Afghanistan is now a presidential election issue

The Taliban I am sure will have noticed that the withdrawal of all US troops from Afghanistan is now a hot 2020 election issue. The militant insurgents who are still bombing and killing their way to the peace table really do have all the negotiating cards in their hands. Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of state, joked, yes joked, the other day about Trump wanting American troops out by the 2020 election date. I wonder why!! Now Pete Buttigieg (pronounced boot-edge-edge), a former officer in the US Navy Reserve who served in Afghanistan in 2014 for seven months, has said the withdrawal of all American troops from Afghanistan would be carried out in his first year of office were he to win the 2020 election. What he should have said, of course, and what Trump should have said, was: "There are currently extremely sensitive negotiations underway with the Taliban and I don't want to jeopardise US interests in these peace talks by saying anything that might play into the hands of the Taliban." Wouldn't that be wonderful if a serious politician in the US actually said something like that? But no. Trump wants the troops out and Pompeo has laughed about the timing. And Boot-edge-edge has grabbed the limelight by imposing a timetable on the withdrawal. The Taliban chief negotiators, all with American and British and numerous other coalition partners and, of course, Afghan blood on their hands, must be chuckling to themselves. Negotiating with the Americans is so easy because all the Taliban have to do is wait and wait and wait until the latter part of 2020 and then pounce with their final demands before agreeing a deal: all US troops out within six months of the deal being signed and senior positions in the Afghan government, and a return to the strictest interpretation of Sharia law. All they will give in return is a "promise" not to let al-Qaeda use Afghanistan as a training sanctuary. The Taliban top men at the Qatar talks are facing negotiators under orders from the White House to get a peace deal signed by any means. So good luck, Zalmay Khalilzad, US chief negotiator. He's a good man with a ton of experience but the days are ticking towards the 2020 election and he has to get the deal done. What is Afghanistan going to be like when all the foreign troops have left? Will women lose all the rights they have won over the last few years? Will the Taliban take over Kabul once again? I wonder whether the White House worries about that. I tell you who will worry and that is the tens of thousands of American and coalition troops who fought for 18 years - many of them sacrificing tbeir lives or suffering life-changing injuries - to give the Afghan people a better and safer life. If Afghanistan is handed back to the Taliban on a plate after this long long war, what will they and their families think? Was it all worth it? It's a terrible question, especially if the answer is no.

Jeremy Corbyn wants another three years as Labour leader

All the talk about Jeremy Corbyn needing to step down as Labour leader for the sake of his political party, the country and the universe is going nowhere. Corbyn has decided that he will stay on as leader for at least another three years. Does he really think that he can lead the party to a general election victory and become prime minister of Great Britain? A word of warning here. The newspapers are full of stories about Corbyn being a total disaster as leader and that he stands no chance of ever winning anything, let alone a general election. Longstanding members of the Labour party, like Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's old director of communications, are defecting because they think Corbyn is the ruin of the Labour party and will never win power. They also despise the advisers surrounding Corbyn, calling them Stalinists and Leninists and Marxists. In other words, the Labour leadership has become an anti-Semitic, autocratic monstrosity. I believe that to be correct. However, I remember the new young voters flocking to Corbyn when he tried to show during his lreadership campaign in 2016 that he was a man of the people and a new-look politician who actually cared. They believed in him. Now he seems somewhat reluctantly to be espousing the virtues of staying in the EU. I think and fear that if Boris Johnson decides to do a Theresa May and go for a snap election in order to increase his majority - soon probably to be reduced to just one - and destroy Corbyn, there could be a mighty shock. Young voters could once again flock to Corbyn because they hate Boris and Nigel Farage and all the rest of the get-out-of-the-EU-at-all-costs brigade. The young won't get Corbyn into Downing Street on their own. But if we have a no-deal Brexit confronting us in the next three months, I can see a flood of people turning to Corbyn to be their saviour. Most people don't make up their minds about party leaders by reading the newspapers and listening to the elite establishment pontificating about the Labour party's Stalinist tendencies or even their appalling anti-Semitism. If they still think Corbyn is basically a nice chap who cares, they will vote for him. So beware, Boris. Theresa thought she was on to a winner by calling a snap election in 2017 but it proved disastrous for her. In fact it finally destroyed her. Boris has said he is absolutely against a general election before 2022 But advisers around him might pressure him to go for Corbyn while they believe he is at his weakest. It would be dangerous advice. Corbyn wants another three years as leader because he thinks he can still make it to Number 10. Oh my God, he just may be right!

Gove says one thing and Boris says another on Brexit

Well I really thought that after Boris had manufactured a cabinet of Boris think-alikes, the message from Number 10 and throughout Whitehall on the Brexit issue would be exactly the same, based on the same script. But ho ho just a few days into the Boris era - it may only last a few months - and the Brexit message is already confused. Michael Gove who normally knows how to follow a script even when he disagrees with the message, wrote an article in the Sunday Times this weekend in which he said that the "assumption" in the government was that there would not be a deal and that we would have to go headlong for a no-deal Brexit. And he is in charge of no-deal. But then up pops Boris in bonnie Scotland and declares that the "assumption" is that the EU and UK will agree a new deal before October 31. Then he adds that as a safeguard full planning is steaming ahead to be ready for a no-deal October 31. I think we can all now safely make the "assumption" that we are as confused as ever. Which assumption is the correct one, the Gove one or the Boris one? It probably doesn't matter because the clear aim of this tough talk is to confuse and dismay the EU to force them into talking deals. But I think it would be wise if Boris and Gove got their message onto a similar track if only to reassure us humble mortals and taxpayers that the government knows what the hell it is doing. Basically it's a negotiating tactic. Tell the EU that the UK is now so far advanced in planning for a no-deal Brexit that they have to "assume" that that is what will happen. But the apparent olive branch from Boris in Scotland is supposed to titilate them into thinking that the new prime minister is after all not all that bad and they should be nice to him to avoid a no-deal. The only issue that Boris has raised so far in terms of the sort of deal he wants is the Northern Ireland one. He says categorically that the so-called Irish back-stop - the EU's insurance policy to ensure that North and South will continue to be part of the customs union in order to avoid checks on the border - is dead and buried. He hasn't said what he wants in its place but there will be no deal of any kind unless the Irish backstop is scrapped. So come on Michel Barnier, get your thinking cap on and produce an alternative to the backstop. In the past the EU's chef negotiator has said this is out of the question - and so has the Irish prime minister. But we're in the Boris era now, not dear Theresa, so be real, EU, and think out of the Irish backstop box. If they don't, then Michael Gove's "assumption" that a no-deal Brexit is confronting us all, will be right. But Boris's Scotland declaration has given me a ray of hope!

