Failure in North Korea leads to execution

It's not a proven fact as yet but some of the key North Korean officials involved behind the scenes in the aborted summit in Hanoi between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un have apparently been executed! Failure is a crime in North Korea. The only one named so far is the very ordinary-looking Kim Hyok Chol, former North Korean ambassador to Spain and a nuclear deterrence expert. He was a special envoy to the US for the denuclearisation talks between the two leaders. He was executed, so it is reported, at a North Korean airport. Was he perhaps attempting to leave the country and was stopped after passing through security, or does this airport have two functions? Whatever the truth, this poor man who was apparently a brilliant scriptwriter for summit chats, has met his end because Trump walked out of the Hanoi summi without any sort of deal, claiming that Kim Jong-un was asking for too much. The North Korean leader wanted all sanctions lifted before doing anything about dismantling his nuclear weapons programme. So had Kim Hyok Chol gone too far in his script for Kim Jong-un? Was it his fault that Trump walked out or is that just the way it goes in North Korea? The Hanoi summit failed so someone must be executed. I wonder how Trump feels and whether he might think twice about trusting his North Korean friend. Kim Jong-un has spent mucb of his formative leadership years executing people. Unless Kim Hyok Chol suddenly reemerges it has to be assumed that the reports are correct. So what will Trump and co do in future talks. Will Trump say to himself: "I can't walk out this time, otherwise some other poor mug is going to get killed." Oh my God, I've just realised. That's exactly why the former ambassador to Madrid, as well as about four other officals, were executed. It was Kim Jong-un's crafty plan to deter Trump from ever walking out again. It's brilliant!

Impeachment of Trump looks like a dead horse

The Democrats are getting all excited at the prospect of impeaching Donald Trump after convincing themselves that Robert Mueller, who resigned yesterday as special counsel having completed his Russia/Trump collusion investigation, had given his implicit blessing for Congress to start an impeachment process against the president. I seriously believe this is just wishful thinking on the part of the Democrats. I don't think Mueller did any such thing despite what most of the American newspapers claimed today. All Mueller said was that under US Justice Deparment regulations he was never in a position to say whether the president had committed a crime or not. This was not part of his brief and he had no authority as a special counsel to decide whether Trump was guilty of a crime of obstructing his investigation. His report concluded negatively - that he did not feel there was sufficient evidence to mount an obstruction case. Mueller repeated this in his statement on Wednesday. What he didn't say was what the US newspapers seem to be saying today which is that he felt there WAS a case to be made against the president and it was up to Congress to start impeachment proceedings. That was the interpretation made by most people but I don't think Mueller stood up to make his statement in order to pass the impeachment baton to Congress. That would have been highly presumptuous and outside his remit, and Mueller is a remit man. That's not to say of course that Congress, or at least the Democratic-run House of Representatives, won't now go ahead and initiate an impeachment inquiry and claim that Mueller had signalled this was what he wanted. Aware of this, Rudy Giuliani, Trump's lawyer, has in his usual way rushed to defend his master and has denounced Mueller. But actually all Mueller did was to lay out the facts in a very straightforward way. There was nothing new in his statement. But interpretation is everything and the Democrats have now got fire in their belly. I think they have to step very carefully. Rushing to try and impeach Trump based on what they think Mueller was really saying is a risky path to take, especially with only 18 months left before the 2020 presidential election. If impeachment becomes the only issue in the Democratic campaign, I suspect Trump will waltz back into the White House for a second term.

Robert Mueller wants peace and quiet

The name Robert Mueller has been in the big-time news for so long that almost every word he writes or utters is examined and interpreted and analysed as if it will provide new revelations about Donald Trump, the Russians and everything else that has turned this administration into one of the most controversial for decades. But actually Mueller is a quiet, rather unassuming and very precise gentleman who nearly always disappoints when he speaks because he does what he can not to be theatrical or hyperbolic. He likes to be correct in every sense of that word. So his statement today was entirely correct and precise and uncontroversial... and totally disappointing for the reporters who gathered to hear him speak. In his first public words since his report on the Russian/Trump campaign collusion allegations, Mueller went over all the known ground, emphasising with ultra-careful precision that he had acted as special counsel in accordance with Justice Department regulations and in accordance with the constitution. Then, with reporters waiting impatiently to shower him with questions, to try and draw him out of his shell, he said he would not be taking any questions and furthermore he did not want to appear before Congress. Basically, having done his bit for more than two years investigating the Russia collusion drama, he just wants to return to private life and to obscurity. There will be some in Congress, especially among the Democrats, who will want to subpoena him to appear before them so they can ask questions to find out what they think is the real story, whatever that is. But I reckon even if he is forced to appear he will speak rather like he spoke today during his statement. He will not veer from the language of his report and will certainly not give any hint of his personal views about the president. Maybe he does know things about Trump which he hasn't revealed but if it's not in his report he is not going to divulge it to an eager Democratic member of the House Justice Committee. Mueller is a methodical man and I think an honourable man with a distinguished career as FBI director behind him. He's not going to damage his reputation by resorting to the sort of blockbuster revelations put out by his successor Jack Comey. Mueller has done his job and now wants privacy. I can't blame him and I believe he is right to remove himself from the limelight. These days, that's pretty rare. Trump I'm sure will be delighted and relieved.

Everyone is bending the knee to populist Nigel Farage

Nigel Farage has always been seen as a sort of joke by all the political parties in the UK, and also by newspaper cartoonists. He is generally seen as someone with that ridiculous froglike smile, holding a pint of beer and wearing some dreadful tweedy-style jacket or suit. Yes, a joke. Well now, after snatching the majority of the votes in the European election, Farage has suddenly become a force to be reckoned with and all the candidates to succeed Theresa May as leader of the Conservative Party and prime minister, are being urged to take him seriously for the first time. In my personal view, a successful populist he may be but he espouses the kind of Britain which I would not want to live in, and the Tory leadership candidates should stop thinking of him as a rival. Remember, he doesn't have a single MP in the House of Commons. He used to be leader of UKIP, a now totally disparaged political movement. He's a friend of Donald Trump! Yet Farage appears to have got under everyone's skin. The Tory leadership candidates are afraid of him. So what do they do? They come out with Farage-like statements to try and show that they are as populist as him. A whole bunch of them have now stated that the UK MUST leave the EU by October 31, even if there is no deal. A no-deal Brexit is now on all their lips as if it's a brilliant solution. It's the Farage solution. And they are copying him because they are scared that if there is a general election, Farage will find candidates to stand in every constituency and before you know where you are, Prime Minister Nigel Farage will be walking through the door at Number 10. OK, I know this is too far-fetched but this is what is in the back of everyone's mind. And if not Farage, then Jeremy Corbyn. Either way, disaster for this country. What we need more than anything from the Conservative Party is a politician with guts and commitment and style and charisma who will ignore the likes of Farage and Corbyn and just set out a positive and politically deliverable way forward on the EU. I would love just one candidate to have the courage to say the UK must after all stay in the EU. But no one will dare say that. Not from the Conservative Party anyway. Two people in the Labour Party HAVE said that and have urged Corbyn to campaign for the UK to remain in the EU. They are Emily Thornberry, shadow foreign secretary, and Tom Watson, deputy leader of the Labour Party. Good for them. But then if you support Labour because of the courageous views of Thornberry and Watson, you still get Corbyn in Number 10. It's a hopeless dilemma.

