-powered, intense job, especially today with the demand for intelligence increasing at a rapid rate. “Five years is normally enough for this appointment because of the pressures involved,” one former intelligence official said. However, Brexit has opened up concerns at the highest level about future intelligence and security relations with European partners. Intelligence-sharing has played a key part in preventing terrorist attacks, and close personal working relationships have been formed between individual services and their senior staff, and in particular between the heads of the different European agencies. Brexit negotiations with the EU have included future security arrangements. But there remains a certain ambivalence about how they will work and whether there will be any restrictions on intelligence-sharing once Britain is no longer a member of the EU. Extending Mr Younger’s role as MI6 chief to cover the crucial 12-24 months after Britain has left the EU is not seen in Whitehall as raising any difficulties. “The five-year stint is not set in concrete,” one former senior Whitehall official said. However, Mr Younger’s closest predecessors, Sir John Sawers, Sir John Scarlett and Sir Richard Dearlove, all retired after five years. Sir Dick White appointed in 1956 in the Cold War, is the longest-serving MI6 chief, staying in post until 1968. “Alex [Younger] is regarded as having been successful, he is very good with the troops [his intelligence staff] and has the right touch,” Lord Hennessy of Nimpsfield, professor of contemporary history at Queen Mary, London University and an authority on Whitehall, said. Mr Younger, 55, joined MI6 in 1991 after serving as a captain in the Scots Guards. During his time as an operational intelligence officer overseas he served in Europe and the Middle East and as MI6 station chief in Afghanistan. It is believed an internal candidate, a senior male director, is being groomed to be Mr Younger’s successor when he eventually steps down. “Traditionally the service tries to grow someone internally into succeeding as chief and it would normally be an officer who, for example, has served as director of operations,” the former Whitehall official said. “It could be an outsider, such as a senior diplomat, but there’s a real sense that it’s difficult to appoint an outsider if he or she hasn’t stood on a street corner or sweated in a hotel room waiting for the arrival of an agent,” he said. “In the secret world the shortlist of potential candidates for ‘C’ is always a pretty restricted field,” he said. Sir John Sawers, who was succeeded by Mr Younger in 2014, was appointed from outside the service but he had started his distinguished career with MI6 before going on to become one of Britain’s most accomplished diplomats, including two years as United Nations ambassador. “He was still regarded by the service as ‘one of us’ when he was appointed chief of the secret intelligence service, and his experience at that level was unmatched,” the former official said. BEHIND THE STORY: A former MI6 chief once famously said that the most the secret intelligence service could provide was “cat’s eyes in the dark”. Sir Colin McColl, the first head of MI6 to be officially “outed” by the government of John Major in the early 1990s when the secret intelligence service was placed on the statute books, had a staff of around 2,000. There was no al-Qaeda, no Isis, and Boris Yeltsin was president of the Soviet Union. Today Alex Younger, the chief of the service, has a staff of 3,300 and shares an overall budget of £3 billion with MI5, GCHQ, the government signals intelligence agency, and Whitehall’s national security secretariat. The world of spying has changed dramatically. In the 1990s when MI6 headquarters was housed in a non-descript office block close to Waterloo station, there was a gentleman’s club atmosphere in the secrecy business. The same was the case at MI5’s anonymous headquarters in Gower Street, Bloomsbury. Each service is still located on different sides of the Thames, MI6 at Vauxhall Cross and MI5, with more than 4,000 staff, at Thames House, Millbank. However, the environment is no longer gentleman’s club. Both services are swarming with young men and women and both are ethnically diverse. The buildings are spacious, open plan and business-like. GCHQ, too, in Cheltenham, which employs 6,000 people, is housed in a huge modern circular building known as The Doughnut. The spying game has changed out of all proportion because of the immense daily threat posed by a hostile digitised world. A British spy operating abroad, trying to build a network of agents to provide secret information to meet the government’s set of requirements, is less inclined these days to stand in dark alleys or on street corners to receive intelligence from contacts. It’s more often done by data transfer. But while advanced technology potentially makes spying easier, it also creates greater vulnerabilities. As Mr Younger said in a speech a year after he took over as ‘C’, the same technology in the hands of foreign powers enables them to “see what we are doing and put our people and agents at risk”. Both MI6 and the CIA whose chiefs share one of the closest relationships in the spying world, have significantly expanded what are called “non-official cover” (Nocs) spies. These are salaried members of the two services who operate abroad, not under diplomatic cover but on the staff of companies and organisations, gathering secret intelligence as part of their remit. It’s part of a new and costly development to spread the intelligence-gathering capability beyond the more traditional embassy-based spies disguised as political or trade diplomats. “There had been a gradual shift in this direction but it has expanded dramatically in recent years,” Nigel West, author of intelligence and espionage books, said.

