Trump up for a chat and a handshake with Kim Jong-un

It really is one of the most bizarre frendships on the planet right now. Donald Trump was in the region - ie Japan and South Korea - and just thought it would be nice if he popped over to see Kim Jong-un at the Panmunjom demilitarised border point between North Korea and South Korea. As Trump put it, to have a handshake and a hello. And why not? The better these two leaders get on with each other the less we in the rest of the universe have to worry about nuclear war and stuff. So, go on Kim and go on Trump, have your little chat and crack a few jokes. They have recently written loving leters to each other which went down well in the White House and at Kim's palace. So that's good. Trump's idea about a meet and greet with Kim in the next day or so came to him a few days ago apparently. It didn't come after a lengthy White House Situation Room deep debate with all his advisers about whether this was prudent or not. It was just Trump doing his thing, seemingly without first consulting everyone. I guess he must have mentioned it to Mike Pompeo, secretary of state, but perhaps not John Bolton who as national security adviser might have told him not to be so stupid. Anyway, I guess now it's in the wind it will actually happen. Not a summit, just a sit down and chat about the way of the world. Will it get any sort of results? Like a firm promise by Kim to change the course of history and give up his nuclear weapons? No I guess not. But for my money, provided the two men remain in love with each other and like meeting up, it has to be good news. Somehow I can't imagine a President Joe Biden doing this sort of instinctive foreign policy-making. He would be like Obama, endless debates to and fro and then maybe a decision to do nothing at this stage. Of course the Trump announcement could just be a PR stunt, and nothing else. But it's surely worth a try. Especially as he is in the region!

Trump jokes with Putin about election-meddling

If everyone followed Donald Trump's example in the way he remonstrated with Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit in Japan, the meeting of leaders would be a laugh a minute. He seemed to joke with Putin, warning him in a lighthearted voice not to meddle in US elections hohoho. Putin must have been delighted. Then along comes Theresa May - yes she is still British prime minister bless her - and scolds him in a shoolmistressy sort of way about Russia's Novichok attack in Salisbury last year and said the two identified Russian intelligence-officer suspects must be brought to justice. Imagine if she had followed Trump's example and had said: "Look, Vlad, be a good fellow and sort out this Novichok stuff, then we can all go back to being frightfully friendly, don't you know." Vlad would have hooted. Instead, he gave a grimace which implied he was not remotely worried about Theresa's warning and said he had done everything that was necessary and that was an end of it. He also said traitors to Russia had to be punished but then quickly said he wasn't meaning that Skripal had been punished. Just a reminder: one woman, Dawn Sturgess, died when she picked up a bottle in the woods near Salisbury and thinking it contained perfume put some of the liquid on her skin. It was Novichok. Three others nearly died: Sergei Skripal, former GRU Russian intelligence officer and double agent for MI6, his daughter, Yulia, and Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey who was also contaminated by the nerve agent rubbed on to the front door knob of the Skripal house. These two Russians who so blatantly were caught on camera near the house and in Salisbury before flying back to Moscow need to appear in court. But they never will, not with Theresa in charge and not with either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt in Number 10 Downing Street. Putin will have taken huge comfort from Trump's flippant remark.

Will Trump go even tougher on Iran?

The Trump administration has effectively mounted an economic blockade on Iran to force Tehran to surrender to the president's wishes which are: for Iran to give up all thought of developing nuclear weapons, stop sponsoring terrorism, and end all malign military interventions in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Tehran leadership has said it will never surrender. Well, Trump now has the opportunity to make surrender slightly more likely. It is the time of year when the US administration has to decide whether to renew waivers which allow the Iranian government to continue to develop civil nuclear power and enable international companies to assist Tehran in this regard. Strange though it may seem, when Trump withdrew from the 2015 Obama-sponsored Iran nuclear deal, he still allowed Tehran to pursue a civil nuclear programme and introduced waivers to ensure that took place. This was a big deal for Tehran because it meant it could still have a nuclear programme, albeit strictly for civil purposes. But a civil nuclear programme can still provide the basic requirements for something more sinister. The waivers decision comes up in August but already key cabinet members such as John Bolton, national security adviser, and Mike Pompeo, secretary of state, are urging Trump not to renew the waivers. This would be a huge blow to Tehran. They would argue, no doubt, that such a move would be against international laws because it would prevent a nation from fulfilling its electricity supply needs. However, the US has argued that Iran doesn't need nuclear power to meet its electricity requirements. You may recall that when Trump came to power, he promised to pull out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran but for some considerable time the US remained a part of the deal which meant the president signing an annual renewal notice for Congress to delay any implementation of economic sanctions. Then, wham, he pulled out in 2018, and the sanctions came into play. But the civil nuclear programme was allowed to continue. With tensions as high as they are between the US and Iran, the ending of this waiver will raise the stakes about tenfold. Trump will find it very difficult not to agree with Pompeo and Bolton, and I expect him to make an announcement in August that he will not renew the waiver. This will be yet another dangerous moment in the confrontaton between the US and Iran. Meanwhile, Europe, including the UK, is doing its best to undermine the Trump administration's resolve by coming up with new financial arrangements to help Iran's economy, as per the 2015 nuclear deal to which they remain firm signatories.

Boris and Jeremy and Brexit

Listening to the Brexit promises from Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, I really don't think they sound any different from the ones that Theresa May has been making for the last three years. The basic arguments are exactly the same but they are wrapped in new phrases to give the impression there's suddenly a wonderful answer to the questions that the Government and the House of Commons have been grappling with until now. Boris says October 31 is the "do or die" date for leaving the EU, while Hunt is prepared to ask for yet another extension provided an agreement is only a whisker away. But all the same problems are still sitting there like concrete blocks: a no-checks Northern Ireland border, future trade arrangements with the EU etc etc. I don't think either Boris or Hunt have got any idea how they are going to resolve such issues even though on television and radio they keep on saying that they will have the Brexit answer in time for October 31. I simply don't believe it. What I do know is that the EU 27 countries are hardly likely to become all friendly and generous and give Boris or Hunt exactly what they want. If they are so against a no-deal Brexit I guess they might come up with something slightly different but it won't be to do Boris or Hunt any favours. They want the UK out of their hair. Nothing Boris or Hunt have said so far inspires me to believe that by October 31 this country will have a proper deal which will pass through the House of Commons without a demur. Hunt was extraordinary in his interview with the BBC last night. He said that the Northern Ireland issue could be solved by technical means - well that's hardly new - but when he was reminded that the EU did not believe there was a technical solution as yet, Hunt replied that he was sure there would be within the next TEN years! Sorry, old chap, we can't wait that long. The only thing I do know, and it doesn't really cheer me up, is that Boris has bundles of character and charisma, and Hunt is very flat and ordinary and uninspiring. Which of these characters the EU leaders would prefer to deal with is difficult to say. They will fall asleep with Hunt and jump up and down in frustration and bewilderment with Boris. Either way, the dreaded no-deal Brexit moves steadily forward.