The United Kingdom is as disunited as ever after the Euro elections

No matter what Nigel Farage says - demanding to be involved in the Brexit negotiations with the EU (HA!) - the only relevant fact that has emerged from the disastrous European parliamentary elections is that the United Kingdom remains totally divided. But now the division is not between Remainers and Leavers but between No-deal Leavers and Revoke Article 50 Remainers. Farage and his six-week-old Brexit Party beat everyone and reduced both Conservative and Labour parties to ruins. But that doesn't make him a power in the land. It just shows to the future Tory prime minister and to Parliament that the voting population - well about a third of them who bothered to vote - is split as much as ever except now it has got nasty. Now the majority want to follow Farage out of the EU without a deal and to hell with the consequences. And not that far behind, those who want to stay in the EU voted for the Liberal Democrats or the Green Party both of which campaigned to remain in the EU. Neither the Liberal Democrats nor the Brexit Party are going to take over governing the UK. Farage and co don't have any MPs in the House of Commons and the Greens have one. But their message was loud and clear. OUT whatever the consequences with the former and IN for ever with the latter.The Conservatives and Labour were beaten to a pulp because they never gave the leadership that was required. Theresa May tried hard but she spent her whole time tryng to appease the bad boys in her party, just as David Cameron did before her, and ended up pleasing no one. And Labour under Jeremy Corbyn just flounced around pretending to have a policy but actually had no such thing. Did Corbyn and his henchmen want to stay in the EU or leave it, did they want a second referendum or not, did they want a softly sofly Brexit or a tough one? No one had a clue, least of all Corbyn. So the voters spat on them - Tories and Labour - and went for the parties who had made up their mind what they wanted and told everyone from day one. It convinced me all right. I voted Liberal Democrat, joining two unlikely political heavyweights, Michael Heseltine (Lord Heseltine), former defence secretary under Maggie Thatcher, and Alastair Campbell, former high-profile director of communications for Tony Blair, both of whom declared they had deserted their life-chosen parties and had switched to Liberal Democrats. So I'm in good company. How on earth the successor to Theresa May is going to sort out this nightmare I have no idea. And I suspect none of them do either!

No-deal Brexit is back on the table!!

So at least two of the Tory leadership candidates who want to enter 10 Downing Street as prime minister when Theresa May leaves are quite prepared to exit the EU with no deal and take whatever the economic consequences will be. Boris Johnson we knew about. He never minded the idea of leaving the EU without any sort of deal. In fact he positively espoused it. Now Dominic Raab who, amazingly, for a relatively short period before he resigned, was the Brexit Secretary, in charge of negotiating a deal with the EU, also wants the no-deal back on the table. Perhaps he was all the time hankering after a no-deal end to the Brexit. If so, why did he accept the cabinet appointment in the first place? So two of the eight (so far) candidates for Number 10 should immediately be crossed off the list of potential prime ministers in my view. In their case, I don't think it's a cunning negotiating plan to force the EU to give us more concessions because they are so scared of a no-deal UK crashing out of the EU. Theresa May had the no-deal card as well but everyone knew she didn't want it because in the 2016 referendum she voted to remain in the EU. The very sad thing is that none of the eight would-be Tory leaders has dared to come out and say: "You know, I think we should stay in the EU, never mind what the majority voted for in 2016. Vote for me and vote for a stable and peaceful and flourishing future." No one has the courage to say that, and if they did, none of the Tory MPs would have the courage to support him or her for the leadership. Instead, we have Michael Gove, Environment Secretary an the latest declared leadership candidate, promising to "deliver" Brexit to the nation. Now when did we hear that before? We heard it a million times from Theresa May, and her Brexit deal was approved by Michael Gove as part of her cabinet. So what magic trick has he got up his sleeve? There isn't a magic trick. The EU has already said that whoever replaces Theresa won't be able to negotiate anythng new. The Brexit deal is the Brexit deal full stop. Poor Theresa has had an absolute hammering in the press, described as possibly the worst prime minster in British history and a total failure without anything to show for her legacy. Wow, I hope she hasn't been reading the papers. If she has, I'm sure there will have been more tears. Why does anyone actually want to be her successor because they will fail too. Jeremy Corbyn must be lapping this up. All he has to do is promise to hold a second referendum, to give the Remainers another chance, pledge once again to scrap university tuition fees and he'll be prime minister when the new Tory leader out of desperation announces a general election. Labour will win by a huge majority and the Tories will be finished for years and years.

Is Boris going to walk it to 10 Downing Street?

At the moment it looks as if Boris Johnson, former flamboyant Mayor of London and former flamboyant foreign secretary, is a few weeks away from becoming the next prime minister. He's very popular among Tory voters, he's worshipped by quite a lot of Tory MPs and he's, well, flamboyant, charismatic, funny and often outrageous, none of which qualities describe the outgoing Theresa May. The Tory MPs and party membership will almost definitely vote for someone totally different from Theresa, and Boris is probably the answer. But in the weeks ahead he is going to have to keep a very steady pace, keep his wilder thoughts to himself and try not to say something which will give him unwelcome headlines. He also needs to be absolutely clear how precisely he thinks he can deliver a Brexit deal. He hasn't started well. He has already said that whatever happens, deal or no deal, the UK will leave the EU on October 31. That must have pleased his fellow Brexiteers, certainly the ones who have never discounted a no-deal solution. But Remainers in the Tory camp will have grave doubts about selecting a man who doesn't seem to care whether he gets a decent deal or not. Much more in this vein and Boris could find himself falling rapidly down the favourites' list. But he's a canny fellow, Boris. He thinks a remark like that will wake people up and stir the leadership pot. He also knows that the great British public is so fed up with the word Brexit that if the UK really is going to leave the EU on October 31 come what may, there are going to be some Vote for Boris posters going up around the country. Nevertheless, if he gives the impression that he's just doing his usual stuff and shooting from the hip without demonstrating he has put a lot of thought behind his Brexit remarks, his colleagues in the Tory party might come to the conclusion that it would simply be too dangerous to vote for him. The key thing now is to watch who else steps forward to try for the leadership of the Tory party. So far, we have Boris, Esther McVey, a former minister, Jeremy Hunt, Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, former Brexit Secretary, and a real outsider, Rory Stewart, International Development Secretary and the only cabinet minister to have walked across Afghanistan. None of them are going to cause Boris much trouble. But what if Michael Gove, the very brainy Environment Secretary, steps forward? Could he be a serious challenge to Boris? Remember he knifed Boris in the back the last leadership race, initially acting as kingmaker to the blond bombshell and then announcing to the world on television that he had changed his mind because he didn't think Boris was up to it, and offered himself instead. Wow, that was a serious bit of treachery, and it did Gove no good at all because Theresa May was the leadership winner, not him. In the popularity stakes, Gove is far behind Boris. But he is a Brexiteer and he might become the sensible, pratical option.