Is Trump's wall going to be built bit by bit?

I think it's safe to say that Trump will never be given $5.7 billion in one big instalment to start building his wall along the Mexican border. But the way things are going he WILL get his wall eventually by building it bit by bit by bit. The trouble with that is that Trump will never be able to say to his very conservative supporters: "Congress has given in. My wall will be built by, say, March 2020." The deal that has been reached in principle between the Republicans and Democrats includes an offer of $1.375 billion - nowhere near what Trump wants - for new fencing along 55 miles of the border. But this so-called deal which Trump has already said he doesn't like is more to do with avoiding a government shutdown again than actually any sort of agreement to meet Trump's demand for a 2,000-mile wall. Friday is the crucial day when the government either partially shuts down or the president goes along with the offer of at least some cash for his favourite project. But take note that the "deal" talks about fencing, not a wall. Trump has said as long as it looks like a wall that no one can climb over, he doesn't mind what you call it, wall, or fencing or barrier. But however you look at it, 55 miles of extra fencing is never really going to please Trump. He envisages a huge obstruction that will keep out illegal immigrants, drugs traffickers and every type of criminal who wants to get in to the US one way or another. His supporters will view $1.375 billion as a pittance, especially when you know that a new wall along 2,000 miles would cost in the region of £20-30 billion. However, Trump does not want another shutdown and if he summarily rejects the deal on offer which by the way looks remarkably like the one offered the last time there was a shutdown, then voters might blame him and not the Democrats in Congress for removing 800,000 federal workers' pay checks. The wall is going to be Trump's undoing unless the Mueller investigation gets him first!

Will the EU ever change its position on Brexit?

I don't know how many times I have read or heard that the EU Brexit negotiators are never never never going to change their mind and rewrite the deal they signed with Theresa May. But here was Michel Barnier, the chief negotiator once again saying just that. Non, he said, there would be no change. Yet the British prime minister and her Brexit team keep on going back for more punishment, and Theresa keeps on telling the House of Commons that she will have a new revised deal to present to them sometime in the next few weeks. Where is this revised deal going to come from? Certainly not from Monsieur Barnier. Certainly not from President Donald Tush (sorry Tusk), Polish head of the European Council, and certainly not from President Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourgian leader of the European Commission. The EU really does have too many presidents. Two too many. Whatever happens back in UK, for the EU presumably it won't make any difference. So Jeremy Corbyn, would-be next prime minister, has come up with his five-point plan which includes staying in the EU customs union and single market, and Boris Johnson, once a would-be prime minister but with about as much chance as Corbyn to make it, has suddenly softened and said he would accept May's Brexit deal provided there is a limited timespan for the dreaded Northern Ireland backstop. Well the EU chaps won't accept any limits to the backstop because they don't want even the minutest of chances of having a hard border between north and south in Ireland. It's their insurance policy and they're going to hang on to it until/unless there is a guaranteed trade relationship with the UK that includes a smooth no-border arrangement with Northern Ireland. And the EU negotiators are hardly going to grab a Corbyn proposal because it would entail doing a lot of rewriting. And they have said they WILL NOT CHANGE THEIR POSITION. It's all going nowhere. But here in good old Blighty, fantasy politics is carrying on regardless.

Will Trump and Kim Jong-un actually do something special this time?