Mike Pompeo is key to Trump winning a second term

With so many comings and goings from the US administration since Donald Trump took power, there are certain key individuals whom the president needs to hang on to if he wants stability in his cabinet as he campaigns for 2020 reelection. None more so than Mike Pompeo. He is a big man in every way. The secretary of state has a crucial place in Trump's national security team and if there is even a hint that he might step down to pursue other interests - such as campaigning for the Senate - before 2020, it's almost bound to have a negative impact on the president's chances of staying in the White House. Trump's national security team has on occasions looked pretty shaky because of the constant change in personnel. But Pompeo's presence has kept the ship running. Two national security advisers departed, Mike Flynn followed by Lieutenant-General HR McMaster, and two defence secretaries, General Jim Mattis and Patrick Shanahan, although the latter never made it officially to the Pentagon post, and now it seems clear that Trump had already withdrawn his nomination of Shanahan even before the FBI discovered during checks on the former Boeing executive that he had been involved in some heavy family domestic disputes in the past. Of course Pompeo wasn't the first secretary of state under Trump. Rex Tillerson enjoyed that role initially but he didn't last long because he was regarded as unsuited and unsuitable for the job of America's top diplomat. Pompeo has never looked likely to be next in the firing line. On the contrary, his solid presence has helped Trump to make sense of the most challenging foreign policy issues although it seems Pompeo as well as John Bolton, the national security adviser, was in favour of military strikes on Iran in retaliation for the shooting down of the Global Hawk drone. I suspect that the main person cautioning against airstrikes was General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military always worry about consequences, and he probably foresaw new dangers for American personnel in the region in the event of a US hit on Iran. Nevertheless, despite Trump's rejection of Pompeo's advice on this occasion, the secretary of state will continue to play a vital role in Trump's cabinet. The renewed whispers that he might want to try for the Senate in Kansas should give Trump reason to worry. He can't afford to lose him. There is no one obvious to succeed him, although I guess Nikki Haley, former ambassador to the UN, could be persuaded to return to government. Pompeo of course is an ambitious politician and after time at the CIA as director and at State, he must have dreams of trying for the presidency in 2024. Serving as a senator for a few years would be just the ticket for that dream to be fulfilled. The grandees of the Republican Party would love to have Pompeo on the ticket for 2024.

Ayatollah Khamenei's Catch-22 dilemma

The brinkmanship game, historically, is all about waiting for one side or the other to blink first. Brinkmanship in the Gulf - ie between the US and Iran - is a tried and tested chess game. But in the latest version, it's difficult to see where compromise is going to enter the arguments. Partly it's because the president of the United States is Donald Trump, but it's also because the regime in Tehran headed by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei cannot afford to give an inch unless they want the world to think they are weak and Trump is a winner. It's a new version of Catch-22. Tehran has to show that it will not yield to Trump's warnings and ultimatums and has to demonstrate that it can survive despite the man in the White House. Of course the truth is that Tehran is in a desperate way. The Trump sanctions - with more now on the way - are crippling the economy and blocking all exports. Inflation is reportedly now at 50 per cent. Nothing like the economic disaster in Venezuela but bad enough for the population, especially the younger generation, to start screaming and shouting and protesting. So Tehran really cannot afford to continue with this spiralling decline for much longer. They will have to accept Trump's offer of talks. But not yet. Not until they have demonstrated to the world that they will never bow down to the Yankees. There's the Catch-22 again. Just a reminder of the original brilliant Catch-22 catchphrase of the seminal book by Joseph Heller. A gunner in a US bombing crew wanted to be sent home and asked a doctor to sign his release on the grounds that he was mad. The doctor said all bomber crews had to be mad to fly missions every day. So why not sign my release, asked the gunner. Because, the doctor said, the only sane thing would be to stop flying but if you ask to stop flying then you must be sane and not mad. Catch-22!! Khamenei is in the same position. He would be mad to provoke the US into a war with Iran, but if he doesn't look as if he's trying to provoke Trump into a war, he will be seen as weak. Trump's dramatic backdown from launchng airstrikes last Thursday gave Tehran the opportunity to say he had blinked first. But actually I don't think the last-minute change of mind will do Trump any harm at all, and it certainly won't give Khamenei and co carte blanche to start blowing up more tankers and shooting more US drones out of the sky. On the contrary. Khamenei surely knows that Trump is not the sort of president who will give Tehran a second chance. But perhaps the Trump backdown which, incidentally, caused huge relief in the Pentagon, will give Tehran a small window of opportunity to agree to talks with Washington without seeming to be weak and surrendering. I don't think Khamenei is ready yet to speak to the Great Satan as they like to call the US. But if he doesn't agree at some point in the next few months, the danger is that miscalculation on the part of Tehran could lead to the war both Iran and the US are desperately trying to avoid.

Boris - tell all, then get on with PM campaigning

Most of the world now knows that Boris Johnson who wants to be Winston Churchill had a huge and rather explosive row with his girlfriend at her flat in London on Thursday night and that the words of anger were recorded by a neighbour who rang the police and then passed the tape onto the Guardian newspaper. Basically since then Boris has refused to comment on what happened, whether he still loves his girlfriend and whether he feels any sort of remorse. Usually I would say, this is a private matter, no one got hurt and these sort of domestic bust-ups happen up and down the country every night. But this is Boris! He wants to be prime minister and he of all people should tell his many supporters why he had such a row and what the hell it was about. I think he has been very badly advised. Someone in his camp has obviously said, "The best thing, Boris, is to keep your mouth shut on this one occasion and hope it goes away." But again I say, this is Boris not some boring nobody Tory MP whose private life is of no interest to anyone. If I was his adviser I would say, "Look, Boris, here is your script. Stick to it: Hello everyone, I just want to say that my girlfriend and I had a bit of a tiff the other night and it got quite noisy. I apologise to her, to the neghbours and to anyone who feels this makes me look an arse. But, come on, you have all had disagreements in your personal relationships, right? This was no big deal. We were rowing because of the stress of campaigning to be your next prime minister. We have made up and everything is fine. I'm particularly sorry for the neighour who felt it necessary to record our tiff and call the police. I'll buy him a pint and make friends. So, please, I would be very grateful if you could accept my apology and statement and now let it be. There are many more important things to worry about and to deal with in this beloved country of ours. So that's it. OK?" Would that work? Well it would have worked on Day One but it's aleady Day Three of The Big Row story. It may be too late but you should give it a try, Boris. Ignore your other advisers and take my advice. Come clean, and by the way, comb your hair before you do.