Theresa May and her tears of departure

The London correspondent of CBS was asked this morning to describe what it was like when Theresa May made her short address outside Number 10 Downing Street announcing her resignation. He told the anchor presenters back in Washington DC that an exraordinary event had taken place, something he would not have expected from a British prime minister. She had tears in her eyes. Well of course, the American correspondent did not have a sufficiently long memory. Theresa May reminded everyone that she was the second woman prime minister of Great Britain. What she didn't say was that the first, the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher, also had tears running down her cheeks when SHE departed following her enforced resignation in November 1990. Both women prime ministers cried when they lost the job they loved. But I guess the CBS correspodent can be forgiven for forgetting that. Theresa May's departure, while perhaps the most predicted political event for years, was indeed a sad moment. She will remain prime minister until a successor has been selected to be the new leader of the Conservative Party which means she will effectively be running the country until around the end of July. Donald Trump must have been confused by all the shenanigans going on in London, particularly since he is due to arrive for a state visit in London on June 3. However, he has been reassured that Theresa will still be the one to greet him in Downing Street. I don't suppose she is looking forward to the sympathetic pat on the back and kiss on the cheek when he turns up. But the way things are going in Washington for the president, perhaps she will give HIM a sympathetic pat on the back while avoiding the kiss. Now that she has finally resigned, at least she will no longer face the daily headlines about her struggles to get her Brexit plan approved. That is all over. But the bitterness will remain. The American correspondents are all saying that she resigned because she failed to negotiate a Brexit deal. Actually she succeeded in getting a Brexit deal after more than two years of negotiations with the EU. She not only brought a signed deal back from Brussels but won approval from her Cabinet. Then everything went wrong once members of parliament actually read the 480-page document. They didn't like it, particularly the stuff on the Northern Ireland border, the infamous backstop agreement. But the fact is she produced a deal but then failed to persuade MPs in the House of Commons to vote for it. But that was more about internal politics than the future status of the United Kingdom outside the EU. The Brexit deal, any Brexit deal, is and was doomed from the start, and I don't see how a new prime minister without a huge majority is ever going to find a solution to this problem. Meanwhile, thank you, Theresa, for all your unbelievable efforts. The tears and the choking sound in your voice showed that you truly cared. No one had really taken that on board while you were trying to sell your Brexit deal to the House of Commons and to the people.

Was Trump calm or furious when he left the infrastructure meeting?

Twenty-four hours after Donald Trump waltzed out of the meeting with Democrat leaders to discuss his $2 trillion infrastructure plan there are now two totally different versions of events, one put out by Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat cohorts who were there at the time, and the other described by Sarah Sanders, White House press secretary. I wonder which version we should believe!! The Democrats say it was all pre-planned drama by the president, that he never intended to have the meeting because he hadn't worked out how he was going to pay for the infrastructure programme and that his walk-in and walk-out theatrics was just a ploy to blame them for.....everything. Sarah Sanders dismissed this as ridiculous on CNN and said the president hadn't preplanned anything but reacted as he did because of Pelosi's pre-meeting attack on Trump, accusing him of the crime of covering up nefarious activities. Sanders was one of those in the White House who had spotted Pelosi's denunciation and tipped off Trump just before he was due to sit down with her and her fellow Democrats to discuss infrastructure. I reckon hearing that would have made Trump spit blood, but according to Sarah Sanders, the president was perfectly calm. He just popped into the meeting room to inform the already assembled Democrats that it was no longer possible to do business with them if they were going to continue to spend all their time and energy on investigating him for alleged misdoings which were all rubbish, fake news and witchhunty stuff. Then he "calmly" walked out of the room, leaving Pelosi and co flabbergasted. I can't really imagine Trump was feeling calm at all. He doesn't really do calm. And anyway he went straight off to the Rose Garden to hold a press conference and waved his arms around while condemning Pelosi for having the temerity to accuse him of a cover-up of anything. He didn't look calm in the Rose Garden. He and Pelosi are deadly enemies. She stands up to him like no one else and he hates her for it. He is, after all, the President of the United States. How dare this woman antagonise him so much. Ah well, Trump should do a bit more reading of America's political history. This is what happens to sitting US presidents. They get accused of things all the time. But Trump is so thin-skinned he gets upset at every political attack against his status and dignity. He and Pelosi are never going to get along. However, instead of walking/storming out of the meeting Trump should have gone in and sat down and said the following: "Welcome Speaker Pelosi and delegates, I believe this is a very important meeting to discuss something which for once we can all agree on for the benefit of our nation. But I would like it on record that I am personally aggrieved by the statement made by Speaker Pelosi before we sat down here together. I found it insulting, bad manners, rude and unworthy of someone representing the Democratic Party. Now having said that, let's get down to business." What would Pelosi have done if he had said all that? Perhaps SHE would have walked out but then the press headlines might have been different and Trump would have scored some brownie points.

The "I" word is now the new battleground between Trump and Democrats

Donald Trump walked out of a long-planned meeting with Democrat leaders today because of the "I" word. Impeachment. He thought all that stuff had gone out of the window once Robert Mueller, special counsel, had concluded there was no collusion between the president's campaign team and the Russians. But no. Despite Nancy Pelosi's initial reluctance to consider impeachment proceedings against Trump, she has begun to be won round by an ever-increasing number of Democrats who want the ultimate punishment for the president. Pelosi actually accused Trump of a cover-up and that got him going. He walked in late for the meeting about funding for his infrastructure programme but instead of sitting down for a constructive talk, he blasted at Pelosi for accusing him of a cover-up and swore that while the "I" word was being uttered by the Democrats he wouldn't even discuss infrastructure or anything else, and promptly walked out. Oh my goodness, government is going to come to a halt because Trump is besde himself with anger over Pelosi and her tribe. These two individuals, Trump and Pelosi, are at such loggerheads, nothing is going to get done. Pelosi was cutting in her press conference after the breakdown of the non-talks. She said she would pray for the president of the United States. She was like Lady Macbeth. Trump held his own Rose Garden press conference and just ranted against her and the Democrats. He claimed he didn't do cover-ups and swore he would not cooperate over anything unless they stopped using the "I" word and stopped investigating him. This is a disaster for everyone. Trump's action might please his supporters around the country but it means for the next 18 months the administration is going to be crippled, and that means an increasingly angry president. Watch out America and watch out the rest of the world.

One last chance - again - for a Brexit.

You've got to give it to Theresa May. She is expecting MPs this time round - ie for the fourth time - to sign up to her Brexit deal even though there is still very little difference between her first offer, her second offer, her third offer and now her fourth offer. The ony thing that IS extra is her agreement to let MPs vote on whether to hold a second referendum, something she has always rejected. That might just be enough to persuade some Labour MPs to vote in her favour. But how would the second referendum be phrased? If it's to be - approve her Brexit or go for a no-deal Brexit, you can bet your life that at least half the country will say yes to no-deal. If it's to be - approve her deal or revoke article 50 and thus stay in the EU, Theresa May might squeeze enough votes to get her proposals through. Not because the country will suddenly learn to love her deal but because the majority of people (not me of course) I suspect do NOT want to stay in the EU because it would mean that the last three years of negotiations and rows and divisions and anger has all been a total waste of time - and money by the way. So a second referendum is not going to be a magic wand to bring peace and unity to this divided country. It will only cause more divisions and more anger whichever way it goes. But the one-last-chance ultimatum from Theresa May is just that. MPs and then the country HAVE to make up their mind. Prime Minister Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Dominic Raab or Jeremy Corbyn are not going to make a blind bit of difference. If there is a second referendum the conclusion, if there is a conclusion, will be final. In out turn it all about, we will have a result! At last. Then Theresa will step down either in glory or in defeat. Today I felt truly sorry for her when she appealed to everyone to compromise because, as she said, she had compromised by stepping down from the job she loved earlier than she would have liked. Aaaaah, that is sad. But I hate to say it, her legacy is going to be pretty dismal, even though it was her predecessor, David Cameron, who is wholly to blame.