Already expectations for the next planned summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un in Hanoi at the end of this month are being lowered by the White House, indicating that the second love-in between the two leaders is not going to be much more than that, a love-in. Despite all the optimism when this rapprochement with North Korea began under the Trump administration, there has been little progress. Plenty of diplomatic progress of course because the US is talking to North Korea and North Korea is talking to South Korea. But actual changes on the ground as far as North Korea's nuclear weapons programme have been few and far between. The odd missile site here and there, but Pyongyang, by all accounts, is continuing with its ballistic missile programme and has its nuclear warheads all nicely stored away, untouched by outside inspectors. But then the sceptics, and I was and am one of them, never really thought that Kim Jong-un would just hand over his nuclear warheads. Even after Mike Pompeo, the US secretary of state, way back said he had a timeline worked out for the elimination of all the nuclear stuff. Timelines have come and gone and clearly despite the hullabaloo about Trump and Kim meeting again, there seem to be no prospects of North Korea surrendering anything unless Trump says he will start lifting economic and trade sanctions against the country. It's the usual game. If Trump gives away too much and then gets nothing in return, of if Kim hands over the odd nuclear warhead but Trump refuses to budge on sanctions, then it will all be over very quickly. It's not quite poker, it's more Russian roulette. The only really positive development is that North Korea hasn't carried out a single ballistic missile test launch, nor a nuclear test since the talks began. When you remember the massively publicised test of an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the US, carried out in 2017, and the nuclear test the same year, that sort of dangerous brinkmanship was hurling us to a US war with North Korea. Those days, hopefully, are over. But what if the Trump summit with Kim in Hanoi all goes wrong? What if Kim is reaching boiling point and is expecting something generous from Trump in return for making a first step towards denuclearisation? For Trump it's absolutely vital for his presidency that Hanoi produces results. He needs to demonstrate that he can make the sort of breakthrough which no other political leader could achieve. In his mind, that would put people like Nancy Pelosi and all the Democratic candidates lining up to take his job back in their box. But the omens are not good.

Brexit exit is 58 days away and then what?

It is almost criminal, and certainly unbelievable, that the United Kingdom will be leaving the European Union in 58 days time and yet there is not a single person either in this country or in the 27 other European nations who knows what is going to happen. For sure. Lots of suggestions and predictions and scenarios but no one really has much of a clue. There are plenty of people who think they know what is best for this country, most of them diametrically opposed to each other, but all we have to go on is Theresa May endlessly saying that the UK WILL leave the EU on March 29 whatever happens between now and then. I don't think it's a negotiating point or a clever blackmail plan to force critics to support her deal. I just think Theresa has that date in her head and nothing will move her from it. It's like an essential part of the mandate which she believes the people of this country - well the Leavers - gave her when they voted in the referendum in 2016. To be honest I don't think most people worry about whether it's March 29 or September 30 or whatever. But for Theresa, anything after March 29 would be an admission of failure on her part. It's all a part of her stubbornness. I'm not against stubbornness provided it's part of a grand political strategy that will lead to the best solution in the end. But I fear in her case, it's stubbornness because that's the way she is. I still believe that it would be better to get her wretched Brexit deal signed and approved and then at least we have a foundation upon which to work to negotiate a proper trade relationship with the EU over the next two years or so. But I no longer believe the House of Commons is capable of approving anything fixed by Theresa May. Too many Conservative rebels and Labour MPs want a different form of Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour "leader" who has been asleep for the last two years has come up with a five-point plan at the last minute which , summed up in three words, amounts to a "very soft Brexit". In other words, so soft that it looks remarkably like still being part of the EU - ie remaining in the customs union and in the single market. All fine, especially for a Remainer like me, but the Brexiteers who want total separation from everything EUish , this isn't going to get approved in Parliament. And why has it taken so long for Corbyn to produce his blueprint, if you can call it that? He has just managed totally to stir up the pot and presented it as if Theresa is going to jump at the chance of supporting it. She didn't and won't. So the prime minister will go on tripping back and forth to Brussels hoping for a change of mind from the increasingly stony-faced EU leaders and bureaucrats. I fear that I shall be writing a similar sort of blog in a month's time with the last few days before Brexit day ticking away. It's a total shambles.