President Trump's red line

MY TIMES PIECE TODAY President Trump has set a new red line for military action against Iran: the death of one American at the hands of the Iranians would be the trigger for an attack. Despite his dramatic change of mind over approving a dawn strike yesterday (Frid) on Iranian air defence and missile sites, the president has signalled to Tehran that his red line would be crossed if an American were to be killed in the current tense confrontation in the Gulf. Previously, senior US commanders have indicated that the military operating in the Gulf would defend themselves against targeted attacks by the Iranians on any American assets or international shipping under their protection. On Tuesday, General Paul Selva, vice chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, warned: “If the Iranians come after US citizens, US assets or US military, we reserve the right to respond with a military action., and they need to know that. It needs to be very clear.” However, Mr Trump has now simplified that ultimatum from the Pentagon’s second most senior military chief by pointing to the death of an American as the trigger for war. He appears to have decided that the shooting down of the US military’s most expensive surveillance drone, the $222.7 million Global Hawk, was not a just reason for military retaliation because it was a remote-controlled unmanned aircraft. His death-of-an-American red line could put the president in an uncomfortable position if he were to demur again in the event of an Iranian strike. Mr Trump was scathing of his predecessor, Barak Obama, when he backed down from attacking the Syrian regime in 2012 after evidence showed the Syrians had crossed his personal red line by using chemical weapons in strikes on citizens. In preparation for a possible military confrontation, the US now has an armada of warships in the Gulf, and every day fighter jets and reconnaissance aircraft from the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln are flying operations over the waterway, though keeping clear of the 12-mile Iranian territorial airspace. The carrier, backed up by a guided-missile cruiser, three guided-missile destroyers, an amphibious warship with several hundred Marines on board and at least one Los Angeles-class “hunter killer” submarine armed with Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles, represent America’s frontline strike force in the Gulf. They are supported by two B-52H strategic bombers and multiple other aircraft based in Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. As proved by the successful Iranian attack on the US Air Force Global Hawk drone, Iran has a large inventory of surface-to-air missiles. Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said if the Global Hawk had been operating at its normal altitude of 40,000ft, the Iranians would have needed to use either an SA-20 or a Sayyad-2 or Sayyad-3 missile, which have the required range. The Iranians have an abundance of old Russian Sam missiles. But Mr Barrie said Iran faced challenges with updating their missiles and other weapon systems “because of sanctions and lack of cash”. Nevertheless, Iran has claimed to possess some advanced weapon systems, such as an anti-ship ballistic missile called Khalij Fars with a range of 300 kilometres, a long-range cruise missile called Soumar, and a new type of submarine-launched torpedo, the Jask-2, with a range of 19 miles. Iran’s air force has a mixture of American and Russian aircraft but of the 336 in its inventory, many of them would be non-operational because of the difficulty of finding spare parts. Iran still flies aircraft long-since retired by the US Air Force, such as F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats. The US has a history of military confrontation with Iran.: *In 1979, 52 US diplomats were seized in Tehran and held hostage for 444 days. In April 1980, President Carter authorised Operation Eagle Claw, a covert mission to rescue them. But it was aborted after the troop-carrying helicopters crashed in a sandstorm in the desert. *In 1983 two suicide bomb attacks by Hezbollah in Beirut led to multiple American deaths, and were blamed on the Iranians. Seventeen Americans were killed in an attack on the embassy in the Lebanese capital, and 241 US citizens, 220 of them Marine peacekeepers, died after a truck-bomb attack on the Marine barracks. *In 1987 the US attacked two Iranian oil platforms in Operation Nimble Archer in retaliation for Iran’s missile strike on a Kuwaiti oil tanker. *In 1988, the US launched Operation Praying Mantis against Iran after an American guided-missile destroyer was hit by a mine in the Gulf. Half of Iran’s navy was either sunk or severely damaged.

The dangers of a politically rudderless Pentagon

MY PIECE IN THE TIMES TODAY: The Pentagon has three million people under its charge yet is in an unprecedented state of flux as President Trump subverts its established leadership norms. With the departure of Patrick Shanahan, who quit this week as acting secretary of defence for family reasons, there is concern about the level of disorder at the top of the world’s most powerful military command and its waning influence in the White House. Since the departure of General Jim Mattis, Mr Shanahan’s predecessor and a revered Marine Corps “warrior”, leadership of the Pentagon has been in the hands of a man who, while seemingly favoured by Mr Trump, was never officially moved into the top seat. Patrick Shanahan was seen as a makeweight and was criticised for simply doing the White House’s bidding. Although the Pentagon functions militarily, it has effectively been politically rudderless during Mr Shanahan’s “acting” tenure. The Pentagon is supposed to have a civilian head but General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and Mr Trump’s main military adviser, has been a more prominent influence with regard to critical international security challenges than his supposed political master. This is unchartered territory because national security issues are always discussed by the president and a triumvirate of the secretary of defence, the secretary of state and the national security adviser as the key figures in his administration. Mr Shanahan, 56, who had spent 30 years as a Boeing executive before being appointed deputy secretary of defence in 2017 and then acting secretary, was widely seen as a makeweight and was criticised for simply doing the White House’s bidding: for example, sending troops to the Mexico border and assigning defence budget funding for Mr Trump’s wall project, a move that many felt was more a political than a military necessity. For the generals and admirals, what matters is that the views of the service chiefs are properly reflected in White House decision-making. Until his falling out with Mr Trump and his departure in December, many regarded General Mattis as an ideal defence secretary. Mr Shanahan failed to fill his shoes, partly because of doubts over whether he would ever be appointed as his permanent replacement. The defence secretary, not the joint chiefs, has the responsibility of weighing up all the arguments before presenting his options to a president seeking advice on potential action overseas. The absence of a strong secretary is especially acute given the rising tensions with Iran in the Gulf. Mr Shanahan never seemed confident in expressing his own views in public on big issues, so, according to one former military adviser, the generals and admirals have had to step in and “run” the Pentagon in the absence of strong civilian leadership. The relationship between the president and the secretary of defence, and the bond the Pentagon chief develops with the rest of the national security team, including the secretary of state, the national security adviser and the director of the CIA, are crucial for White House decision-making. Mr Shanahan, as a perceived “caretaker”, was always at a disadvantage in building those ties. Previous secretaries of defence, notably General Mattis, Leon Panetta and Robert Gates in recent times, have had their battles with the White House. All had sufficient gravitas, both as individual characters and with Congress, to ensure that their views were heard and taken into account. There have only been two other acting defence secretaries in the 71 years since the post was created: William Taft in 1989 and William Clements in the 1970s. Each had to serve for only a couple of months or so and, unlike Mr Shanahan, neither was waiting to be chosen for the top job. The Pentagon fears being politically sidelined on key issues such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, Russia and China, leaving the way clear for others in the administration to shape policy. Although there is no doubt that Mr Trump makes up his own mind, with the Pentagon neutered politically, policy is being driven more tightly by Mike Pompeo, secretary of state, John Bolton, national security adviser, and their acolytes. This situation is unlikely to change until Mr Trump’s chosen replacement as acting defence secretary, Mark Esper, who has been a well-regarded civilian secretary of the army, is formally nominated and confirmed by the Senate as a permanent appointment. It is unclear when that might be. Mr Esper might not be a retired four-star US Marine Corps general with a storied military record like General Mattis, but he did serve as an infantry officer for ten years and fought with the 101st Airborne Division in the 1991 Gulf War. “I think, under the circumstances, Mark Esper will be as good an appointment as secretary of defence as one can expect from this administration,” a former senior US defence official said. “He has done an excellent job as secretary of the army, has a reasonably strong background with experience on the Hill [Congress], in the department of defence and with industry. He is a West Point [military academy] classmate of Secretary Pompeo’s and has good relations with him and has developed a strong relationship with General Mark Milley [army chief of staff], who will be the new chairman of the joint chiefs in the fall.” The former official warned: “The department of defence always carries weight in US government internal deliberations but it is not a healthy situation to have the chairman of the joint chiefs carrying that burden alone.” Mr Trump is comfortable in the company of the military. He likes their “can do” approach. The military appreciate Mr Trump for his tough style of leadership. However, many believe that having a weak or unquestioning secretary of defence serves neither their interests nor those of the president, let alone the reputation of the Pentagon in Washington and among America’s allies.