Trump urged to start campaigning now for 2020

With 18 months to go before the 2020 presidential election, you might think that Donald Trump is busy enough tryng to deal with Iran, China, North Korea etc etc without having to spend a lot of time on the hustings telling voters about his achievements so far. Well he does that all the time of course, via tweets. But Trump is facing a unique situation. There are so many - 23 - Democratic Party candidates and all of them speechifying and pledging and raising funds, that they are winning the first rounds in the campaign merely by grabbing all the attention in the media. Trump hates the media, or most of it, but even he knows that with the Democrats seizing all the limelight, he needs to start getting his principle messages across right now if he wants to dampen the media's enthusiasm for covering all the rivals for the White House. Stories about Joe Biden, Eliabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg et al are getting huge amounts of media coverage, while reports on Trump tend to be somewhat confused and negative, principally because the White House, Pentagon and State Department seem to have given up regularly briefing their respective specialist reporters. So no one truly knows what's going on from day to day. John Bolton, national security adviser, for example, has taken a hammering recently over the perceived attempt by him to make the president bomb Iran to bits. I'm pretty sure he has done no such thing but in true Bolton style he HAS taken a very hard line over Iran and has no doubt made this clear whenever he speaks to Trump. But I am assured it is wrong to suggest Bolton actually wants the US to go to war with Iran. But without briefing reporters, correspondents on newspapers and on TV channels are tapping other sources who may not know what is really going on. One very good source admitted to me: "The inner circle around Trump is so tight, no one outside has a good sense of who is saying what." Trump has said he does not want a war with Iran, Iran has said it does not want a war with the US which is all very sensible. But then Trump says if Iran were to attack US interests and assets, Iran would be finished, ie destroyed. He said the same about North Korea before he met with and liked Kim Jong-un. But all this confusion is muddying the waters in the 2020 election stakes. Trump's agonising over Iran and the trade war with China gets plenty of coverage, accurately sourced or not, and meanwhile his rivals from the Democratic Party are trying to woo the country with domestic policy promises. So Trump I'm sure will be hitting the campaign trail in due course and is bound to focus on the issues that really interest voters: immigration (Trump record - tough stance but no border wall yet), economy (doing well), jobs (lowest unemployment for decades), health (lots of promises to replace Obamacare but still no proposal), and infrastructure (a massive $2 trillion plan but no real idea where the money is going to come from). The real 2020 battle is about to start.

Pompeo and his key aide versus Bolton and his main adviser over Iran threat

My TIMES story that got chopped a lot for Saturday's paper: A SERIOUS CLASH between two of President Trump’s closest advisers is at the heart of the dangerous confrontation with Iran, a former senior US defence official has told The Times. Mr Trump had “no game plan” to go to war with Iran, the former official said. The president made this clear when he met with top Pentagon officials on Thursday. However, the former senior official with close links to the administration revealed there was a breakdown between Mike Pompeo, secretary of state, backed by Brian Hook, his chief Iran expert, and John Bolton, national security adviser, supported by Richard Goldberg, a key aide and Iran specialist. “There are serious divisions within the administration between Pompeo/Hook who believe that they can pressure Iran into negotiating (and they think Trump agrees), and Bolton/Goldberg who believe that the regime is near cracking and can potentially be brought down,” the former senior official said. “Both sides agree on the need to increase the economic pressures on the regime but disagree on the likely endgame,” he said. “But I don’t think that either side is actively pushing for military action against Iran, unless the Iranians are foolish enough to take a shot at US forces in which case all bets are off,” he said. Brian Hook is US special representative for Iran and a senior policy adviser to Mr Pompeo. Richard Goldberg was the lead congressional staff negotiator for sanctions on Iran prior to the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran and is a recognised hawk on Iran. Despite persistent reports that Mr Bolton’s anti-Iran stance is winning the argument in the White House, an influential figure in Washington told The Times that Mr Trump was “the real driver” behind policy on Iran, not his national security adviser. “It’s being claimed that Bolton is driving policy on Iran but that’s unfair, and he would argue that that’s unfair because although he has always been a hawk on Iran he is now the national security adviser, so he’s not driving the policy on Iran, the president is,” General Jack Keane, former top US army commander, said. General Keane who was on Mr Trump’s original shortlist to become defence secretary in 2016 and remains close to the president, said there was “no hype” going on about the intelligence on Iranian preparations for attacking US troops in the Middle East. He said the intelligence was real. “It was General [Kenneth] McKenzie, commander of Central Command, not the White House, who asked for the carrier, bombers and Patriot missiles to be returned to the Middle East based on that intelligence,” General Keane said. He was backed up by US intelligence sources who told The Times:”There is no daylight between us and the administration, or indeed with our allies, including Britain, over the scale of the threat from Iran.” Despite claims of confusion in Washington over whether the intelligence

General Petraeus in an extraordinary warning to Iran

General David Petraeus doesn't come out much into the public limelight these days but in an ABC interview due to air tomorrow (Sun) he explicitly warns Tehran not to push their luck over confronting the US. It's actually an extraordinary intervention because he is effectively giving the ayatollahs a piece of advice, as well as a warning. In remarks put out today to publicise the ABC interview, he warns Tehran that he is not sure how Trump will react if Iran dares to mount some sort of attack on American forces in the Middle East but he fears it would be "punitive". I don't know whether Petraeus, still a legendary figure despite his premature departure as CIA director after his affair with his biographer was exposed, spoke to the White House first before agreeing to be interviewed. There is no obligation for him to, but he is a close friend of General Jack Keane, retired vice chief of the US Army, whom Trump not only thinks a lot of, but consults him on things like Iran. Basically Petraeus, with his remarks, is doing Trump a favour because the president does not want a war with Iran, and he's also doing a favour to Tehran because the ayatollahs will probaby respect what he says and take it on board. We know from the past that Iranian political and military leaders calculate very carefully what they think they can get away with without having the full wrath of the US military down on their heads. But their threshold might be too high under the present circumstances. One false move and they could get a blast of American retaliation. Petraeus puts it this way: "They're going to have to be very careful not to overplay their hand and result in some kind of response that is quite punitive." Bizarrely in his ABC interview he also says that Iran should "grit their teeth and get to November 2020 in hopes that their desired outcome emerges." What on earth does he mean by that other than, "Hey Iran, bide your time until the next US election and you might get dear old Joe Biden in the White House who will reinstate the 2015 nuclear deal and make sweet music with you." Is that what Petraues meant? Very strange advice from such a senior figure in the US establishment and it won't help Biden if he is seen to be a softy on Iran. Be that as it may, Tehran would be wise to hold their fire because even though Trump is opposed to having any sort of war with Iran, a reckless attack by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps that ends up with American fatalities will definitely push Trump to give the green light for a shower of bombs. Surely Tehran knows that? If they don't, then I suggest every Iranian tunes into ABC tomorrow to hear Petraeus speak.