Jeff Bezos takes extraordinarily brave step

The public row between the owners of the National Enquirer and Jeff Bezos, the world's richest man and owner of Amazon and the Washington Post, has become the most talked-about story in Washington. Bezos who grew Amazon from a workshop in a garage to the multi-billion dollar company it is today has done something which few men or women in public high-profile life would dare to do. Instead of taking the easy option and giving in to the demands of the National Enquirer's lawyers he has faced up to them and revealed what he has called the blackmail attempts to shut him up. It's a bizarre and excrutiatingly intimate tussle between two giants of the newspaper industry. American Media Inc (AMI), the owner of the National Enquirer, a newspaper which has made a mint out of publishing scandalous revelations, gave Bezos an ultimatum: stop investigating who leaked all his intimate texts with his lover and publicly state that the National Enquiry's story about Bezos's affair was not politically motivated, OR highly salacious photographs, presumably sent as a text, would be made public. One at least shows Bezos in full-frontal nude. We know that because Bezos has said so. Wary of writing anything that might attract lawyers' attentions I will only say that such an ultimatum, written by the way by a legal adviser to AMI, is pretty outrageous. Disgraceful in fact. Bezos, already smarting from the knowledge that the National Enquirer had somehow managed to uncover his love affair AND get hold of all his texts and photos, clearly had to make a quick decision. Let them publish and be damned or surrender and promise to say and do nothing other than put out a statement saying how nice and pure AMI is in its journalistic endeavours. The owner of the National Enquirer, one David Pecker, is a strong supporter of Donald Trump. Bezos is Trump's bete-noire. Ergo......! Bezos refused to do any such thing. Instead he published in a blog post everything that had gone between him and AMI, including all the details about the photos. Talk about fronting up with the AMI legal boys! Good for him I say and very brave and very very embarrassing for him and his new lady friend. Bezos announced he and his wife were divorcing just before the National Enquirer came out with its story of the love affair. The AMI lawyers and Mr Pecker must have been taken aback by Bezos's effrontery. Whatever happens next, hopefully no one, not even readers of the National Enquirer, actually want to see pictures of Bezos in the nude. It's a foolish thing for him to have done. Surely he knows that anything sent by text, however well decrypted, is vulnerable to hacking. But no one cares what he looks like in the buff and I can't imagine that any newspaper publisher would put such pictures on their front pages. So it's definitely 40-30 to Bezos in this first game.

Who is Trump listening to on Isis?

Donald Trump has got it into his head that Isis in Syria is going to be finally annihilated by next week. I just wonder where he gets his information from: not from the CIA or other US intelligence agencies because they all seem to agree that Isis remains a threat in Syria and could resurge and reawaken if the US pulls out its 2,000 troops, most of whom are special operations soldiers and commandos; and not from the military because they know first hand that the remaining Isis fighters in eastern Syria still pose a deadly threat. Four Americans were killed recently in a suicide bomb explosion in Manbij, a place supposedly freed of Isis. So did Trump get his information after talking to someone like President Erdogan of Turkey, a man desperate to be allowed to let loose in north-eastern Syria without Americans troops in the way; or perhaps he misheard a report from Fox News. I cannot imagine anyone in the know telling Trump that it would be perfectly ok for him to boast that Isis will all be dead and buried in Syria next week. The man who probably knows more about what is actually happening in Syria is General Joseph Votel, commander of US Central Command which is in charge of the whole US-led operation in Syria. He said recently that Isis still had leaders, fighters, resources and the "profane ideology" which had kept them lethal ever since they were formed. General Votel reckons there are between 1,000 and 1,500 Isis fighters in the last mini-stronghold in the eastern province of Deir el-Zour, although a lot more have slipped away and are in hiding all over the eastern Syrian desert. Can all this lot be killed off by next week? There isn't a single US military commander who would dare predict this fanciful belief. So who told Trump he could say this? General Votel has already revealed the president didn't bother to consult him before he announced his shock decision to withdraw the US troops from Syria. He is the big chief of Central Command, yet there was no phone call from the White House to give him advance notice or to ask whether it was a good idea right now. So, again, I have to ask, who told Trump Isis was going to be finished in Syria by next week? I have no doubt that having announced it already, Trump will sometime next week declare that the anti-Isis campaign in Syria is now "Mission Accomplished". Now where have I heard that before?

Will Joe Biden run for president?