Why is there no image of the Iranians actually planting the limpet mines?

I'm really not sure why the now-departed US defence secretary Patrick Shanahan ordered another 1,000 troops to the Middle East before he packed up his goods and left the Pentagon to spend more time with his family. Neither the US nor Iran wants a war of any kind. So what is the point of sending an extra 1,000 troops? They will no doubt help to provide more protection by supporting the surveillance and reconnaissance operations going on over the Gulf. But it also increases the perception that the Pentagon is gearing itself up for a military strike. One irresponsible Republican senator, Tom Cotton, is pushing Trump to bomb Iran as soon as possible in retaliation for the oil tanker attacks. Bomb what exactly: Iranian oil installations perhaps? I'm not in any way sympathising with the ayatollahs and the gross Iranian Republican Guard Corps, the mischief-makers of the Middle East. But every time the Pentagon announces new troop deployments or more warships the impression is given that the US is planning something. If Iran attacked the tankers, as seems pretty clear, they deserve to be punished. But not, I think, by some burst of firepower. There are other ways of punishing Tehran. Avoid conflict at all costs. Trump agrees and has even, bzarrely, downplayed the oil tanker attacks by calling them "minor". The huge plumes of fire and smoke coming out of the vessels would suggest otherwise. But every time things seem to be calming down, good old General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie, commander of US Central Command, pops up and ask for more troops and firepower. Shanahan agreed almost immediately and spoke about deterrence and the need to believe the "very credible" intelligence he had seen about who was behind the tanker attacks. Basically, Trump and co need to get their intelligence stuff sorted out and presented in full to the international community so that there are no longer any doubters and then get UN backing for non-military retaliatory action. The trouble with intelligence, however, is that unless the US has got actual real-time pictures of Iranian frogmen slapping limpet mines on the side of the tankers or have underwater images of an Iranian submarine firing a torpedo at one of the vessels - which presumably they don't - then it's quite tricky to be absolutely absolutely sure that Iran is guilty. The US does have images of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps fast attack boats milling around one of the tankers but the pictures were taken two hours AFTER the explosions. Then there is the grainy image of the Iranians trying to remove an unexploded limpet mine from a tanker hull. But that was ten hours after the explosions. It doesn't mean they didn't plant the mine in the first place. But removing a mine is not quite as totally convincing as an image showing them actually planting it on the hull. Why, one might ask, with so many surveillance drones, reconnaissance aircraft and helicopters around isn't there a picture of the dastardly dead itself. So General McKenzie, it's all very well you wanting more and more troops to fly to the Gulf but how come your chaps already there didn't spot the Iranians doing what they patently did?!

US defence secretary quits, unloved by Trump

Patrick Shanahan, acting US defence secretary since the exit of General Jim Mattis in January, has never looked the part. Now he has quit "to spend more time with his family", an obvious cliche reason for leaving a top job in politics. As it happens, it turns out there was a skeleton in the family cupboard, with revelations that there had been domestic violence incidents some years ago. But I think the real reason is that Trump realised he wasn't up to the job. With his two big bears beside him, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, Trump probably thought Shanahan was pretty insignificant. I sympathise with Shanahan who spent 30 years with Boeing as an executive, because having the "acting" word in front of his appointment never gave him the clout he needed as chief of the US Defence Department. He always seemed like a temporary defence secretary, not a defence secretary waiting to be confirmed by the Senate. In fact the nomination process had been delayed and delayed until it almost seemed as if Trump was reconsidering his promised nomination. Officials claimed it was taking time because of the necessary FBI background checks. But he had already been pretty comprehensively checked out when he was appointed deputy defence secretary to Jim Mattis. So what else had to be found out? Apparently as the prospective Pentagon boss the FBI needed to check right back to when Shanahan was 18. But surely that shouldn't have taken too long? So I think that is all rubbish. As time went by, Trump began to think, "Who is this guy? Is he the man I want?" The answer, I believe, was definitely no. I bet Pompeo and Bolton thought the same. In the Pentagon itself, Shanahan was like a ghost. He so rarely held press conferences that none of the Pentagon Press Corps knew what he really thought about anything. What he liked to do was give an impromptu question and answer session when he was about to go into a meeting or when he was about to meet a visiting foreign defence minister. But often hs replies to pointed questions were vague and hopelessly jumbled. He could hardly string a proper sentence together. And when he did say anything interesting, possibly by mistake, he later was eager to clarify what he said or tried to put it into a different context. I think he was so wary of upsetting Trump that he never actually gave his own opinion on any issue. He just blathered out what he thought was expected of him by the Big Boys in the administration. He was in a difficult position but if he really wanted to be Trump's defence secretary, he should have had the courage to speak out and show the Pentagon that he was a force to be reckoned with. He never did and never was.

Has the New York Times gone too far with its latest scoop?

The New York Times is a great newspaper whatever Donald Trump says. But has the editor gone too far by publishing the paper's latest scoop which reveals that the US government has been covertly putting malware into Russian computers to target the country's electricity grid? I'm sure that the US, especially under Trump, is engaged in all kinds of secret cyber warfare operations. This is the world we now live in. Russia is certainly doing the same thing back. But is it wise for a newspaper with the standing of the New York Times to reveal to the world what the US is doing supposedly in secret? If the editor's intention was to say how disgraceful this is and it should be stopped, then that would be fine I guess. But this is not a campaigning piece, this is an old-fashioned "We are going to tell all because we found it out and current and former intelligence officials have confirmed it." It's a straightforward news scoop without an agenda. I'm all for those but here in Britain we couldn't get away with revealing something that has the potential for damaging the nation's security interests. We have very strict rules to deter editors from exposing operational secrets. No such limits seem to govern reporting in the US. Trump has accused the New York Times of virtual treason, while carefully claiming the story to be untrue. Well, Mr President, if it's untrue then you don't need to worry and have no reason to accuse the newspaper of treason. But if it's true, as has bee confirmed by past and present officials who don't seem to be worried by treason accusations, then I can sort of understand why Trump is so angry at the New York Times, accusing it of acting against the interests of its own country. Oh dear, I kinda agree with that. It's a fascinating read, of course, but what is a prestigious newspaper like the New York Times doing tipping off the Kremlin about a secret cyber operation by the US. You could argue that the Kremlin would be well aware of the risks, but that's not really an argument for splashing details of the cyber operations all over the paper. It's a very tricky one. This is a dangerous world we live in and sometimes there have to be secrets that should remain secret. Of course it was the New York Times that revealed the notorious Stuxnet operation in which the US and Israel devised a brilliant malware code to insert into Iran's gas centrifuge system vital for enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb. It caused massive damage. Amazing story but a gift for the ayatollahs.