Jeremy Corbyn makes totally predictable decision

The talks on Brexit between the Theresa May government and Labour were always going to fail. Labour under Jeremy Corbyn has taken three years to develop its Brexit strategy and what it came up with was never going to blend in with May's deal with Brussels. She knew from the beginning of this whole process that she needed to find a formula that would keep the Leave members of her party happy. Even though she was and is a Remainer and probably wishes the whole thing will just go away so that we can stay in the EU, she has been committed as prime minister to fulfilling the wishes of the majority in the country who voted OUT. The mandate from the 2016 referendum did not include a clause which said a deal could include staying in the EU customs union or single market. So when Corbyn said he wouldn't suport her Brexit deal unless there was an agreement to remain in a full customs union, Theresa May was stuck. There were various alternatives proposed, such as having a temporary customs union but that was all a waste of time. Corbyn's new stance was customs union or nothing. In the previous three years in which Labour was not consulted by the May government and Corbyn's stand seemed all wishy-washy, neither one thing nor the other, there had been no adamant statement from the Oppostion that a customs union was the top priority. I think Corbyn and his mates held back on it until the last moment just in order to screw over Theresa May, knowing that the Downing Street consultations would collapse. Theresa May would be blamed and Labour would look good. That was clearly his thinking. So now poor Theresa has few options left. She will have to hope that the House of Commons agrees by a majority to allow her government to introduce the necessary bill for withdrawing from the EU. If that too fails, then there will be nothing left for her but to step down and allow the hordes of would-be prime ministerial candidates to fight for her job. But, honestly, will it make any difference in the great Brexit saga if the new prime minister is Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove? I don't see it. Why would the EU suddenly become more conciliatory if Theresa May was forced out? And why would the House of Commons go all soft and malleable under a different Conservative leader? Again, I don't see this happening.

Huawei is getting desperate for the UK 5G contract

Huawei, the huge Chinese telecommunications company, is now getting desperate. In an inducement to the UK to persuade the Theresa May government to buy into its 5G technology, the company has offered to sign a document that makes a pledge it will never use the technology for espionage purposes. It's like when a naughty boy promises his Mum he will never be naughty again. The 5G issue is not going to go away until the UK government fnally makes up its mind whether to believe the US insistence that Huawei WILL spy on everything once it gets its technology into the network or to trust the Chinese company to be an honest business partner and, one, especialy, who will say NO when asked by one of the nefarious Chinese intelligence services to start spying on the Brits. In the end it will all come down to politics, not technology. The reason why the UK Government under Theresa May (not for long I fear) is finding it difficult to make a final decision about a Huawei contract (the leaked decision from the UK National Security Council to allow Huawei partial access has not yet been confirmed as the final decision) is because it wants to retain good business relations with China in general. If the UK Government says no to Huawei as the US is demanding, May and co fear that Beijing will be so angry it will undermine/destroy the business partnership which Britain and China have been developing ever since David Cameron was prime minister. On the other hand, the UK Government doesn't want to anger Trump by going for Huawei and risking the special intelligence relationship with the US. Trump has today issued an executive order banning companies from engaging in any business with anyone that might endanger the country's national security. That's a far-reaching edict and clearly is aimed at Huawei even though he doesn't mention the company by name. The UK Government has responded by saying it is reviewing the Huawei issue. Well that's hardly a new development because despite the leaked "decision" from the National Security Council, the Huawei conundrum hasn't stopping being under review. I suspect the decision will now be put off until there is a new Tory leader. If it's to be Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, he might just say no to Huawei to keep in with Trump.

British general in Iraq speaks out of turn

British military commander Major-General Christopher Ghika was pretty much unknown until now. He is a deputy commander (there are several of them) of US-led coalition forces for Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq and Syria. His title is deputy commander for strategy and information, the sort of job where you need to know your facts and get them right when you speak in public. General Ghika who started his army life with the Irish Guards was giving a briefing from Baghdad via a video conference system to members of the Pentagon Press Corps in Washington. He was asked if the threat from Iran and/or Iranian-backed militia in the region had risen. Remember, the White House was full of war-with-Iran rhetoric and warning of alarming intelligence that Iran was plotting to attack US interests in the Gulf. But this was the day before The New York Times story broke about the Pentagon offering the White House a plan to send 120,000 troops to the region to prepare for a confrontation with Iran. General Ghika very calmly informed the reporters that nothing had changed and all was fine. He said the threat level was the same as ever and there were no signs of Iranian proxy forces preparing to launch attacks. "Am I concerned about the danger? No, not really," he said, presumably to the reporters' astonishment. He said threat assessments were made regularly and he was qute satisfied with the way things were. Oops!! His comments must have caused mayhem in the Pentagon and at US Central Command forward headquarters in Qatar, and in Baghdad. At a stroke the general had undermined the message the White House had been putting out for days. The Pentagon had sent an aircraft carrier battle group and B-52 bombers to the region to try to deter the Iranians for heaven's sake. What was the British general thinking? Hohoho, I suspect General Ghika was just telling the truth as he saw it. There were no signs of Iranian-backed militia gathering with guns and artillery to attack the Americans in Baghdad or anywhere else. Presumably he saw the same intelligence everyone else had. He just interpreted it differently perhaps. Well, he knew he had misspoken within a few hours. Once the transcript had been sent around, Centcom issued an extraordinary rebuke, basically saying in a formal statement overnight that the British general was wrong and that what he had said ran counter to the intelligence which had set off alarm bells throughout the Trump administration. Centcom said the threat level HAD been raised, and later the State Department ordered all non-essential staff to leave the US embassy in Baghdad. The Centcom statement was an unprecedented scolding of such a senior coalition commander. I predict General Ghika won't be briefing Pentagon reporters again!

Pentagon dusts off military plan to confront Iran

My analysis in The Times today: ROBERT Gates, ever a realist as US defence secretary from 2006 to 2011, once said that any Pentagon chief who advised the president to launch another land invasion in the Middle East would need his head examined. After the prolonged insurgency in Iraq following the US-led invasion in 2003, Mr Gates had Iran in mind. Seven years ago, in retirement, he warned that any military strike against Iran, whether by the US or Israel, would have “catastrophic” consequences. Despite his predecessor’s misgivings, Patrick Shanahan, acting defence secretary but now selected by Donald Trump for the top job if confirmed by the Senate, has dusted off and revised the Pentagon’s contingency plan for military confrontation with Iran. Mr Shanahan has insufficient Washington clout as yet to do anything more than obey his master’s orders in the White House but his military advisers will be urging extreme caution. The headline figure is the recommended dispatching of 120,000 US troops to the Gulf region to deter or retaliate against any Iranian strikes on American interests and to be ready if there is evidence of Tehran “breaking out” from the 2015 nuclear deal and enriching uranium to bomb-grade level. However, as Pentagon officials have pointed out in the past when a strike on Iran was mooted, the US military has no plan for an Iraq-style land invasion. Marines, special operations troops and army brigades would play a role in such a scenario. But air and naval power would be the first choice. In the current circumstances, the 120,000 troops, if deployed, would be sent to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain, with Marines on board amphibious ships, but as a back-up force to boost the US naval and bomber presence in the region in the event of an Iranian attack on Gulf shipping or oil installations. Any more ambitious contingency planning involving strikes on nuclear facilities or to effect regime-change would necessitate a massive bombing campaign, potentially leading to the regional catastrophe Mr Gates predicted. Putting the current Pentagon troop plan into context, the US and allies deployed 750,000 military personnel to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait in the 1991 Gulf War, as part of Operation Desert Storm. For the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, America sent 150,000 troops although this rose to around 235,000 in the region by the time Baghdad fell. Six US carrier battle groups in the Mediterranean and Gulf were also involved. In the last 50 years, US forces have been engaged in Vietnam, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and the Horn of Africa. The Pentagon has contingency plans for every eventuality but no American military commander wants a war with Iran.

Tories are surely on the way out!