After Donald Trump's whizz-bang State of the Union address which, if nothing else, dramatically marked out his potential for continuing to divide the country rather than unify it as he urged, the focus is going to increasingly switch to Democratic candidates who could genuinely pose a threat to his wish to serve for another four years after 2020. With the Robert Mueller report on Russian collusion perhaps a month or so away, Trump can expect 2019 to be filled with dangerous pitfalls, giving his Democratic presidential rivals plenty of ammunition to attack him. So who is going to take the lead in the Democratic Party? Is Joe Biden finally going to put his name in the ring? If he does, I think it will force a lot of the potential candidates to opt out and leave it to Joe. But could this be a big mistake? Joe Biden is a good guy with a lot of support in the Democratic Party and as a former vice-president has the experience of the White House pressures. But in this new era of megaphone politics, Joe Biden's niceness could either be his greatest asset or his greatest weakness. Trump could devour him very quickly. Perhaps this is why Biden is taking so long to make up his mind. His family I would imagine will be warning him that taking on Trump could be a dangerous business. He would need to be seen as being as tough as Trump but without the divisive rhetoric. I suspect that Biden, if he does decide to run, will soon fall by the wayside. Another younger candidate will have to emerge into the frontline. It's difficult at this stage - too early - to see who that will be. Not Elizabeth Warren I suspect. Not Tulsi Gabbard, not Julian Castro, not Kirsten Gillibrand, and not many of the others who have either suggested, hinted at or announced their candidature. My money at this stage is on Kamala Harris who looks and sounds good and would be a wonderful opposite to Trump, or glamour boy Beto O'Rourke who has yet to make up his mind whether to run. He's a long-odds possible because he has obvious charisma. But I truly think a woman is going to outdo Trump and be the next president. It's time. Sorry Hillary, definitely not you.

Iran remains a barrier between the US and Europe

The United States and Europe have failed to make up their differences over Iran and the country’s potential for developing nuclear weapons. It is a sad reflection of the current relationship between the US and Europe that the European nations which signed the historic July 2015 nuclear deal with Iran are still doing everything they can to trade with Tehran to honour the agreement which the American administration withdrew from last year. The US and Europe share one of the most important diplomatic, cultural and military alliances on the planet. Yet on Iran the two continents are as far apart as ever. Europe remains determined to stick to the 2015 agreement because they are convinced it has prevented Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. As part of the deal, the signatories – the US. China, Russia, Britain, France, Germany and the European Union - were supposed to start lifting economic sanctions against Iran. After the US announced it was opting out of the deal last year, European leaders said they would continue to honour the agreement and set up a mechanism under which Europe could trade with Iran without being penalised by Washington. European countries are still pursuing that objective today. The big question is this: can Tehran be trusted to give up its suspected nuclear weapons ambition? Will the continuing trade deals with Europe be enough to keep the 2015 deal alive, or will action by the US against European companies doing business with Iran eventually kill the deal altogether? The US intelligence community concluded in its latest report published recently that there was no sign of Iran trying secretly to develop a nuclear weapons programme. Trump dismissed this as child-like naivety but actually it was a statement of fact. There IS no satellite evidence of a clandestine nuclear programme underway in Iran. However, two of the most prominent figures in Washington remain adamantly opposed to the 2015 nuclear deal and have in the past accused Iran of cheating. Mike Pompeo, secretary of state, and John Bolton, national security adviser, both support Trump in their hostility towards the Iranian regime. So the split between the US and Europe over Iran is never going to be resolved. The US will continue to do its best to destroy the deal and Europe will continue to try and thwart Trump. So much for the Tran-Atlantic alliance.