Decision time for Tory PM candidates

With the second vote by Tory MPs for the next prime minister due on Tuesday, the candidates are having to juggle between going hell for leather to make the final shortlist or start coseying up to Boris Johnson in order to ensure a place in his cabinet. This whole business is pretty creepy. Only one of the candidates so far has said he is not interested in serving under Boris and that's the long-odds Rory Stewart, the slightly eccentric-looking International Development Secretary. Well good for him I say. He has absolutely no chance of beating Boris but he has enough integrity and self-assurance to make it clear he doesn't rate Boris and therefore won't be seeking a post in his cabinet. Some of the others, notably Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, who also has little chance of beating Boris, has, with a perfectly straight face, said he would be happy to serve under Boris. There are even suggestions that he is angling for the Community Secretary job so he can tackle the housing crisis. Boris might be tempted because it would keep Gove out of the big-time limelight but at the same time might actually produce some needy solution to sort out the housing challenge. Gove likes a challenge. He tried his style of solution-finding at both the Department of Education and the Justice Department. So I guess it's unfair to be critical of Gove and the other candidates who are playing it both ways, fighting for the leadership but taking out an insurance policy to curry favour with Boris in case they don't make it. After all, it's one thing to lose the race for the premiership but it's quite another to lose your post in the cabinet and have to survive on an MP's salary, without the fancy government limousines and a host of civil servants to look after your every need. Nevertheless it is a bit cringeing to hear these candidates desperately wanting to stay in government when what they would really like to do is condemn Boris as a man unsuited to be the next prime minister. This is what Gove, of course, said the last time there was a Tory leadership battle. He said Boris wasn't up to it. Hohoho how politicians have to change their ways when needs must. Boris must be giggling like a schoolboy as he plans out his prospective cabinet. Should he give Gove a job? Hohoho it's such fun. Tuesday is the day when the remaining candidates who are not Boris will face reality. If they do badly, they will be out. If they do well enough to go through to the next round, but Boris is still miles ahead, do they still fight on or do a deal - drop out in return for a cabinet post? Boris is laughng all the way to Number 10. Trump is going to be delighted.

What on earth is Iran up to?

If it's correct that Iran is behind the attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman - and there seems little doubt about it - Tehran and the ayatollahs deserve what's coming to them. What an outrageous piece of state-sponsored terrorism. What on earth does Iran think it's doing? Tehran has of course denied being involved but the evidence is overwhelming. Video footage taken by a US reconnaissance plane showed multiple fast boats - the classic vessels used by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard - milling around the tankers and one fast boat, unbelievably, sidling up to one of the tankers and trying to remove a limpit mine which had failed to go off. Caught fair and square. The probem is what does the US, and the rest of the international community do about it? US Central Command has been busy putting out statements over the past two days but in one of them a spokesman emphasised that the US does not want a war with Iran. But the way Iran is going it looks almost as if they are deliberately tryng to provoke the US into striking back. Why I can't imagine. But how many more tankers are going to be attacked before the US responds. Central Command has said the US will defend its interests and protect international shipping in the Gulf waterway. So will they wait until the next tanker is hit before retaliating or will they take some form of military action to deter further attacks? Tensions are so high in the Gulf that any major action by the US is bound to cause a huge reaction from Iran. It's a dangerous time. The US has to get it right and, first of all, they have to prove to the rest of the international community that those video pictures point, without any doubt, to Tehran's involvement. Despite Iran's denial, you have to ask yourself, who else could have done it? Isis are not in this game and don't have fast boats to carry out this sort of attack. No other state would be involved. So it's down to Iran. The next few days are going to be crucial - and dangerous.

Boris Johnson ahead by a nose and a full head of blond hair

No real surprise after the first ballot of Conservative MPs to find that Boris Johnson has polled many more votes than any of his rivals for the premiership of this great country or should I sadly say once-great country. He is miles ahead. I personally believe it's going to stay that way over the next few rounds and that the majority of the 160,000 Tory Party members who are allowed to cast their vote in the final round will go along with the Boris choice. However, it's fascinating to see how the other candidates have done. The backers of the different individuals have all been speaking up for their man. Yes I'm afraid it's now all men. The only two women candidates, Andrea Leadsom and Esther McVey, have been eliminated in the first round, not getting enough votes to go on to the second round. So there won't be a third female prime minister, not this time anyway. It's back to chaps in charge! Whether that's a good thing for the country we will have to see. Anyway, Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, is second in the polling followed by Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary who so desperately wants to be PM - as does his wife Sarah Vine, stalwart Daily Mail columnist (for her husband to be PM!!). The rest are also rans although I suspect Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, and possibly Rory Stewart, the International Development Secretary, will improve their chances in the next round by scooping up the votes from the MPs who, in the first round, had gone for Andrea Leadsom, Esther McVey and Mark "Who?" Harper. But right now Boris must be feeling pretty confident of getting the keys to Number 10, and thinking to himself: "Oh my goodness, what a topsy turvy world, there I was not that long ago writing entertaining tosh about Europe as Brussels correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, and now here I am on the verge of becoming prime minister. And my former friend and former supporter Michael Gove came third!!" Gove will have a lot of work to do to beat Boris now. But Jeremy Hunt who is quite a pleasing looking bloke and has a Japanese or is it Chinese wife (he famously got it wrong once), while far behind Boris, must still think he is in with a good chance. Watch out for Hunt being terribly statesmanlike over the next few weeks. If he wants to get nasty he might even point out that when Boris was foreign secretary he only managed to upset people and never really acted in a statesmanlike manner. Boris was not a good foreign secretary but he is promising everyone that he will be a very good prime minister. In the end it's going to be a Boris/Hunt race. Boris has the advantage because everyone calls Boris Boris while everyone calls Hunt Hunt!