It's a no-deal Brexit, folks

With Michael Gove in charge of sorting out a no-deal Brexit, I am now convinced more than ever that that is exactly what is going to happen. This country, for so many decades a senior member of the European Union, is just going to slam the door and leave all our European friends and try to go it alone. Gove is a brainy chap and he will relish the chance of masterminding the crashing-out Brexit programme. He'll think of every angle and every scenario, good and terrible, and will come up wih a master plan. That's what he is really good at. So with him in charge it's just possible that he will succeed in softening the blow of a no-deal Brexit. But I cannot imagine for a moment that leaving the EU in this way is going to lead to a golden era for Britain, as Boris Johnson has promised. I like his optimism and confidence but almost everyone else with any knowledge of ecoomic matters and business has said the no-deal option will be calamitous for the country. Who do we believe? When David Davis, erstwhile Brexit Secretary and one-time would-be prime minister, says he is sure no-deal won't be as bad as people fear, that doesn't inspire me with confidence. He failed to get Brexit sorted out and then resigned. I doubt he has any idea what is going to happen to this country after October 31. Boris and co seem to be convinced that if they play hard ball all the way to October 31, the EU negotiators will surrender. There was a time when I thought this might happen. But Brussels has shown absolutely no inclination to even speak to Boris and his team. They, like Michael Gove, are now focusing all their efforts on sorting out their own challenges for when Britain crashes out. This is a tragic and irresponsible situation on both sides of the English Channel. So many obstinate politicians and officials determined never to give in. This is poker politics but all players are going to lose and the people of Britain and throughout Europe will have to suffer the consequences. I bumped into a businessman today who told me that he had just renewed his British passport. It was still a red one, as before, but the letters EU were no longer inscribed on the passport. So it seems we have left the EU already.

Boris must be regretting all his past comments

The higher up the political ladder you climb the more cautious you should be about commenting in public about other political leaders. This would usually be good common sense. But Boris Johnson has never adhered to that golden rule. Nor has Donald Trump. So the BBC Today programme very unkindly this morning reminded the US ambassador to London that Boris, when he was Mayor of London, said that Trump was unfit for office after the US president had said, somewhat wildly and inaccurately, that there were parts of London that were no-go zones where police were afraid for their lives. It was perhaps unsurprising that, shooting from the hip, Major Boris gave his reply as he did. But now he is prime minister, poor old Boris is getting his old comments thrown back at him. Woody Johnson (no relation), the US ambassador, played a blinder by dismissing such past insults and focusing on the future. He said the relationship between Trump and Boris would be sensational. I doubt Trump will hold the "unfit" comment against Boris. It's the sort of thing he has been saying about Boris's successor as mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. Woody Johnson is probably right, Boris and Trump will work very well together. From now on I expect Boris will be ultra careful about what he says about Trump. It will be tricky if Trump tweets insults about the UK for whatever reason. But my prediction is that Trump will tweet nothing but positives about Britain while Boris is in charge. But he may well continue with his insult campaign against Sadiq Khan. Boris won't mind that!

Oh dear Robert Mueller said nothing to excite anyone

The biggest surprise about Robert Mueller's testimony to two House committees yesterday was that people seemed to be surprised that he said nothing. He was always going to say nothing, or, rather, he was always going to stick to his script which he had written and learnt by heart when he published his mammoth report on the allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign team and Russia, and the suspicions of obstruction of justice by the president himself. There had been huge hype about the upcoming televised performance, with the broadcasters desperate to pick up every word and glance and raised eyebrow. But it was probably the most boring, unexciting, unspectacular "show" ever broadcast. If special counsel Mueller could say yes or no only he said yes or no only. Nothing, not even the most penetrating questions from the Democratic members of the two committees, would divert him from his determined effort to avoid anything remotely controversial. Or just different! To be fair to the "old man" as one Washington newspaper kindly described him, he always said he intended to say nothing new. And as a long-time FBI director I guess he knows how to block the most cunning interrogators with meaningless answers. So all in all the Mueller Revelation Show was deeply disappointing and not worth the ridiculous amount of air time given to it. It needed a David Frost - may he rest in peace - to winkle out something devastating, just as he did when he interviewed Richard Nixon post-resignation and got him to confess he did wrong and apologise over the Watergate scandal and cover-up. Mueller outmatched his interrogators and bored the nation to death. No wonder Trump came out and said the witchhunt was over. I think he's probaby right. Mueller is done. There's no way he can help the Democrats with their inquiries any more. He has said what he plans to say in public - or private - and unless a special counsel is appointed to investigate the special counsel, Mueller can now return to private life and retire and if he has grandchilren, to focus on them. Please please we don't want a Mueller show again, ever!

After fake news comes fake statements

The Russians apologised profusely for the incident in which one of their military planes entered South Korean airspace by mistake. No they didn't! Britain sent a delegate to plead with Tehran to give back the UK-flagged oil tanker seized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. No it didn't. Just two instances in which alleged statements were made by officials and then denied subsequently. This is diplomacy today. Fake diplomacy or you could call it Absolute Joke Diplomacy. No one has a clue whether something said officially is true anymore. We're in a fake world where the truth is a lie. As a newspaper journalist establishing what is true and what is rubbish put out as the truth is getting more difficult as the days go by. What would be nice would be if a political leader could come out and promise: Whatever happens during my time as leader I promise always to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But then even if someone does say that we wouldn't believe him/her would we? It's a fake news AND cynical world. Putin is the expert in this world which is why he is thriving. He can say what he likes whether it bears on the truth or not. Why on earth would Moscow confess to entering South Korea's airspace when the Russians denied it only yesterday. The statement about the apology must have just been put out for a laugh. Putin never apologises. Has he ever apologised for sending military intelligence officer assassins to try and poison to death Sergei Skripal, the MI6 double agent? No, sir, he has revelled in Britain's fury and stated openly that anyone who betrays Russia will be punished by death. So I don't believe for a moment that Putin agreed for someone to put out an apology for the airspace infringement. It's difficult to fathom what it's all about. As for the British plea to Tehran to "give us back our boat please", I can unfortunately believe that because there's not a lot we Brits can do except plead these days. What will obviously happen is that the two tankers involved in the current set-to between London and Tehran, each holding one hostage, will be swapped. Iran will tell London to hand over the one seized by the Royal Marines in Gibraltar and then refuse to promise the oil will not be sold to Syria, and London will hand over the one in Gib and claim that Tehran said its oil tanker won't go anywhere near Syria. Fake news, fake statements.

Now it's Trump and Boris versus the rest of the world

Forget about worsening relations between Wahington and London over the forced-out British ambassador etc. Now Boris is in charge of Great Britain everything will be tickety boo. Or so Boris hopes. The two men are natural bedfellows, they are populists, they both want to put the Great back into their respective nations and neither seems much to care what they say in public. It'll be Humpty and Dumpty sitting on the same wall. Whether this turns out to be good for the rest of us it's too early to say. But after months of deep pessimism and despair and Brexitmania I'm determined to be confident and hopeful and optimistic for the future. Boris will take his new mighty burden of leadership responsibly and by some miracle he and his accolytes will force the EU to redraw the Theresa May Brexit deal and come up with something which Parliament will pass. After all, the vast majority of Parliament will never support a no-deal Brexit and will thus be desperate to agree a deal, almost any deal, by October 31 to avoid crashing out of the EU with nothing signed and sealed. The 27 other EU nations will feel the same sense of urgency and no-deal panic, whatever people like Michel Barnier, the top Brexit bureaucrat, claims. He always says that the EU is fully prepared for a no-deal Brexit and he says it with a straight unsmiling look-into-the-camera voice. But no one in the EU, not France, not Germany, not the Dutch etc etc want a no-deal anything. They want an arrangement by October 31 as much as Boris does and they might just negotiate a way out of the mess with Boris on the other side of the table. Provided Boris doesn;t send some bearded faceless civil servant to do the negotiating. It has got to be a senior minister with a big brain and negotiating skils not yet shown by any of the Brits sent to Brussels in the last three years. Michael Gove is your man, Boris. Swallow your dislike of Gove and send him to confront the somber Barnier. If a deal is done by October 31, Boris will enjoy a magical honeymoon. And if Trump rings up his Brit buddy and offers a huge trade deal, Boris will be laughing. But of course that will depend on Boris surviving political coups against him, not least from Tory MPs who hate him for even considering a no-deal Brexit. They could destroy his government before it has even started by teaming up with Labour and the Liberal Democrats who want to stay in the EU, never mind the 2016 referendum result. That would mean a general election which Boris might well lose. Then the great Trump/Boris swingalong will never get off the ground.