It's increasingly difficult to see how the Conservatives are going to survive in this country of mine. Because of the Brexit farce , the Tories received a drubbing in the local council elections, losing 1,300 councillors throughout the country. Now we have the European parliamentary elections coming up and no one, expert or otherwise, thinks the Tories will do well. Those who bother to vote - and the chances are a lot of people won't bother - are expected either to put their cross in the box for the newly formed Brexit Party, led by the incorrigible Nigel Farage - friend of Donald Trump - or go for the Liberal Democrats who want to stay in the EU. The Conservatives and Labour will be the least popular of the parties. So what will Theresa May and her government do if they get annihilated in the European elections? Will they realise no one loves them and so go for a general election? Absolutely not!! This is Jeremy Corbyn's dream. He believes that if there is an election he will end up walking into 10 Downing Street as the new prime minister. I believe he is right. No one any more is going to vote Conservative because Brexit has been so badly handled. So for Theresa May to survive she has to do what she has been trying to do for three years, find a Brexit solution that the majority of people in this country actually want. Her talks with Corbyn and co are really a waste of time because if she goes along with Corbyn's demands - to have a customs union with the EU - it will ineviably lead to a general election because Parliament will never agree to this. Well, not the Conservatives anyway because they will argue that this is not what the people of the UK voted for in the 2016 referendum. They voted to leave the EU, not to be attached to the EU for ever in a customs union arrangement that will prevent the UK from winning trade deals as an independent nation. The UK will not be independent. People like Boris Johnson will never agree to that. So Theresa is not going to get her newest version of Brexit past the hard Brexiteers in the House of Commons. Then there will be two choices: a general election or another referendum. Corbyn is counting on the general election option. And he will win oh my God. I'm told by Labour sources that even though most Labour MPs can't stand Corbyn there will be nothing they can do to stop him becoming prime minister. A midnight coup in which a more sensible leader is anointed just can't happen, they say, because if Labour wins the election it will be seen as a victory for Corbyn and his potty radical mates. They will rule!! We have to prepare for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn.

US firepower pours into Middle East

It's quite like old times - under George W. The White House is sending such a potent force to the Gulf region that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard must be thinking twice about going ahead with its apparent plan to attack American troops and/or assets in Iraq and elsewhere. The mighty carrier strike force headed by the USS Abraham Lincoln is in spitting distance of the Gulf, and now another warship, USS Arlington, an amphibious transport ship, has been deployed to join the carrier group. B-52 strategic bombers have already arrived in Qatar and they are being joined by Patriot anti-missile systems. The key thing, of course, is that none of this movement of warships and bombers is being carried out in secret. It's all being announced either from the White House or from the Pentagon. It's what a US president and his military advisers love to do because it "sends a signal" to the potential adversary - Iran in this case - to watch its step and put down its guns or face the wrath of a superpower. It's a great moment for Pat Shanahan, now finally to be nominated to be the proper defence secretary, rather than an acting one. He can now feel far more confident about making decisions because everyone in Washington knows that he is, at last, the chosen one for the Pentagon job. It's like being given four stars instead of just three or two. His standing in the Washington establishment has shot up overnight. So it must have given him a real boost to announce that he was sending Patriot missiles to the Gulf to see off those nasty Iranians. That decision was actually vey easy. The boss of US Central Command had asked for them some days ago, presumably explaining that they were needed to shoot down Iranian missiles. The intelligence that everyone is talking about without giving any details must have been pretty specific: ie the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was planning to attack shipping in the Gulf and American troops in Iraq, or something ike that.Shanahan in his new role as acting but soon-to-be-nominated Pentagon chief, gave his approval to the Patriots, although if he hadn't agreed, the Boss in the White House might have withdrawn his nomination pledge haha!

Donald Tusk thinks UK may stay in EU after all

Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, has said all along during the Brexit talks that the United Kingdom could change its mind any time and vote to stay in the European Union. He now believes that if there is a second referendum there is a 30 per cent chance of the UK voting to remain, overturning the 2016 decision which was to leave by March 29, 2019 - nearly two months ago. Well, a 30 per cent chance of UK voters deciding to give up the idea of leaving the EU is a fat lot of good, because if it's only 30 per cent, then presumably the other 70 per cent will vote for a Brexit deal of some sort in order to leave for ever. So I'm not sure what Tusk is trying to say. I know what he meant was that there is a growing possibility that Brexit won't happen, but his 30 per cent figure didn't make much sense. Anyway, I'm not sure he is right. Judging by the tempers and anger during last night's BBC Question Time show, most of the applause was for panelists and members of the audience who said they just wanted to get out and the sooner the better. Nigel Farage, former leader of the dodgy UKIP Party and now leader of the so-called Brexit Party, was on the panel and looked increasingly pleased with himself. He gives a very good impression of a frog when he smiles in a satisfied way and there was a lot of that last night. He believes he is onto a winner and fully expects a massive show of support in the European parliamentary elections later this month which Theresa May said would never happen with the UK's participation. One young-looking woman in the audience, speaking excessively loudly, said she planned to vote for the Farage party despite having been a Tory voter for years. The camera swung to Farage and he was giving his frog smile again. You can't tell the mood of the nation by one or two TV shows like Question Time but I would now put money on the outcome of a second referendum if one ever takes place. Even if the Brexit deal is still unpalatable, far more will vote for it just to make sure the UK leaves the EU. Tusk's 30 per cent is irrelevant and probably way off the mark.

Is John Bolton on a war high?

John Bolton, the heavily moustacheod national security adviser in the White House, is apparently a danger to the US constitution. His predecessor, Lieutenant-General HR McMaster, referred in remarks to people in the White House who posed this sort of danger. He didn't name names but he didn't have to. He must have meant Bolton who is so hawkish you can imagine him standing beside Donald Trump in the Oval Office whispering "War, Mr President, it's time for war". Right now Bolton is in the lead on Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. It could be military action at any time in any of these countries. But Bolton is an old hand at this game. He may herald from the Cold War period but he is a cunning fox. He knows that Trump is not a commander-in-chief who wants to send troops to fight yet another war. He wants US troops to have huge influence but preferably without fighting and dying. Despite his strong public rhetoric, particularly against Iran and Venezuela, I doubt Bolton is pushing for war in either country because he won't want to cause divisions between himself and the commander-in-chief. I think he's trying, not so subtly, to remind Trump that the US has superpower military powers and force projection and that they are always available to sort out the bad guys. I doubt Trump needs reminding. But it was interesting that it was Bolton who announced the dispatching of the aircraft carrier to the Middle East as a warning to Iran and that, apparently, it was the Pentagon which asked him to make the announcement. So Pat Shanahan, acting defence secretary, who would normally have announced such a move, wanted it to come from the White House. Jim Mattis must have shuddered in his boots when he realised what was going on. The former defence secretary definitely would have made such an announcement. After all, it's strictly Pentagon business. But Bolton seemed happy to announce the manouevre on the Pentagon's behalf. Sending a carrier doesn't mean there will be a war with Iran. However, Tehran has given the European signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal 60 days to go ahead with lifting sanctions as per the agreement or face a renewal of Iranian uranium-enrichment. The Europeans have refused to buckle under the ultimatum and have told Iran not to renege on any aspect of the nuclear deal. So the presence of a US carrier strike force in the Gulf won't do any harm. As for Venezuela, Bolton can't really think that sending in the US Marines will bring peace and stability to the country but he's clearly playing the tough cop in the debate in the Oval Office about what to do with Nicolas Maduro, the Bad Man of Caracas. And North Korea? There is no way Trump is going to go to war with North Korea because he is clinging like mad to his love relationship with Kim Jong-un and doesn't want to destroy that just because the North Korean leader is firing off a few weapons and missiles. Bolton knows this. So it's very much all rhetoric at this stage.