It's insult time in US and UK leadership campaigns

It never takes long before political candidates aiming for top leadership start insulting their rivals. Trump has been dismissing his main rival for the White House, Joe Biden, for some time. But now he has dug deeper and the insults and abuse are flyng around like cow pats in a hurricane. The same will soon be the case in the UK where ten politicians are making their case to succeed Theresa May as prime minister. They are beginning to turn on each other. It's slightly more subtle, so far, in the UK. Criticisms are often made without actually naming the individul. For example one candidate, let's say Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, will talk about the need to vote for a serious leader, not some blond-haired joker. In other words, Boris Johnson. I suspect the pointed attacks on Boris will get much worse over the next few days as MPs prepare to cast their first-round votes for the next leader. Trump, on the other hand, doesn't hold back. Nor, in fact, does Biden. Both are slagging each other off because, according to the polls, the former vice-president is way ahead of his rivals which means Trump has to regard him as the Democratic candidate most likely to be up against him for the 2020 presidency. Trump says Biden hasn't got it mentally or physically to be president. Biden may be ahead in the Democratic race but he has already made one big mistake, by reversing his long-held belief that the government should not supply funds for abortions. Woops. That is such a sensitive issue in the US. He backed down - definitely a sign of weakness - after being harangued by those on the political left. He had always supported the so-called Hyde amendment which banned federal funding for abortions. But all his Democratic rivals said the ban discriminated in particular against black and/or poor women. Biden reversed his position just 24 hours after confirming his support for the Hyde amendment. That gave ammunition to Trump who of course has never reversed any of his decisions! But with still a long way to go before the 2020 election day, the personal attacks are only going to get worse. Biden has attacked Trump for cosying up to dictatorial leaders such as Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin. You do wonder what a President Biden would do with Kim Jong-un. Boris Johnson in the UK is going to get a hard time as his rivals get frustrated at the polls which show the former Mayor of London and ex-foreign secretary is miles ahead in the race. The dirt about the blond bloke is going to get much dirtier I suspect. Such is the way in the world of politics.

Putin has long-term plans for Venezuela

Venezuela and Putin watchers got excited when a Russian defence contracting firm was suddenly pulled out of Caracas. What did it mean? Was Moscow beginning to change its mind and back off supporting Maduro, the hopelessly incompetent leader of the country and big-time destroyer of millions of people's lives and livelihoods? No such luck. Maduro had just failed to pay their bills. Putin doesn't care how appalling Maduro is because having him still in power in Caracas serves his purpose well. Putin wants Venezuela as a strategic base for Russian warships and submarines and long-range bombers, and he wants to squeeze Maduro, in return for his diplomatic and military support to get cheap deals for the country's oil and other natural resources. Maduro will hand over the lot to make sure he retains Putin's backing. This of course is bad news for Trump's policy which is to get Maduro overthrown by hefty economic sanctions and replaced by the man who is recognised by the US and many other countries in the West as the legitimate interim president, Juan Guaido. When Mike Pompeo went to Moscow recently to see Putin he pressured the Russian leader to stop supporting Maduro, pointing out that he was ruining his country. I don't know how Putin responded to the US secretary of state but I'm sure he smiled beatifically, knowing full well that he had absolutely no intention of giving up on his favourite Latin American leader. Having visiting rights for his warships and nuclear-capable bombers, Putin is on a winner. More than anything he knows that Russia's military support for Venezuela which includes having contracted troops in Caracas as military advisers, irritates Washington. And he likes doing that. So Maduro, I'm sorry to say, is going to survive although his country will continue to suffer the worst inflation in the world. Poor Guaido can do little to change things. He is a made-up leader with no power.

The case of Ivan Golunov

One of the most dangerous jobs in Russia these days is invesigative journalism, especially if it involves delving into alleged corruption in high levels of the state. Ivan Golunov is one of those journalists. It is dangerous because the state doesn't like to be delved into. Investigative journalists have been found dead in the past, and Golunov was obviously treading a very dangerous line. Suddenly he gets arrested and drugs are found on him and in his flat. It is easy to make assumptions, especially without knowing the facts or, indeed, knowing Golunov. I don't. But his journalism was being noticed by the Moscow big boys and being detained with drugs on your person is almost a cliche when the individual arrested is taking pot shots at the state and making claims about corruption. This sort of action against courageous journalists can happen almost anywhere in the world, not just Russia. But I think I'm right in saying that in Moscow you have to be particularly courageous to take on the state. Golunov who claims he was beaten up after being arrested is now under house arrest. Some prestigious media outlets in Russia have come out in support of him, which, in itself, is extraordinary. It's important that the Golunov case doesn't get forgotten. He will need the support of the media around the globe. I notice that President Putin's chief spokesman has said that his boss is being kept informed of the details! Well that is reassuring!!

Who can screw Nigel Farage and/or Jeremy Corbyn?

Never mind Brexit or the economy or immigration or house prices or VAT or foreign policy or Trump or student tuition fees, which of the 11 remaining Tory Party candidates hoping to become the next British prime minister can stop Nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn from steamrollering into power? I would say there is probably only one candidate who is popular enough with the people to kill off either of those two's politial ambitions and that's dear old Boris. In the media, Boris Johnson is about as popular as a pharmaceutical salesman. Some of the more right wing columnists or even mid-wing Conservatives think he is lazy, complacent, lacking in ideas, unscrupulous and basically not worthy of entering Number 10. But this is lazy journalism. It's easy to knock people and to be rude in print but we all, columnists included, need to look at these candidates and decide which one will actually do enough to put Corbyn back in his box for ever and destroy Farage's hopes of filling the House of Commons with Brexit Party MPs. As far as I can see the only one who has any hope of doing both these things is Boris. I doubt he is as lazy and incompetent as the newspaper columnists claim. But if he really does produce a sensible Brexit deal by October 31 or withholds the £39 billion we are supposed to pay the EU as the price for withdrawing until he gets a better deal, or goes for a managed no-deal, whatever that means, he has probably got a better chance of undermining the likes of Corbyn and Farage than any of the other candidates. Can you really believe that the likes of Michael Gove or Sajid Javid or Andrea Leadsom or Dominic Raab etc etc are going to so inspire the world that the Conservative party will remain in power for the next decade? No I don't think so. We are now in the era of fun politics, risk politics, grab-the-limelight politics! Boris fits that bill. Whether in the end he will bring us all down I don't know. But most people with superior education thought the world would come to an end with Trump in the White House. And it hasn't happened. Yet!

Politicians confess before they get found out unless you're Trump

In Britain the Coservative politicians who are ocmpeting to be the next prime minister are going through the confessing-all stage. It's a good old tradition in the UK. Fearing that some tabloid newspaper will discover something wicked or devious or just naughty in their lives they come forward and speak to a selected media outlet and reveal all with the rather pathetic "I was young", "I regret it", "It was a long time ago." "Well didn't everyone do that at some point in their lives." It's all rather embarrassing and desperate. So Michael Gove, running far behind Boris Johnson but still a good-odds contender, has confessed to the Daily Mail where his wife is a columnist (hoho that was an easy arrangement for him then) that an awfully long time ago when he was a junior reporter he took cocaine but now deeply regrets it. I bet he didn't deeply regret it at the time. He probably thought it was spiffing and rather jolly. Anyway, now that he is a serious politician who wants to be prime minister he wants everyone to know that taking cocaine at whatever age is a bad thing and damaging for your health. I wonder if there are any other skeletons in the Gove cupboard. Just a bit of cocaine-taking, is that all? Anyway he's done his bit for the honesty box. Then Jeremy Hunt, foreign secretary, confessed he had tried cannabis a million years ago and Rory Stwart, international development secretary, who has a past as an adventurer and once walked across Afghanistan, admitted he had smoked opium at a wedding in Iran. Well you would wouldn't you! So all the druggie stuff is out and now they can concentrate on becoming prime minister!! If Rory Stewart, a pretty good chap by the way, had failed to confess, would one of the wedding guests have come forward and told The Sun, "Hey that bloke who wants to be prime minster was at the opium pipe all day at the wedding." Possibly, so Rory thought it best to come clean. It's a sort of ritual, this sudden confession time, although I am waiting for Boris Johnson to come forward and speak to the tabloids. He has a lot of fun and games in his past. But, like Donald Trump, he would probably get away with it because he is that sort of chap. Trump wouldn't dream of confessing anything from his past. If something dirty comes up in the next 18 months he will just lable it as fake news. Perhas Boris, great friend of Trump, will do the same.