The Royal Navy can no longer rule the waves

MY ANALYSIS PIECE IN THE TIMES TODAY: The failure by the Royal Navy frigate, HMS Montrose, to intervene in time to save the British-flagged oil tanker from being boarded and seized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has provoked widespread criticism and anger. The outrage is misplaced when you take into account that the Navy has precisely one warship currently in the Gulf waterway to protect UK commercial vessels. That's 100 miles of waterway. Much has been made of the decision by the government to send a second and then a third warship to beef up the Royal Navy presence in this vital region of the world. But the truth is that HMS Duncan, a Type 45 destroyer, will only serve as a second warship on location for about week before HMS Montrose returns home for routine maintenance. The third warship, HMS Kent, like HMS Montrose, a Type 23 frigate, is not due to arrive in the Gulf until September. The minimal presence of the Royal Navy in one of the world's busiest shipping chokepoints is symptomatic of the state of the navy today. As successive First Sea Lords have pointed out ever since the Falklands campaign in 1982, to survive as a maritime nation - and 95 per cent of Britain's economic activity depends on the oceans - a healthy and robust navy is needed to protect the country's interests. Admiral Lord West of Spithead famously said when he was First Sea Lord that no warship could be in two places at once. But the challenge facing the navy today is not just about numbers. It's about reliability and readiness. Of the six Type 45 destroyers in the navy four are at present out of service for repairs or maintenance. Of the two on operations, one is now heading for the Gulf and the other, HMS Defender, is in the Indian Ocean, a long way from the crisis location. The navy has a total of 77 commissioned ships, including one aircraft carrier, suffering teething problems before entering service, six destroyers, 13 frigates, many of which will be in maintenance, ten nuclear-powered submarines, four of them ballistic-missile deterrent boats and two amphibious assault vessels, HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion. With past squeezes on the UK defence budget the Royal Navy has suffered cutbacks, like the other services. But the decision to build two 65,000-tonne carriers at a cost of more than six billion pounds, before any of the aircraft have been included, has meant the navy budget has snatched more than a fair share of the available cash. Tobias Ellwood, defence minister, yesterday called for more spending on the Royal Navy, and Jeremy Hunt, challenging for Number 10, has pledged to build a bigger navy. However, Britain and the Royal Navy will never rule the ocean waves as they once did. Whichever prime minister or government is in power there will never be enough money to rebuild the navy to even the status it enjoyed when the Falklands was invaded. The navy then had 127 ships in service. It is not all gloom for the Royal Navy. A new generation of frigates are on the way. Eight Type 26 frigates, 60ft longer and 2,000 tonnes heavier than the ageing Type 23s, have been ordered. The first three are being built at a cost of 3.7 billion pounds. Their principal role will by anti-submarine missions. To put this in context: there are today more than 500 submarines in the world operated by 40 navies. Like their sister frigate, the Type 23, this new generation warship will not be able to be everywhere at once.

What game is Iran playing?

It is almost impossible to fathom what the leaders in Tehran are up to. They are deliberatey trying to provoke the US, UK and others with shipping interests in the Gulf waterway by seizing or blowing up oil tankers but to what end? Do they imagine that the West will just cave in and say "OK you win we'll do your bidding, what do you want?" The trouble is they have probably calculated without much difficulty that no one wants a war, so they can get away with doing exactly as they please. But, again, for what purpose? The latest seizure by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards naval branch of two British tankers in the Gulf (one later released) is as about as provocative as you can get. But what are the UK Government and the Royal Navy going to do about it? There's only one frigate out there at present, HMS Montrose, although there are two other Royal Navy warships on the way. But HMS Montrose was absent when the two tankers were seized. As a British admiral once famously said, "A warship cannot be in two places at once." So HMS Montrose was off somewhere else at the time. That was clever planning by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and embarrassing for the Royal Navy. The UK Government has sent a strong warning to Iran but Great Britain no longer rules the waves. It will take a tough and determined government to see off the Iranians and that includes ordering warships to fire their guns if these Iranian fast boats come within spitting distance. Britain currently has a prime minister a few days away from stepping down and a new prime minister waiting in the wings, whether Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt. Neither will want to start their premiership with a war. Tehran has thought that out obviously. But if Tehran wants the UK to help salvage the 2015 nuclear deal, what on earth are they doing targeting British oil tankers? Was it just in retaliation for the seizure by the Royal Marines of an Iranian oil tanker illegally shipping oil to Syria in breach of international sanctions? I guess it could be as simple as that. So what can the UK do next? Basically the 2015 nuclear deal, still held together by Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany, is dead in the water. If ever there was a time for Nato allies to remain cohesive and strong it is now, never mind what Russia and China do. And that means, however much they hate Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the 2015 deal, the UK, France and Germany need to be steadfast against Iran and join the US in withdrawing from the agreement and adopting a united stand against Tehran. Only then will Iran stop baiting and provoking the West.

Nato's crisis over Turkey's switch to Moscow.

MY TIMES PIECE TODAY Nato is facing an unprecedented crisis after yesterday’s official cancellation by the Trump administration of Turkey’s purchase of America’s most advanced stealth fighter jet. The action taken against Turkey, a key member of the alliance, was in retaliation for President Erdogan’s decision to go ahead with buying Russia’s S-400 anti-aircraft system, which is not interoperable with Nato’s air-defence systems. Pentagon officials said that the axing of Turkey’s engagement in the multibillion-dollar F-35 programme was unavoidable. They said Russian technical advisers assisting Turkey’s operation of the S-400 weapon system could glean intelligence of the aircraft’s super-stealth technology. The decisions by Ankara and Washington will mean that once the S-400s are operational— the first parts have arrived — Turkey will no longer be fully part of Nato’s air-defence networks, which play a crucial role in deterring Russian military aggression against the Western alliance. “Potentially this is very serious for Nato,” a senior alliance diplomatic source said. “We’re waiting to see how the Turkish president reacts. “Erdogan has already demonstrated he has an ambiguous relationship with Nato after his turning to Russia. “It now depends on how serious people want it to go. What will happen is currently unknowable but the alliance is facing a very rocky time because we have the nation with the largest army in the alliance [Turkey] in a row with the largest spender [US].” Turkey’s purchase of the S-400 — and the rejection of the American Patriot air-defence programme — has raised serious doubts about continued military co-operation with Turkey. Pentagon officials insisted that the formal decision to ban Turkey’s military from receiving any F-35s would not change the vital strategic relationship with the country. However, there are question marks over future military exercises in which the use of Turkish airspace would play an important part. Questions are also being raised about Nato’s use of the Turkish airbase at Incirlik, in the south of the country. US fighters fly from Incirlik to mount patrols over Syria. It is also one of six European bases where the US stores a total of about 150 B61 tactical nuclear bombs. The others are in Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. Although the Pentagon has been warning Ankara for months that its purchase of the Russian weapon system would jeopardise Turkey’s participation in the F-35 fighter-jet programme, ambivalent signals from the White House appeared to have given confidence to President Erdogan that his country would be able to buy the 100 fighters on order. However, senior Pentagon officials made it clear that Turkey was now excommunicated from the F-35 project. The four F-35s that Turkey has purchased are still in the US and will remain there. The rest of the 100-plane order is cancelled. All of the Turkish pilots and air crews training on the F-35 at Luke air-force base in Arizona have been told to leave the US by July 31. “Turkey’s decision to purchase the Russian S-400 air-defence systems renders its continued involvement with the F-35 impossible, “ the White House said yesterday. “The F-35 cannot coexist with a Russian intelligence-collection platform [the S-400] that will be used to learn about its advanced capabilities.”