Turkey is increasingly becoming a wayward ally of the West

Turkey used to be a stalwart member of Nato and a trusted ally of the West which, for years, wanted to be accepted into the European Union family. But President Erdogan, having destroyed the coup against him, is now a wayward, unreliable, slightly scary partner who seems to spend more time shaking hands with the likes of Vladimir Putin than getting on the phone to the US or to leaders in Europe. The latest snub by the Turkish leader is to do with Venezuela. The US and Europe have, somewhat bizarrely, rejected the presidency of Nicolas Maduro (that's good) and hailed as the real president the young Juan Guaido (that's good too, although not exactly "legal" and a bit ad hoc). It's a strange way of doing diplomatic business, a bit like saying "Hey we don't like Putin so we no longer recognise him as the legitimate leader and from now on will deal only with Alexei Navalny (anti-Putin opposition leader)". However, it's a brilliant way of getting the message across to Maduro that it's time he stepped down and lived in exile in Outer Mongolia, never to be heard of again. But Turkey has instantly sided with Russia and China, dissing its friends in the West. Russia and China actually support Maduro and his brutal repressive regime because it suits their game plan for the world. They don't care about the ravages Maduro has caused to his country, they don't care about the billions of dollars he has stolen from the country's coffers and handed out to his family, all they care about is that Venezuela is nicely placed on the map to give them political leverage vis a vis the United States. But Turkey? Why is Erdogan supporting Maduro? Erdogan is a political manipulator and autocratic by nature and instinct and he probably has a sneaking regard for the oversized Venezuelan leader. Whatever the reason, Turkey, Russia and China are lined up against the US and Europe and will no doubt do whatever is required to keep the nice Maduro in power. I hope they're all proud of their support for a man who has literally destroyed the lives of every single Venezuelan who isn't wearing a military uniform. Will this help Turkey to join the EU? I think not. Even Boris Johnson who has been espousing Turkey's EU cause for years, is probably now thinking again. Although once we leave the EU under whatever Brexit fix is agreed between now and March 29, we Brits won't have a say in whether the Turks should be allowed to join or not.

Trump seems to be rushing for a deal with the Taliban

In the 18th year of the war in Aghanistan between the Taliban/al Qaeda/Isis and dozens of other terrorist groups and the US and coalition partners, there now seems to be an unhealthy rush to get a peace settlement and get the hell out before the 2020 presidential election campaign starts. The Taliban have always worked on the basis that they have the luxury of feeling no pressure to end the war, even though they have lost hundreds of fighters, and millions, if not billions, of dollars in destroyed heroin stocks and laboratories. They still have their fighting spirit and their ideology, they still want a full Islamic Taliban republic in Afghanistan, and the way things are going, they will probably get at least part of what they have been fighting for since 2001. Trump is desperate to get the 14,000 US troops home from Afghanistan, and has set a timetable for his negotiating team, led by Zalmay Khalilzad, the eminently capable Afghan-born American diplomat. But is the timetable too hasty? Is Khalilzad working to a Trump agenda which requires huge concessions? Could the Taliban be smiling behind their beards because at last here is an administration in Washington which actually wants to leave and leave fast? The huge danger is that the Taliban, probably among the toughest negotiators in the world will cunningly promise much but deliver nothing. This draft agreement under which the US would withdraw its troops in return for the Taliban pledging never to give sanctuary to al-Qaeda and other terrorist hoodlums is pretty worthless. Why on earth would anyone believe what they promise? Even if it's in writing, so what? This is not a trade union negotiating a better deal for its members. This is the toughest insurgency force in the world seeking to get rid of all foreign troops from its land. They can promise all kinds of things to get what they want and then just renege as soon as the last US soldier has climbed on the plane to go back home. And they won't care about international outrage. The only thing that might stop them inviting al-Qaeda back into Afghanistan would be the knowledge that Trump and any future US president might send back the bombers and Tomahawks to hit them. So it would be a gamble, but the Taliban might think to themselves, the last thing Trump would want to do, after pulling all the US troops out, would be to have to spend more money on bombing targets. But let's say the Taliban does stick to its promise to keep out al-Qaeda, is that good enough for Washington to say, "Hey this is a victory for us, we have achieved what we wanted after 18 years, there is no one anymore plotting terrorist attacks against the US in Afghanistan. Triumph, victory, success". BUT whatever Trump says, this is not what the war has been solely about. If that was the case, an end to the war could have been negotiated years ago. No the war was also about saving the country from savagery, reducing if not destroying the heroin trade, returning democracy, freedom of expression and human rights to the nation and bringing it out of the 14th century. Right now there is a democratically-elected government, although as corrupt as ever, women have emerged into public life, girls can go to school, health clinics have grown up all over the place and infrastructure has been improved albeit not transformed. But of course the heroin business has not just survived but is thriving. A real and total failure on the part of the West and the Afghan government. So what will happen if the Taliban regain power or at least shared power? Will all the gains achieved with so much sacrifice, human and financial, be wasted in a surge of militant Islamism? It's not a reason to stop negotiating peace, but it's a damned good reason to take this steadily and not rush to a settlement in six months.