Boris Johnson looks unstoppable for UK prime minister vacancy

There is still some way to go but already Boris Johnson, the jovial born-in-America floppy blond-haired populist bike-riding former mayor of London looks set to be the next British prime minister. Everyone else looks like an also-ran. Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, is getting some brownie points by saying sensible things and having the advantage of being able to have chats with the likes of Trump, Merkel and Macron in his capacity as the man in charge of the Foreign Office, while Boris is out of office. But I somehow doubt he will get the Tory party membership vote. As for Michael Gove he sounds steady as an oil tanker and tries to make like he's the obvious choice if you want serious leadership and serious policies - an implicit bash at Boris. But the way politics are at the moment in the world, Boris, not Gove, seems to fit the bill. Boris and Trump will be the best of mates. Gove and Trump would always be slightly glacial because Gove doesn't have the bombast or the personal touch - or the hair. All the rest on the list might as well give up now. Two have dropped out already after reading the runes and others will fall by the wayside over the next few days. They would do well to choose Boris if they want a job in his cabinet. If they go for Gove and he loses the race, then Boris might take revenge and ignore them for a post in his government. It's a tricky one for Gove. He has no choice now but to go flat out for the top job, knowing that if Boris beats him, he will probably be out of a job. Under Prime Minister Johnson who would be Chancellor of the Exchequer? Not the current one, Philip Hammond. He's finished. Who would be Foreign Secretary? Not Jeremy Hunt. He'll probably be taken on as a cabinet minister but in another role. And Home Secretary? A tiny chance it might be given to Gove if Boris is feeling in a good mood. But pretty unlikely, especially if the race to the premiership gets personal and dirty. Gove will have to play his cards very carefully. He doesn't want to insult Boris like he did the last time the two of them fought each other for the Conservative party leadership, nor does he want to praise him. That's why all his comments about his leadership rivals will be nuanced and implicit but not direct attacks. Gove must know in his heart that Boris is more likely to win. He has already lost the Trump factor. Trump jokingly asked Jeremy Hunt during the very crowded press conference in London whether Gove would make a good prime minister, and then the much-publicised proposed meeting between Trump and Gove never took place. Trump I suspect just didn't fancy giving up valuable time to meet a potential loser.

Is the US/UK intelligence partnership safe in Trump's hands?

Donald Trump was asked during a press conference in London yesterday whether the historic intelligence-sharing agreement between the US and UK was at risk because of the row over China's Huawei telecommunications company and its 5G network on offer to Britain. He replied that it would "absolutely" be solved and the intelligence-sharing club would carry on as normal. That was a clever answer. He didn't say the partnership would survive even if the British government signed a deal with Huawaei. He just said the Huawei situation would be resolved. In other words, he would win the argument and the UK would NOT sign any deal with Huawei. Well, it's all up in the air now because Theresa May who seemed partial to accepting some sort of contract with Huawei is on her way out and the new prime minister may have different views and Huawei could still be banned. Perhaps during his 20-minute telephone conversation with Boris Johnson yesterday Trump was given an assurance that if he, Boris, became prime minister, he would ban Huawei. I bet he did. BUt the main point is that the incredible intelligence exchanges between the US and UK will survive whoever is in power in the White House or Number 10 Downing Street. It started off as an agreement signed by the leaders of the two countries more than 75 years ago and has developed and expanded and consolidated because of the professionals working for all the intelligence agencies. The chiefs of MI6, CIA, GCHQ and the National Security Agency have no closer working relationship than with each other. No policitian is going to undermine that, Huawei or no Huawei. There is much talk in the US that the historic trust is no longer as strong - on the US side because of the scandalous dossier written by ex-MI6 officer Christopher Steele which produced a pile of dirt on Trump during the 2016 presidential election campaign, including salacious stuff involving prostitutes in Moscow (and some American poiticians believe the UK government was behind it), and on the UK side because of the perceived unreliability of Trump and what he might do with super-secret British intelligence. But this is all political rubbish. The intelligence services have faced challenges in the past and the US/UK patnership has carried on as usual. I don't believe Trump would ever jeopardise this relationship and the wider Five Eyes intelligence club that also embraces Australia, New Zealand and Canada. He knows by now how important it is and the power it gives him as president. He may have been rude about the US intelligence community in the past but that was always about politics. As for the allegation that the UK government was behind the Steele dossier because it wanted to prevent Trump from becoming president, this I believe to be total rubbish. So actually, despite the ambivalence of Trump's remark yesterday about Huawei, what he said should be reassuring. That the intelligence partnership will not be affected.

Trump attacked by UK Labour. He won't forget!

If there is a general election in the UK and Labour wins power, relations with the United States will fall like the heaviest stone. Both Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leader, and Emily Thornberry, shadow foreign secretary, have attacked Donald Trump and effectively denounced his state visit to London. Trump won't care but he will not forget or forgive I suspect. He turned down a request for a meeting with Corbyn, describing him as a negative person. Corbyn promptly rushed off to make a speech to the thousands of anti-Trump protestors gathered in London and berated the president, without actually naming him. Very unwise and very undiplomatic and very shortsighted. Emily Thornberry who is never slow in making known her opinions, attacked Trump on BBC Radio for being a racist and a sexual predator. Well, if she ever becomes the real foreign secretary in a Labour government while Trump is still in the White House, they are going to get along wonderfully, hoho. I think it's all very well to have views, and there are a lot of people who despise, dislike or even loathe Trump for what he stands for. I have been very critical of some of his policies and his stye of leadership. But the fact is he is the president of the United States and deserves a little respect when invited to this country by Her Majesty the Queen and her government. You can be critical but not abusive, especially if you are a senior member of the official Opposition. Thornberry has a right, of course, to air her views but, nevertheless, she chose to be rude about the president at a time when we need all the friends we can get or keep. Trump seems to love this country and, whether you believe him or not, he seems to want a "huge" trade deal with the UK once we leave the European Union. People like Thornberry and Corbyn should think of the good of the country before sounding off with their personal opinions about the president of the United States, whoever he or she is. For all our sakes, let us hope that neither Corbyn nor Thornberry will ever be in a future British government.