Is Mark Esper the best man for the job of US Defence Secretary?

I think I'm right in saying that Donald Trump is the first president in history to have had three acting defence secretaries. There's a new one right now. He's Richard Spencer. Most people probably don't realise that Spencer's predecessor as acting defence secretary, Mark Esper, had to give up the job he had held for only a few weeks and leave his smart office in the Pentagon because under the rules of....whatever....he couldn't be the official non-acting defence secretary while he is awaiting confirmation by the Senate following his nomination for the role by the president. So while the Senate big wigs consider whether to confirm hs nomination, Esper had to walk down the corridor and return to his previous job as Army Secretary, while Richard Spencer, Navy Secretary - and a jolly good one - who is next in line to the throne as it were, stepped into Esper's shoes and became an instant acting defence secretary. If the confirmation process which began yesterday is short-lived, Spencer will then swiftly return to his office as Navy Secretary and Esper will walk down the corridor from the Army Secretary's office to the office of the Secretary of Defence. I wonder if they will pass each other as they do the office swaps. In all the switch-arounds it's almost possible to forget that the first acting defence secretary was Pat Shanahan who looked set to become defence secretary proper until the FBI discovered there had been some domestic trouble in his family involving a touch of violence way back in the past, and Shanahan resigned to avoid having it all brought up again every time he appeared in public as Pentagon chief. So out went Shanahan, in came Esper, out went Esper, in came Spencer and, soon, out goes Spencer and in comes Esper. All very bizarre, perhaps only possible in good old Washington. The strange thing is that for my money the best of the three involved in the soft shoe shuffle is Richard Spencer. As they say in the sailing world, I like the cut of his jib. He always seemed to me to be a strong character who made good and quick decisions. Take the very recent case of Admiral Bill Moran, sleighted to be the next US Chief of Naval Operations. When it emerged that Admiral Moran was still seeking the professional advice of a former Pentagon public affairs officer who had been forced into premature retirement with a reprimand for making unwelcome sexual advances to a number of female co-workers while dressed as Santa Claus at a boozy office Christmas party, Spencer confronted him and basically said "you're out". No messing about. He didn't want the head of the Navy to have even a hint of a stain on his character. That's proper decision-making. Tough but right. Now Spencer is looking for a replacement among three-star as well as four-star offices and you can bet he will pick the best man even if he is junior in rank to the top dogs. Esper seems to me to be a rather boring-looking bureaucrat, the type who will do an ok job but without inspiring anyone, least of all the men and women in uniform. Why on earth did Trump select him? I guess because he didn't want another Jim Mattis, the old warrior with combat in his bones. Esper served his country as a relatively junior infantry officer. That's great. But a charismatic figure? I don't think so.

The US presidential campaign race for money

In the end it's all about money. Who gets the most cash to spend on spreading the word on television and radio and in the newspapers and on social media. The US presidential 2020 race is currently a money race. Donald Trump, despite his appalling racist attack this week and his explosive leadership style is so far ahead in the cash stakes that he'll have enough funds to drown out his Democratic rivals. In the last quarter the Trump campaign team raised $108 million. What is bizarre is that some of the biggest donors were people who tried to stop Trump winning the White House in 2016. I guess they have seen on which side their bread is buttered and have got scared at the thought of some liberal-minded Democrat beating Trump and imposing nasty tax rises on the richest of the rich. Is that too cynical? Anyway, it means that the guys and girls with billions in the bank are rushing forward to donate the maximum amount allowed under campaign rules to back Trump. Meanwhile the majority of Democratic rivals are struggling for funds. In fact, apart from the five top-league candidates - Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris - the rest are beginning to look like losers on the money trail. They will have to start backing off and leaving the top five to fight it out. So, soon it will be goodbye to Beto O'Rourke, John Hickenlooper, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar et al. They are raising funds in the very low millions and are such long shots that they must be campaigning almost on their own with a tiny staff to back them. Elizabeth Warren on the other hand who has scooped up more than $19 million in the last quarter has taken on 300 staff! But it's all small beer compared to Trump's cash pile. It's rolling in by the million every week. Will money buy him the White House for a second term? These days it's all about mass messaging and you need huge funds to blast the country with advertising and publicity and promotion. OnLy Trump will have that sort of money. This big man with his Make America Great Again red cap is going to be on the news and in the news all the way to the 2020 election day. His Democratic rivals will have to try and squeeze in an appearance when they can. That's the way it is.

Trump guilty of the oldest racist comment in the book

Telling someone who is black, Asian or, as the Americans seem to prefer, "of colour" to go back to where they belong is the oldest racist comment in the racist handbook. Donald Trump doesn't seem to care what he says most of the time. But on this occasion I sincerely hope he will reflect on his attack on the four Congresswomen of colour which has hit the headlines and apologise to them. Trump picked on the new group of fiery Democratic Congresswomen who have made a name for themselves for being outspoken on many of the domestic issues that have caused such angst for the Trump administration, such as illegal immigration. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York), Ilhan Omar (Minnesota), Tashida Tlaib (Michigan) and Ayanna Pressley (Massachusetts) were clearly the targets of Trump's swirl of unpleasant tweets in which he attacked them and told them to go back to heir countries of origin and sort out the broken and crime-ridden places where they came from. First, three of the politicians were born in the US and the fourth, Representative Omar, came to the US from Somalia at the age of 12. And second, if the four women had been white Trump would not have made such a remark. So it is classic racism and also highly mysogenistic. I think Trump decided to pick on them, not just because they represent for him the worst type of American politician - anti-Trump, Democratic, fearless and opinionated - but because his old enemy Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, has also been pretty vociferous about these four, attempting to get them to shut up and stay out of the news. Trump probably thought to himself, if Nancy can be nasty to them, then so can I and with knobs on. But he went down the worst possible racist route. Even Theresa May, now a week away from no longer being British prime minister, told her spokesman to make it clear she thought the tweets were totally unacceptable. I guess with all the row over Ambassador Sir Kim Darroch's "confidential" views about Trump being inept, Theresa thought she better choose her words carefully. I'm sure what she would have liked to say was that Trump's tweets were disgraceful and racist.

Trump scrapped the 2015 Iran nuclear deal to spite Obama? I think not.