Why is everyone still talking about a no-deal Brexit?

If there was decent proper political leadership in the United Kingdom, he or she would stand up in the House of Commons and with eloquence and passion and Churchill-like phrases tell every MP, male, female, Brexiteer or Remainer, "There is only one way forward and that is to stay in the EU. That would be in this great nation's best interest. I care not a fig (very Shakespearean) for the Conservative Party's future nor the Labour Party's, I only care about the future of this country and therefore let us give up this idea that there is a better world outside the EU. Let us stay in the European Union and be great Europeans and change what we don't like from within the EU. The 2016 referendum was a mistake, a stupid mistake carried out by my own party and we sincerely regret the upheaval it has created. But I, as leader, have decided for the sake of all our futures to stay as we are. It will be better for all of us. I'm sorry for those who want to leave the EU but it is not going to happen." To rousing cheers, she or he will raise the Union Jack in the air and cry: "Let us end this division and follow me." More rousing cheers and every MP follows him or her out of the Commons chamber and out into the sunlight. This is the sort of scenario I dream about. But we don't have that sort of leader, we have MPs who don't agree on anything, we have a confused public who have stopped trying to understand what it is all about, we have Leavers who now want to remain and Remainers who now want to leave. We are all angry and scared and fed up with the lack of leadership. More and more planning is going ahead in anticipation of leaving the EU without any deal. How can this be? Why is all this money being wasted on something which CANNOT and MUST NOT happen? Why can't our leader say, "We cannot afford to leave without a deal, and that's final". But our leader, Theresa May, wants the no-deal option to be in place to blackmail everyone including the EU, into a deal that will make sense for everyone. OK, that may work, but my God if it doesn't then we WILL leave without a deal. We will crash out into a future that is unplannable and unpredictable. Politicians squabbling like children is never going to get us anywhere. March 29 is NEXT MONTH.

An historic arms control treaty scrapped in the new-era Cold War

How desperately sad that the US feels it has to withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), signed by Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev. The INF treaty will formally be scrapped by the US tomorrow (Saturday February 2 2019). The US insists that the Russians are in breach of the treaty by fielding a new ground-launched cruise missile called Novator 9M729 (also known as SSC-8). Intelligence reports state that this missile can go further than the allowed INF range of 500 kilometres. The treaty bans all ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometres. The Russians have dismissed America's accusation, saying the cruise missile can only go 480 kilometres!! So, just 20 kilometres short of the banned range. Very convenient. The US simply doesn't believe them. If Putin told you that his latest missile had a range of only 480 kilometres, would you believe him? No, I didn't think so. But the US is not just worried about Putin's missile game. After all, the INF Treaty only covers ground-launched missiles, and America has plenty of air-launched and sea-launched ones. No, the real reason for the US jumping out of the INF Treaty is that it only embraces missiles owned by the US and Russia. That's because it was a Cold War weapon when the Soviet Union and the US relied on mutual assured destruction as a deterrent to either side going to war with the other. Today the even bigger worry is China. The Chinese military have developed and deployed thousands of land-based medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles which threaten America's aircraft carrier strike forces whenever they are in the area that China wants to dominate. So now, with INF dead, the Pentagon can start developing a whole new range of ground-based missiles, ostensibly to match Putin's new missile, but also to keep pace with China. But it's still a sad day. The INF Treaty was a great coup. Russia was forced to back down, having deployed its SS-20 land-based missiles to target Europe. When the US sent cruise missiles to Britain and elsewhere and Pershing 2 missiles to Germany, the deterrent status quo was back in business. It took Ronnie and Mikhail to realise it was all rather pointless, and so all the missiles were destroyed. So February 2 2019 is a bad day. Thanks Putin.