Trump and his billion dollar losses

So the super successful billionaire businessman Donald Trump suffered huge losses over a ten-year period according to revelations in The New York Times today. His companies lost more than $1 billion between 1985 and 1994. In that period he only paid income tax twice, in 1987 and 1988. No wonder Trump has been insisting he is never going to make his tax contributions public. Whenever questioned about it he or his lawyers or accountants always say his companies are still being audited. There were suspicions that as Trump seemed reluctant to broadcast the amount of tax he had paid, his accountants must have arranged some cunning tax-avoidance scheme. Voters paying their taxes wouldn't have liked that of their president. But not paying tax because of huge business losses is something else. That doesn't sit well with a president who likes to boast how successful he has been in his life. The fact that some, if not many, of his companies have gone bankrupt over time is not new. But the £1 billion losses over ten years is a bit of a revelation. The New York Times clearly has some well-informed and well-positioned sources in the Inland Revenue Service who have fed the information to its reporters. It was inevitable that it would come out eventually. Everything is leaked in Washington. Nothing is sacred. But as I have argued before I think it is only right that the president of the United States should be totally open about everything in his life, from his tax contributions to his visits to doctors. When a president has things to hide, then newspapers will find him out in due course. But there is something extraordinary about Trump. No matter what dirt is thrown at him, whether by investigative newspapers or by his political opponents, nothing really seems to stick. He just shrugs it off and so do his loyal supporters. So, despite my enthusiasm for Senator Kamala Harris as the potential Democratic presidential candidate, and the favourable poll findings for Joe Biden, currently very much in the lead among the 20 candidates, neither is going to beat Trump just by attacking him for all his faults. Outside Washington, no one seems to care. The tax revelations will make headlines for a day or so, and will then get forgotten.

Trumps prepares for military confrontation with Iran

Will there be a war between the US and Iran? The present signals are not looking good. Iran was obviously angry about the US designating its Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organisation and the Iranian economy is seriously going down the tubes because of the White House's tighter and tighter sanctions. But more worrying is the expected announcement from Tehran tomorrow (Wed) that it's going to start going back to some form of nuclear research in retaliation for Donald Trump's decision last year to withdraw the US from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Until now Iran had played ball with the Obama-backed deal because the other signatories, China, Russia, UK, France and Germany, had vowed to stick to it and urged Tehran to do likewise. But the troube is the other signatories haven't lifted sanctions which was part of the deal because of the threat from the US to penalise any countries trading with Iran. Major contracts in the pipeline have been cancelled. So I guess the Tehran regime has decided that they're getting nothing out of the 2015 nuclear deal, so it's time to chip away at the agreement and return to nuclear research - thus opening up the prospect of a complete breakout and a rush to develop a nuclear weapon. No wonder Trump has ordered an aircraft carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln, plus bombers, to the region as an intended deterrent. There have also been alarming intelligence signals of Iran plotting to target US troops in Iraq and elsewhere, perhaps Yemen. The US still has around 5,200 troops in Iraq and the Iranians are heavily involved in Iraq. The Pentagon is worried that Iranian-backed militia might target the huge American embassy compound in Baghdad. The intelligence became so serious last week that the US commander of Central Command, responsible for American troops in the Middle East, appealed for a carrier presence. We're approaching a dangerous period. At present both sides are facing up to each other without firing a shot. But in these situations, one false move by either side could lead to a violent confrontation. If an Iranian proxy force attacked US troops in Iraq, causing fatalities, would Trump order a massive retaliatory strike against Iran? Trump is wary of getting the US involved in yet more wars in the Middle East, but he has behind him two of the most hawkish advisers who have been itching to get at Iran ever since the nuclear deal was signed: Mike Pompeo, secretary of state and former CIA director, has always accused Iran of cheating on the deal, and John Bolton, national security adviser, who is totally anti-Iran in every way. Both men would no doubt advise Trump to respond with mighty force if any American troops are killed or injured. Pat Shanahan, the acting defence secretary, won't get a look in because he doesn't have the clout, being only a temporary Pentagon chief - for the moment. So watch and see what happens after tomorrow's announcement from Tehran. The carrier isn't in place yet. But when it is, there will be huge tension in the region that could explode.

Can China be trusted to do a trade deal with the US?

It's the oldest game in the book. In order to get a deal, whether a peace deal, a trade deal, an arms deal or any other sort of deal, one or other side ramps up the pressure in the lead up to the crucial talks that are intended to produce results. Thus, the Taliban kills more and more people just as peace talks are underway with the US in Qatar, North Korea fires off short-range missiles and "new" tactical weapons as part of the message-sending to Donald Trump to be more concessionary the next time there is a summit. Now Trump is piling the pressure on China to do a proper trade deal by tweeting that he is going to more than double the tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods on Friday. This week a Chinese trade negotiating team is due in Washington and there has been speculation based on hints from US officials that a deal is in the making. But can the Chinese really be trusted to compromise and agree a trade arrangement to suit everyone? Trump clearly doesn't think so which is why he is threatening to boost tariffs on Chinese goods just as the Beijing team arrives in Washington.However, the Chinese were traders before the United States of America was even founded. Trading is in their blood. They are the world's masters of exporting everything from computers to plastic dolls and T-shirts. "Made in China" is on almost everything you pick up in the shops. The Chinese economy which is growing at more than six per cent a year depends on it. Millions and millions of Chinese containers cross the oceans to every part of the globe. So why would Beijing be happy to do a deal with Trump that will impact on this mighty export machine? If there ever is a deal between Beijing and Washington it's likely to be so watered down that it won't have the sort of beneficial gains which Trump has been promising ever since he came into office. But at least he has taken on China and the threat of higher tariffs might, just might, make Xi Zinping twitch and tell his negotiating team to sound conciliatory. President Xi is, like most Chinese leaders, a master of cunning and political intrigue. His legacy will depend on his success at keeping the Chinese economy booming but he also realises that in this globalisation world China cannot be isolationist and he probably believes that Trump's threats are real. But who is the better player of poker? I would put my money on Xi. Trump is desperate for a political and diplomatic triumph and if Xi is cunning eough, which he undoubtedly is, he will give just enough to Trump to let him boast about his amazing trade victory without it having any real impact on the Chinese economy. The best poker player always wins.

Admiral Fallon plotting military action in Venezuela

It looks like the Pentagon and Admiral Fallon, commander of US Southern Command, are plotting and planning some sort of miiltary action in Venezuela. But fortunately, from a brief comment from the admiral the planning is all about stabilising the country if/once Nicolas Maduro falls. That seems to make sense. So it would be US troops distributing food aid and medicine and making sure Juan Guaido is settled in safely as the new president. This is what the Pentagon would call best-case scenario planning. In reality this sounds like pie-in-the-sky planning. Judging by the stalwart support of the Venezuelan army for Maduro, I can't see the Big Man suddenly caving in, especialy after Moscow told him to stay put. But who knows, perhaps Trump and Putin, in their hour-long telephone chat this weekend, might have come to an agreement. Unlikely I know but Putin and Trump do have a sort of relationship that just might produce results. Putin would be furious if the US launched an invasion and toppled Maduro, but if he could get a promise from Trump not to do that, there might be room for a deal. I think even Putin must realise that hanging on to a man like Maduro who is destroying his country and its people will probably in the end turn out badly for him and for relations with the US. I know this may seem naive because normally Putin doesn't care a fig for anyone. But he DOES want to be a player on the world stage and he probaby has a better chance of achieving that with Trump in the White House than with say Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or Bernie Sanders. So let's watch and see. Perhaps US and Rusian troops could act together to stabilise the country and do some good for a change. I know I know, that's about as likely as Trump saying to Mexico, "OK guys you can all come and live in the US free gratis."