In the latest leaked diplomatic letters and emails published in the Mail on Sunday, it seems Sir Kim Darroch, the ambassador in Washington forced into retirement, accused Donald Trump of withdrawing the US from the historic 2015 nuclear deal with Iran just to "spite" Barack Obama. Really?!! I seriously think that is wrong. I have absolutely no doubt that Trump gained great satisfaction out of screwing Obama's legacy but surely that wasn't the principal reason why he took the US out of the agreement and started reimposing sanctions? Trump made it clear from the start of his presidential campaign that he thought the 2015 deal was the worst he had ever seen. Mike Pompeo, when he was CIA director, accused the Iranians of cheating on the 2015 deal and said it needed to be toughened up. John Bolton, national security adviser, was of course always against it. They hated the deal because they thought it gave too much to Tehran and imposed limits on their enriched uranium project that were too lenient and then set a mere 15 years (2031) on the running of the agreement. I have to say I always thought that was a glaring anomaly. If you want to stop a country from going nuclear you don't sign an agreement that only covers until 2031. Well, the dates were agreed at the time by the US, Russia, China, UK, France and Germany. There were some awfully clever people involved on the technical side, so I assume there were good reasons for this. But basically, the Obama administration and the other countries had this expectation that Iran would give up any idea of getting a nuclear bomb and rejoin the international community with open and friendly arms. If that's true, it was somewhat optimistc thinking in my view. Anyway Trump and co thought it was all dreadful. They also - Trump/Pompeo/Bolton - reckoned any deal with Iran had to include restrictions on Iranian malign military activities in the Middle East. Well that was never going to happen. Iran would argue they're doing what they're doing in their national strategic interest. But that's what Trump said he wanted. All this is in the public domain. So I cannot understand why Sir Kim would have summed up his view of Trump and the nuke deal by saying the president was just out to spite Obama. That's the sort of thing Washington newspapers were saying. Is that all the ambassador was basing his remarks on in his secret file to London or did he have some super inside intelligence? A large amount of so-called secret intelligence often comes from or is orginally sourced from stories in newspapers. So this supposedly highly sensitive email/diplomatic letter from the ousted ambassador is no big deal.

Can the US really act against ally Turkey for buying Russian system?

Presidents of the United States always love giving ultimatums in order to get their way. Donald Trump is no exception. Trump has been warning Turkey's President Erdogan for months not to buy the Russian SS-400 air-defence system. As a Nato ally, and an important one for the alliance, Turkey is supposed to buy what it needs to defend its country from friendly, preferably fellow alliance nations. Partly because it's the Nato thing to do and partly because of the importance of having weapon systems that are interoperable within the alliance. But Erdogan is also friendly with Vladimir Putin and, understandably, he liked the look of the Russian SS-400 air-defence system. It's probably the best of its type in the world. The Russians are already well into having the next-generation system, called SS-500. So Erdogan decided he wanted the best and chose the Russian SS-400. The US went ballistic and said he couldn't and shouldn't do this and threatened to stop Turkey buying the American F-35 Lightning II superfighter. Erdogan took a gamble and went ahead with buying the Russian system and now the first parts have arrived. In other words, Erdogan is ignoring Trump's warnings and ultimatums and doing what he wants. So will the US throw Turkey out of the huge F-35 programme? The programme for Turkey is already suspended by Congress. But to expel Turkey altogether would be a major deal. This is a key Nato member. Also the US needs all the Nato countries and other allies it can get into the F-35 programme to make the whole vastly expensive project more affordable. There's a tricky problem here. If the US accepts the inevitable, allows Turkey not just to go ahead with deploying the SS-400 system but also to buy 100 or so F-35s, then the Russians could hugely benefit by discovering, through their air-defence system in Turkish hands, how vulnerable the F-35 is to its air-defence technology. Erdogan has it in his head that Trump doesn't really care about him buying the SS-400 system. After all, Turkey, and thus Nato, will also benefit from being able to discover more about the capabilities of the SS-400. And then the US can adapt the F-35 if necessary to thwart the Russian capabilities. I expect the Pentagon has thought of all of this and has mentioned this to the White House. So my guess is that Turkey will duly deploy its Russian S-400 system AND buy as many F-35s as it wants, provided Congress lifts the present suspension. Banning Turkey from buying F-35s would be madness. Erdogan will just turn once again to Moscow for its fighter fleet. Now that would be deeply embarrassing to the White House and to Nato. And Lockheed Martin, manufacturers of the F-35, would be sorely pissed off.

Yet more scandal for the Pentagon

MY TIMES STORY THAT DID NOT MAKE THE PAPER: Sexual misconduct allegations have been made against a top US commander nominated to be America's Number Two military chief. The accusations by a former female member of his staff at US Strategic Command, responsible for dealing with a nuclear attack on America, have cast last-minute doubt on whether Air Force General John Hyten will be confirmed by the Senate as the next vice chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. An "exhaustive" inquiry carried out by the US Air Force office of special investigations found insufficient evidence to consider criminal charges or administrative action. However, the female officr has now come forward anonymously to put her complaints into the public domain. She said that in 2017, as an aide to General Hyten, he had made sexual advances, including hugging and kissing her. She described the alleged approaches by General Hyten in an interview with the Associated Press as "abusive sexual contact". The Pentagon has been rocked by a series of embarrassing personnel revelations in recent weeks. Only this week Admiral Bill Moran, nominated to be the next chief of the US Navy suddenly announced his retirement. He had been due to take over the current chief on August 1. He was forced into retirement when it emerged he had continued to seek professional advice from former Navy public relations officer Chris Servello who had left the Pentagon after being acccused of inappropriate advances to female co-workers while dressed as Santa Claus at a Christmas party. It became known as the "bad Santa" scandal. With the acting defence secretary Pat Shanahan also withdrawing his name for nomination as Pentagon chief last month, the department is now suffering from glaring vacancies in top positions. Mr Shanahan stepped down after it emerged the FBI had uncovered alleged incidents of domestic abuse in his family. Mark Esper, former Army Secretary, took over as acting defence secretary but has yet to be confirmed by the Senate. The Pentagon closed ranks around General Hyten, declaring that there was no evidence of sexual misconduct, and insisted his confirmation process as the next vice chief of the Joint Staff would go ahead. Colonel DeDe Halfhill, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said General Hyten had fulfilled 38 years in service to the nation and had "proven himself to be a principled and dedicated patriot". The emergence of the accuser has complicated the confirmation process and could cause a delay. The present vice chief, General Paul Selva, is due to retire on July 30. The air force investigators interviewed the woman involved in the allegations as well as dozens of witnesses. There were nine alleged incidents between February 2017 and February 2018. They also examined thousands of emails. In the case of the sudden retirement of Admiral Moran, the service secretary Richard Spencer is now considering nominating a three star officer instead of selecting from the Navy's other four star candidates. Vice Admiral Michael Gilday, director of the Joint Staff and a former head of the Navy's Cyber Command, is expected to be nominated to the top job.

Should Kim Darroch be rewarded with a plum posting or left to retire?

Sir Kim Darroch, the now departing British ambassador in Washington and the man at the centre of what will be called The Darroch Affair, is 65 and probably happy to take on some academic posting or a think-tank role. But if the British government, whether led by Theresa May or from July 24 by Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt, has any guts they might consider handing Sir Kim a fancy appointment to honour his diplomatic career, like a governor of some far-flung British territory. He'd probably be wise to turn it down but somehow for him to retire into obscurity would mean Trump has won hands down. In the meantime what is happening with the investigation into the betrayer leaker who started all of this? Sir Simon McDonald, the head of the Foreign Office, told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee yesterday that the police are involved. This was the first confirmation that the Metropolitan Police has been called in to investigate a potential criminal offence. McDonald also revealed that only five to ten people would have seen the really relevant letters from Sir Kim which talked of Trump's ineptness. So they will have to be given the third degree, although it seems most unlikely that people on such an exclusive list would be so foolish as to leak anything to the Mail on Sunday. But they will all be quaking in their boots. More likely that a member of their staff took copies of these controversial views of the ambassador and stored them away for some future use. Sir Kim is an avid Europhile and perhaps the perpetrator of this disaster decided he wanted a replacement ambassador in Washington who is a Brexiteer. If that's true, how arrogant is that? This individual has got to be found and his career, like Sir Kim's, brought to an abrupt end.