Don't ask questions if you don't like to hear the answers!

Donald Trump has a way with words. When asked whether he thought it had been appropriate to comment on Brexit and the Tory leadership race in Britain - he has been accused of interfering in UK politics - he replied to reporters on the White House lawn before jetting off to the UK: "Don't ask me the question if you don't want me to talk about it." That's a helluva good reply. Of course, when asked awkward questions by the Sun and then the Sunday Times about Brexit and Meghan Markle etc, he could have answered by giving the standard, "I don't want to comment on UK issues." But that's not Trump's way. If he's asked a question he gives his view. Otherwise the interview would be boring. And anyway, Trump is not the first president to step boldly into British politics. Obama made a devastating comment when he was in London and attending a press conference. He was asked about Brexit and he replied that if the UK left the EU, America's special ally would have to go to the back of the queue for trade deals with the US. He said that before the 2016 referendum result and clearly hoped that his remark might spur people to vote to remain in the EU. It had the opposite effect. So along comes Trump and says the UK should leave the EU without a deal so they can sign up to a nice fat trade contract with the US. And yes, he likes Boris Johnson and believes he would make a good prime minister. Then he snipes at Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, whom he clearly can't stand. But hey, he was asked the questions, so he answered. Brits get very stuffy about American presidents, in fact any foreigner, who so much as dare say anything unpleasant or bossy about Britain. We have this thing about foreigners you may have noticed! But it's called freedom of speech and Brits should stop getting so uppity about the remarks Trump has made so far. After all, British politicians and, of course, Sadiq Khan, have been brutally rude about Trump on many occasions, so I guess he is just getting his own back. I much prefer politicians to be honest and straightforward, and if remarks are embarrassing for some, then so be it. We all know that Trump likes Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage. It's not really a big deal. What WILL be interesting is if leaks get out from the get-together between Trump and the Royal Family. Perhaps Prince Harry will take up Trump on his "nasty" comment about his wife. And even if he doesn't because royal protocol would bar him from saying anything to upset a state visit guest, perhaps Trump himself will whisper to Harry, "Don't worry, Harry, I think Meghan is charming. Don't believe what you read in the fake newspapers." As for the Queen, well she has hosted so many of Trump's predecessors in her reign, she won't be surprised or alarmed by anything. She will treat Trump with her usual courtesy and, who knows, they might actually get along. Prince Philip won't be there, otherwise he might queer the pitch by saying, "Mr President, how on earth do you construct that pile on your head every morning?" Now we know what Trump's hair looks like after a shower before he has had time to hair-dryer it. There's a picture of him attending some event after playing golf and his hair is all swept back like a normal hair style. It makes him look more ordinary and unTrump-like. But for his state visit to the UK his hair is back to the usual bouffant mode. It must make Prince Philip chuckle.

Trump loves Kim Jong-un and Nigel Farage.

Nigel Farage has been so ego-boosted by the success of his Brexit Party in the European parliamentary elections and by Donald Trump's personal support for him to participate in future Brexit negotiations with the EU that he has actually boasted he can win the general election whenever it happens. The world is so crazy he just might be right!! Oh my God did I really say that? Trump has always liked Farage and he loves the idea that someone iike him could be a populist leader in Britain. Demagogues rule! Well Emmanuel Macron, not a demagogue, created a political party out of nothing and won the French presidency. So Farage believes he can do the same. Can you imagine Nigel Farage's first audience with the Queen as the new prime minister? Well I can safely predict that this will never happen. It's bad enough to contemplate the prospect of having Jeremy Corbyn in Number 10. But Nigel Farage lauding it over all of us? Please!!! Meanwhile Trump is doing his best to stir things up as he always does. Interviewed this time by the Sunday Times, he said basically the same things he told the Sun - that Boris Johnson is a good chap and Nigel Farage is a terrfic bloke This is not interference in another country's election process of course! This is just Trump being honest when asked a question. Ha! He probably thinks that as he is sitting in the White House when he is interviewed he can say what he likes. But I expect he will say exactly the same stuff when he eventually arrives in London tomorrow (Monday). Tens of thousands of people are reportedly preparing to demonstrate against him but I'm sure his police escorts will take him on routes that bypass the protestors. It is a sad commentary on politics today that a visit which should be focusing on the need to maintain the so-called special relationship between the US and UK will instead be disrupted by division, angry protestors, and by empty chairs at the planned banquets. Jeremy Corbyn has made it clear he will not attend any meal with Trump. Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, will do his best to avoid him at all costs because he despises him and is the UK's strongest critic, and, of course, the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, won't be turning up for any meet-and-greet occasion. Her excuse, sort of justified, is that she has a very young baby to look after. But she could have relied on the royal nanny to take charge for a few hours. But Trump has made it more difficult for her to change her mind after he appeared to call her "nasty". He has denied ever accusing Meghan of being nasty. Seriously, Mr President? What you said in an answer to a question from the Sun was: "I didn't know that she was nasty." So, Mr President, you DID say she was nasty. Or at least you didn't say that she wasn't nasty. He chose the word, it wasn't fed to him. The question about her came after the cunning reporter reminded Trump of some critical remarks she had made about him in the past. The state visit is going to be such fun. Nigel Farage is doing that ridiculous grin already!

Boris is my man says Donald Trump

So Donald Trump wants Boris Johnson to be the next UK prime minister. Good luck with that, Boris. Having the Trump approval stamp won’t necessarily project Boris into Number 10. But on the other hand, if the UK DOES leave the EU, we will want to have a huge trade deal with the US, so if Trump is on our side with Boris as prime minister, then I guess it IS good for the man currently leading the field in the Tory leadership race. In his interview with The Sun today, Trump also reveals that several of the Tory candidates had been seeking his backing! What does that mean? Can it really be possible that each candidate has rung the White House to introduce themselves and beg a favour of the most controversial US president since, well, Richard Nixon? This is high politics, so I guess that is exactly what has been going on. But can you imagine the conversations? “Hello, is that the White House, this is Dominic Raab here, can I speak to the president please? “Dominic who?” “Dominic Raab, you know the guy trying to replace Theresa May as British prime minister.” “Theresa who?” “Er, Theresa May, the British prime minister.” “Oh yeah, I remember. But who are you exactly, the president is very busy.” “Dominic Raab, I’m going to beat Boris Johnson to Number 10 and wondered if the president would support me.” “Ah, Boris, now we know him. Are you supporting Boris to be prime minister?” “No no no I’m against Boris.” “Sorry, the president only likes Boris and we have never heard of you. Bye, and don’t ring again.” Well actually Trump did say he had heard of Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary who is also running and seems to like him as well but not as much as Boris. And he has heard of Michael Gove, but has a grudge against him for opposing his anti-Iran posture. So goodbye Gove. Of course the person Trump really wants to be the next British prime minister is Nigel Farage, but he’s not a Tory and isn’t eligible to succeed Theresa May. Got that, Mr President?