The disgraceful impugning of a civil servant's reputation

This Gavin Williamson affair is getting dirtier by the day. "Friends" of the sacked defence secretary - journalistic code for Williamson himself - have claimed his firing was all a vendetta orchestrated by Sir Robin Sedwill, the Cabinet Secretary and National Security Adviser. He, Sedwill, had it in for Williamson ever since they had rows over defence spending and had already made up his mind that he, Williamson, was guilty of leaking the secret Huawei decision to a journalist on The Daily Telegraph. That's the supposed real truth behind the sacking. Well I'm on the outside and have no privileged information about either of these two gentlemen in this current situation. But after working as a journalist in Whitehall, including a period as Whitehall Editor on The Times, I can say with some conviction that a civil servant who ends up as cabinet secretary does not ensure the sacking of a minister on the grounds that he and the minister had had a disagreement over spending. Sir Mark Sedwill's remit from Theresa May was to uncover who had leaked the secret information about Huawei to the newspaper. Full stop. I cannot for the life of me imagine that the prime minister said, "Sir Mark, we need to get rid of Williamson, so make sure you find/concoct/make up compelling evidence against him." That is just total nonsense and an outrage to suggest it, as "friends" of the sacked minister appear to be saying or implying. Sedwill examined or got MI5/GCHQ to examine the mobile phones of eight ministers who attended the notorious National Security Council meeting, and the only one that came up trumps (sorry, wrong word) was the mobile phone of Williamson. It proved that he had had a telephone conversation lasting 11 minutes with the reporter Steven Swinford. Williamson denies Huawei even came up in the conversation. But come on, who believes that? Swinford is such a good reporter that The Times has recruited him (before this story broke by the way) and he joins as deputy political editor very soon. There is absolutely no way that Swinford, on the day the secret meeting was held, would not have asked Williamson, "Oh and by the way, Gavin, what happened at the NSC meeting? Anything you can tell me? Can you give me a steer?" Or Swinford might even have used the well known Fleet Street ploy which would have gone something like this: "Gavin, would it be ok for me to write that a decision was made to approve of Huawei's involvement but perhaps only in a limited way, something like that? And could I speculate perhaps that you were opposed to the decision, and others too, such as Sajid Javid (Home Secretary) and Jeremy Hunt (Foreign Secretary)? Don't reply if I'm right and then I'll know I'm right". Silence follows lasting five or six seconds. Williamson then replies with a few words about Brexit and the Tory leadership. Voila, the secret is divulged without a word from Williamson. This is just speculation on my part but after a lifetime in journalism. One of the reasons why I believe this is what probably happened is that Williamson swore on his children's lives that he was innocent. Again, from long experience, people who swear on their children's lives or their mother's life or say things like "I swear on the Bible" are often/generally lying. Criminals do it all the time when questioned by police. It's just a very odd and rather creepy thing to say, swearing innocence on your children's lives. Leave the poor children out of it I say. And as for impugning the integrity of Sir Mark Sedwill, that says a lot about Williamson, none of it pleasant.

The case for and against Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson

So the "leaker" of classified information from the UK National Security Council meeting on Huawei has been found and sacked. The career of Gavin Williamson, Defence Secretary, is seemingly over. But there are some interesting question marks still? Williamson has adamantly denied leaking the information about the Government's decision to allow the Chinese company to provide its 5G technology to help build the next generation of telecommunications in this country. He was sacked because Theresa May told him there was "compelling" evidence that he was the leaker. "Compelling" is an interesting word. It implies that the evidence was pretty damn good and that it pointed in his direction. But if the evidence had been as we say "copper-bottomed" or as the police would say, "bang-to-rights", or as the Americans would say, "slam dunk", why didn't the prime minister tell Williamson the evidence was "overwhelming" or "unquestionable" or "so clear it could lead to his prosecution". Williamson handed over his phone and has bizarrely admitted to "friends" - in other words, he admitted it himself to journalists - that he had spoken to Steven Swinford, The Daily Telegraph deputy poliical editor who broke the leaked story on the same day as the National Security Council meeting. Williamson apparently spoke to him for 11 minutes. But he claims he never mentioned Huawei but spoke to the reporter about Brexit and the Tory leadership race. This is surely the "compelling" evidence Theresa May referred to. What I don't understand is that if the leak investigators had Williamson's phone then they would have been able not ony to trace the phone call to Swinford but get a full read-out of the conversation. The technology for that is available and pretty simple. And if there were complications, like encription, then either MI5's technology department or the massivey powerful GCHQ signals intelligence apparatus would have been able to provide a transcript of the conversation to Downing Street. So if Williamson insists he only spoke about Brexit and the Tory leadership, and the transcript reveals he not ony mentioned Huawei but provided details of the National Security Council meeting that filled the front page of The Daily Telegraph the following day, this would demonstrate beyond doubt that Williamson is lying and deserves to have been sacked and should face prosecution. But I don't think that can be the case. Otherwise Mrs May would have been able to say, "We have indisputable proof that Gavin Williamson leaked the Huawei story to The Daily Telegraph". On the other hand Whitehall moves in mysterious ways. Maybe Theresa didn't want to reveal that she had been able to listen to his conversation with Swinford because Britain was in the 21st century and actually had the ability to intercept people's phone conversations!!! So very typical of Whitehall. So that's maybe why Theresa May used the word "compelling". Either way it seems Williamson was bang to rights. In which case will the police move in and start investigating? Not if Downing Street has anything to do with it. But if Williamson is really innocent as he says he is then he should welcome a police investigation and the real leaker should start quivering in his/her boots.

Maduro doesn't know whether he is coming or going

According to Mike Pompeo, this is the scene that was playing out in Caracas last night. President Nicolas Maduro, alleged leader of Venezuela, took fright when he saw his rival-for-president Juan Guaido standing with a bunch of defected troops demanding his ousting by the army. Maduro ordered his getaway plane to be ready and started packing a few essentials, such as rolls of US dollars, gold ingots, bathing costume and goggles, and told his friends in Cuba he was on his way and to prepare his beach villa for a long stay. This is me, not Pompeo now. Cuban leader Raul Modesto Castro Ruz, then urgently rang Moscow and told his mate Vladimir Putin that Maduro was about to do a runner. Now back to Pompeo: Moscow rang Maduro and persuaded him to stay in Caracas because it would be highly embarrassing for Maestro Putin if his Venezuelan anchorman flew off into exile leaving that much better-looking President-in-waiting Juan Guaido in charge. Maduro took a ittle persuading but eventually agreed to stay and put the rolls of dollars and gold bars back into his safe. (That bit is me of course, not Pompeo haha!). Maduro's aides, let alone his family, must have been wondering what the conchitas was going on. Washington couldn't believe it either. US eyes and ears had been watching and listening and the White House had been told the Big Man Maduro was off to Cuba. That bloke Putin doesn't miss a trick. His argument to stay must have been very persuasive. Anyway, it allowed Maduro to make a statement pooh-poohing Pompeo and effectively accusing him of making up the whole story. He contacted his generals and they all said, allegedly, "Mr President, donna worry we iz all on your side." Pompeo looks a duncehead and Putin is smiling like a Cheshire cat. And Juan Guiado could now get arrested for mounting an attempted coup! What a helluva story. All we need now is for the US Marines to arrive to put Maduro back on that plane for Cuba. Forciby!