UK ambassador to Trump's Washington falls on his sword

So that's the end of a distinguished diplomatic career for Sir Kim Darroch, our ambassador to Washington, thanks to the betrayer leaker, the Mail on Sunday, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. The leaker for acting so treacherously in a deliberate plot to damage the ambassador's reputation and Britain's relations with the United States, the Mail on Sunday for not thinking of the potential consequences of publishing the confidential emails and letters, Donald Trump for blasting off in such an outrageously rude manner against both the ambassador and Theresa May (although I have to admit he was seriously provoked) and Boris Johnson for not having the courage, as an ex-foreign secretary, to stand up for Sir Kim when he was asked in a television debate wether he would keep the ambassador in Washington if he becomes prime minister on July 24. Instead he waffled on about how important it was for the prime minister of the UK to decide who goes to Washington as Her Majesty's ambassador Yes yes, quite so. But would you support Sir Kim against Trump. No he wouldn't reply to that specific question, whereas Jeremy Hunt, his rival for Number 10, said he would keep Sir Kim in his post. In the end there was no way out for Sir Kim. He came to the only decision left to him which was to resign and save Her Majesty's government any further embarrassment. The next ambassador better watch out. If I was him I would refuse to send back any emails or private letters about my views on Trump or else do so in a code system that can only be unravelled by GCHQ, the signals intelligence centre. There are clearly too many people around now in Whitehall or in government who are prepared to breach confidentiality. Poor Sir Kim Darroch, a good bloke destroyed by an embittered traitor and a Sunday newspaper journalist. As if this country wasn't in enough trouble already with the Brexit farce!

Now Trump is turning very nasty.

Oh my goodness is Trump mad angry or what! This British ambassador to Washington stuff has really got under his skin. He is lashing out at everyone British, except for the Queen and Prince Charles. He is now calling poor Sir Kim Darroch, Our Man in DC, a "pompous fool" and "very stupid" and won't have anything to do with him. Presumably he has ordered Mike Pompeo and his team at the State Department to cold-shoulder the ambassador and strike him off the invitation list for everything. How is poor Sir Kim bearing up? We don't know of course. Trump woke up tweeting this morning and sounded off not just at Sir Kim, again, but also at Theresa May, again. He blasted her for being foolish. Has the man no manners? It's one thing to be upset by the diplomatic faux pas but it's quite another to be so damned rude at the British prime minister. Leave her alone, I say. She's coming to the end of her premiership and she doesn't deserve to be spat at by the president of the United States as she closes the door of Number 10 Downing Street for the last time. Hasn't he got better things to do with his time than write unpleasant tweets about America's closest ally? As Sir Kim's predecessors have said, he was just doing his job. I'm sure that the current US ambassador to London has written some pretty damning telegrams back to Washington about the state of play in British politics right now. Luckily for him they haven't been leaked to a Sunday newspaper. Yet. As I said in my blog yesterday, the person responsible for collating all the emails and letters and telegrams from Sir Kim to London over the last two years has caused untold damage to this country and deserves to be hounded by the police and charged with a serious breach of the Official Secrets Act. But I doubt he or she will ever be found. The leaker will be keeping very quiet but I hope he or she is feeling mortified at the damage done. But, again, I doubt that's the case. The leaker, presumbaly known to the Mail on Sunday journalist who wrote the story, must have realised that Trump would go ballistic when the confidential comments by the ambassador were published. The first thing the police should investigate is whether there is someone either in the Foreign Office in London or at the embassy in Washington or anywhere else in Whitehall with a personal grudge against Sir Kim. Or did this person actually want to cause damage to this nation's reputation and used Sir Kim's confidential emails to achieve his aim? Or perhaps he/she thought it would be fun and never thought through the consequences. But only someone with a pea brain could imagine that this whole episode would just be laughed off. I fear Trump hasn't yet finished his tirade against the British ambassador and Theresa.

British ambassador to Washington has been betrayed

Alas poor Kim Darroch he has been undone. Her Majesty's ambassador to Washington has been betrayed by some snivelling civil servant or minister who for some reason wanted to humiliate the ambassador and undermine the relationship between Britain and the United States. Sir Kim's confidential and restricted emails to London giving his personal reflections on the Trump administration - not at all complimentary - have been leaked to the Mail on Sunday and they made hay with it. In reality Sir Kim's reflections pretty well echoed what everyone else has been saying about the Trump administration in Washington - inept, chaotic, lacking any form of coordination or predictabiliy. But to have his words splashed all over a Sunday newspaper is so embarrassing that I can't see Sir Kim being allowed to stay much longer in his post. Trump has already dismissed him by saying he hadn't served his country very well. Oops! Can you imagine Sir Kim sitting in his plush office at the UK embassy in DC or at his exceptionally comfortable and palatial residence and watching the president of the United States hailing bim as a failed ambassador? I don't know Sir Kim that well but I have come across him quite a lot in the past as a journalist when he was based at the Foreign Office in London and he always seemed to me to be the perfect diplomat: calm and charming and pleasant and a good bloke, and very knowledgeable. He doesn't deserve to be betrayed by some pathetic individual who thought it would be fun to hand over the confidential emails to a female journalist who he/she knew would make huge headlines with such a story. Sir Kim, the Foreign Office says, is due to leave his post in a couple of months, so that's all right then. But actually he had hoped to stay on until the next presidential election in late 2020. I doubt that will happen now and when he leaves, all anyone will remember is how he made contemptuous comments about Trump. Thanks to the leaker and to the Mail on Sunday. I don't blame the newspaper. It's difficult to reject such juicy morsels when they are handed to you on a plate. But I wonder if the paper thought for a moment about the potential impact such a story would have on the career of a very nice British diplomat? Sir Kim was once director of press at the Foreign Office. So I guess he won't have been surprised by the way the Mail on Sunday treated the story. But he must fear that Trump will now have nothing to do with him. It's a cruel world. What if he had written confidential emails saying Trump was probably the best president in America's history? Would the Mail on Sunday have given them the same treatment? No, Sir Kim would probably have been criticised as a deluded toady. You can't win, Kim.

The Russian sub's secret missions

THE LONGER VERSION OF MY TIMES STORY YESTERDAY The Russian military call them the deep-sea Spetsnaz, a unique unit of senior officers, members of a top secret underwater intelligence service. Fourteen of these officers, known as hydronauts because their training is as tough as it is for astronauts, died in the devastating fire on board the Russian nuclear-powered submarine AS-12 “Losharik” in the Barents Sea, part of the Arctic Ocean, on July 1. Seven of them were of high rank. The fire which was not reported by the Russian government until 24 hours later has dealt a massive blow to a special operations service that relies on highly qualified personnel to carry out a multitude of tasks. These include hydrographic plotting of the Arctic Ocean, a key mission for President Putin’s ambitious plans in this region, intelligence-gathering on the world’s seabed fibre-optic cabling networks, and detection of “enemy” submarines and other vessels. The fire on the secret submarine occurred as Russia prepares to launch a floating nuclear power plant, called Akademic Lomonosov, which is due to be towed this month along the Northern Sea Route (NSR) to the Arctic town of Pevek to provide electricity for a community engaged in extracting hydrocarbons and precious stones. The nuclear plant, dubbed by Greenpeace as “a floating Chernobyl”, and the AS-12 submarine are vital components in Mr Putin’s expansion plans for the Arctic which are alarming the West. The Losharik, nicknamed after a Soviet-era cartoon horse, is one of a kind. Western defence analysts believe there may be a sister submarine. But it has never been confirmed; perhaps unsurprising since this whole Russian project is protected by the highest secrecy classification. Although the Russian authorities seem confident the Losharik can be repaired for future operations, the loss of 14 officers from the special underwater service is bound to set back the programme of secret operations. The Losharik is unique in the Russian military for a number of reasons: *It is crewed solely by officers who serve with the main directorate for deep-sea research, known as GUGI or military unit 40056, an organisation headed by Vice Admiral Aleksei Burilichev, Hero of Russia. GUGI is separate from the Russian navy. *The submarine with a displacement of around 1,000 tons, 69 metres long and seven metres wide, has a titanium hull to provide extra pressure strength. It has a high maximum speed of around 30 knots (34.5mph). * Inside, instead of a single cigar-shaped tube as with other submarines, the structure consists of six or seven interlinked spheres, significantly adding to the boat’s ability to operate at extreme depths. *It is transported to its operating location docked underneath a “mother ship”, currently modified Delta class ballistic-missile submarines no longer part of the Russian nuclear deterrence patrols. So little has been released by the Russian authorities – let alone a photograph – that a number of myths have emerged about its capabilities. It is being claimed in some of the Russian military press that the Losharik can submerge to 6,000 metres (19,685ft). However, Ridzwan Rahmat, principal defence analyst for Jane’s information group who covers the Asia-Pacific from Singapore, said the maximum depth for the Losharik was about 1,000 metres. That’s still about three times the depth of a normal submarine which can usually operate down to 200-300 metres. The Losharik is like a submerged laboratory. It is packed with ocean data-gathering equipment and advanced acoustic systems to spy on foreign submarines. It may also be fitted with robot claws to “tap” into or cut western communication cables, although Mr Rahmat said there was no evidence it had this capability. It is also a key platform for Mr Putin’s grand strategy to dominate the Arctic region as the ice melts, opening up new shipping lanes. “The underwater terrain in the Arctic is changing all the time and currents need to be measured. The Losharik is involved in collecting scientific data,” Mr Rahmat said. The United States is engaged in the same vital research with their own submarines to guage the rapid changes going on under the ice in the Arctic. Mr Putin’s strategic intentions, according to a Pentagon white paper published in May, is to turn the Arctic into an energy and minerals resource base for Russia and to control future sea routes to give Moscow a “decisive voice” in the region. The GUGI chiefs will be under pressure to get the Losharik back into operational service as rapidly as possible.

Democrats' biggest obstacle to 2020 success

Donald Trump knows that provided the economy continues to shine for him, he has one other big advantage going for him to be reelected in 2020. The majority of US presidents since the Second World War have served two terms. Being the incumbent president is a huge plus unless of course the first four years were so disastrous that everyone wants anyone else but him for the next four years. Or, if the challenger is an exceptional candidate for the White House. There have been a few of those over the years. So Trump's campaign team should be looking at history to see which presidents failed to make it for a second term in office. The relevant ones in the modern era are the following: Gerald Ford served one shortened term from 1974-1977. But his case was different. He only became president after Richard Nixon was forced to resign following the Watergate scandal. As Nxon's vice-president he automatically took over and finished off Nixon's second term of office. He was never elected as president and always seemed a reluctant commander-in-chief. He did stand for election but lost out to Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer whose soft voice and honest manner won over the voters. But then Jimmy Carter only managed one term himself. He tried and dreadfully failed to solve the US hostage crisis in Iran. He sent special forces off to rescue the 52 Americans beng held at the embassy in Tehran but the helicopters crashed in a sandstorm in the desert and the mission had to be aborted. It proved fatal for Carter's reelection campaign. His opponent also had a lot going for him. Ronald Reagan, former Hollywood B movie actor and ex-governor of California, had too much chutzpah and overwhelmed Carter. The 52 US hostages in Tehran were released the same day Carter left office! The final president who failed to serve for two terms was George HW Bush. He served from 1989 to 1993 but when he tried for reelection the economy was deteriorating and his opponent, Bill Clinton, had good looks, a charismatic personality and played the saxophone. For Trump, the economy still looks favourable. But the strongest card he has at the moment is that no one from the stable of Democratic candidates has yet stepped forward to be the obvious nominee to take on the incumbent president. Joe Biden is leading the field but is weakening by the day. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are looking great but there will need to be a superstar to beat Trump. I'm still putting my money on Kamala Harris. But Trump, being the incumbent, so far looks unlikely to follow the path of Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush.

Oops, US service chiefs could be in big trouble!

All the US service chiefs as well as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs were invited to Trump's little tanks and fighter jet party to celebrate the armed forces on the 4th of July. Only General Joseph Dunford, chairman, turned up. The rest made their excuses. Oh dear, that spells trouble. For them! It's being put about that they disagreed with having tanks going up and down because it looked as if the president was seeking political glory at a time when the focus should be on the glory of the nation. Political capital on the Capitol! So they thought that was bad news and came up with a range of excuses. The chief of the air staff General David Goldfein was apparently on leave. And what about General Mark Milley, chief of the army and nominated to be the next chairman of the joint chiefs. He had another engagement (!) and sent Lieutenant-General Joseph Martin, the incoming vice chief of staff of the army, to represent him. No sign of Admiral John Richardson, chief of naval operations, or General Robert Neller, Commandant of the Marine Corps. So they all had previous engagements? Is that a snub to the commander-in-chief or a diary error on the part of some unfortunate secretary? They probably agreed among themselves that poor old Joe Dunford would have to go while the rest of them celebrated 4th of July with their families. Sorry, with terribly important military types in a faraway barracks! Trump will get his revenge one way or another. I bet he gave Dunford a hard time. Perhaps Trump will revise his decision to nominate General Milley as Dunford's replacement and plead with Dunford to stay on until 2020. Whatever he does, those service chief chappies should be trembling in their polished boots for daring to say NO to the president's kind invitation to join him for the military parade. Watch this space.

Three weeks to go, Theresa May

Theresa May must be counting down the days. She said she was leaving a job she loved but I bet she now can't wait to get out of Number 10 Downing Street and start a new life away from the madness that is politics today. Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson, her would-be successors as prime minister, have been promising to spend so much money on defence and social services and the NHS and education and the police force that it makes you wonder where Theresa, or more likely the Chancellor Philip Hammond, has been hiding all this spare cash for so long. Well of course it's all tosh. There isn't a great tub of money to splash around. Neither Hunt nor Boris have detailed how on earth they're going to pay for all this gift-giving. It just sounds good on the TV. Hammond who really is a sour puss at the best of times has said that it will cost the taxpayer £90 billion just to "pay" for a no-deal Brexit. So if there is any spare cash somewhere it will all be absorbed into the Brexit pot and never be seen again. Certainly no Brexit dividend, like Boris likes to put it, allowing for a ton of money to be spent on hospitals, doctors, nurses, police officers and teachers. Theresa is now plotting her retirement with her husband. Well retirement as prime minister that is. Who knows she may take up a super highly-paid job in the European Commission hahaha. She must be watching all this with incredulity. Weren't these chaps part of her cabinet - Hunt still is? Don't they know about the country's dire finances? Well if they do they are ignoring it and certainly ignoring thin-lippd Hammond who is also counting the days before he gets shafted and sent to a poor home (actually of course he is very very rich and doesn't need his chancellor salary). There will be a new Chancellor of the Exchequer, either Sajid Javid, currently Home Secretary, or Matt Hancock, currently Health Secretary if Boris gets the keys to Downing Street. I expect either would be a superlatively good banker!! They will certainly be a nice change from miserable Hammond. But let's see how long it takes before all the Boris/Hunt promises fall by the wayside. The day after either enters Number 10 perhaps?

Will Iran really risk rushing for a nuclear bomb?

President Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian leader, has made it clear that whatever Trump does, he intends to increase the level of enriched uranium to any grade he deems fit. So is this the first step towards rushing for nuclear bomb material or is just Tehran saying, "We have the right to enrich uranium full stop." Technically they do have the right under international law except they are NOT allowed to head towards 90 plus per cent enrichment which is the grade required for a nuclear weapon. Also, of course, Iran agreed to a limited stockpile of enriched uranium - 300 kilograms at the low-enriched level of 3.67 per cent - under the 2015 "Obama" deal. Trump's withdrawal of the US from the signatories to that deal made today's announcement from Rouhani almost inevitable. But does Tehran really want a nuclear weapon, knowing that if it does "break out" and rush for a bomb, they will get a visit from Israeli bombers and probably US B-2s carrying deep penetration guided massive bombs. I say probably re the US because the last thing Trump wants is a war, any war anywhere. He wants to be reelected in 2020 and if there's a catastrophic war going on, with Americans dying, the Democrats could walk it to the White House. As it is, Trump seems to be pushing for an early exit of US troops from Afghanistan to get a peace deal with the Taliban. A peace deal on the Taliban's terms by the sound of it! So, droppng bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities? That's a nightmare scenario for Trump and his reelection campaign. Rouhani and the rest of the Iranian regime know all of this and will no doubt be making some careful calculations. Do they see a window of opportunity to build a bomb and get away with it? But surely someone will whisper into Rouhani's ear, "Don't forget the Israelis." Bibi Netanyahu may be in political trouble back home but a successful airstrike knocking out some of Iran's nuke plants could put him back on the map. Everything is about politics, whether in Washington, Tehran or Tel Aviv. Trump has stated categorically that Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. But what does that actually mean? This is what Rouhani and co have to take into account. Meanwhile the European signatories to the 2015 deal, Britain, Germany and France, are looking a little sick. They are desperately trying to hang on to the nuclear deal, urging Tehran to stick to the agreement, pleading with the ayatollahs not to increase enriching uranium above the 3.67 per cent required for civilian nuclear power and basically attempting to thwart Trump's antagonistic approach towards Tehran. So, further calculations for the regime in Tehran. Well, Rouhani today couldn't have been clearer. He has authorised the higher enriching process to begin and the 300-kilogram limit has now been breached. Will the enriching get to 20 per cent or go further? What is the breaking point for Trump or for Netanyahu? A small step for Tehran may be a giant step for Tel Aviv.

Trump may have to choose between John Bolton and Kim Jong-un

The North Korean regime has two distinctly contrasting views of the White House. They, or I should say, their supreme leader Kim Jong-un, love Donald Trump but they hate John Bolton, national security adviser. They think he is a warmonger. Hahaha. I always love that when a dictator who has been not so secretly developing nuclear weapons to threaten the world criticises someone else for plotting war. Anyway, it's a problem for Trump. After just returning from his "historic" handshake and smile meeting with Chairman Kim six inches over the border in North Korea, Trump has had to read a New York Times article which says he, Trump, is considering a major concession with his North Korean love partner, agreeing to a freeze of Kim's nuclear weapons pogramme in return for a lifting of some economic sanctions. Freeze, not annihilation of the whole lot. Bolton read that and exploded. Neither he nor any of his national security team had even suggested such a thing, he said, and absolutely no way was it going to happen, not while he was national security adviser. Whooops! He may have just predicted his own downfall. Trump is the Big Negotiator-in-Chief. He knows that in the end someone has to give a little in order to grab the main prize. In this case, if the New York Times story is accurate, Trump might say to Kim, "Look, fella, freeze your dodgy programme and invite the whole world in to see you've stopped, then we can talk about lifting some sanctions, and THEN, the second phase will be to dismantle all your nasty bombs. OK?" Actually, if Trump is thinking along these lines, it makes sense. The headline aim is still ridding the Korean peninsula of all nuclear weapons but to get there you need to take some lower-down-the-scale steps. But to Bolton, and to Senator Lindsey Graham, a Trump-supporter but highly critical of any proposed niceness to North Korea, this argument is anathema. It's all or nothing with them. But come on you two. Kim is not going to do a Gaddafi. The mad colonel actually agreed to get rid of all his chemical and biological and nascent nuclear stuff, probably because he genuinely thought keeping it all would eventually lead to his downfall and a grim death. Poor demented colonel, he got rid of it and it still led to his eventual downfall and a very grim death at the hands of a mob. No, Kim is not going down that path. His future, or so he thinks, is dependent on him having nuclear weapons. So there is absolutely no chance that he will do Bolton's bidding and give the whole lot up overnight and turn his country into a tourist paradise. The leaked stage-by-stage route sounds reasonable and has a better chance of success than the Bolton blockbuster approach. But of course if Trump does decide to try the phased approach, Bolton's days are numbered. It's an extraordinary thought but at some point Trump may have to choose between Chairman Kim and Bolton. I suspect Kim will win that battle.

The unusual case of Majid Khan in Guantanamo prison camp

A STORY I WROTE FOR THE TIMES BUT NOT USED: A “high-value” terrorist detainee held in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba who was hung naked by his wrists during torture interrogations by the CIA is set to be a test case for whether harsh treatment by the US intelligence agency post 9/11 can be used as mitigation in court. Majid Khan, a Pakistani and a former resident in the US, took the unprecedented step in 2012 of pleading guilty to al-Qaeda terrorist offences, agreeing to help the CIA and FBI as a witness in future terror trials in return for a reduced sentence. Sentence, expected at the time of the court case to be around 19 years in prison, was delayed while Khan waited to appear as a state witness. This has yet to happen. Now lawyers acting for Khan have asked the court to take into account the torture he suffered during his interrogation by the CIA before he decides on the sentence. US Army Colonel Douglas Watkins, chief judge at Guantanamo, is due to hear the arguments for and against on July 9. If he decides in favour of Khan’s defence counsel, it would set a precedent which could have far-reaching implications for the trial of the five terrorist suspects in Guantanamo charged with orchestrating the attacks in the US on September 11 2001, causing the death of nearly 3,000 people. Any reference to CIA torture at legal hearings and trials at the Guantanamo court is classified. A 40-second delay in the audio-visual system enables the court’s security officer to press a button to stop transmission of anything related to the CIA, the “black” sites where the enhanced interrogation took place between 2002 and 2006 and the torture methods used. Lawyers for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four accused 9/11 co-conspirators have been arguing ever since they were first brought to court at Guantanamo more than ten years ago that their treatment at the hands of the CIA should be addressed during their future trial. The prosecution, led by a brigadier-general, successfully fought against this request on the grounds that all contact between the defendants and the CIA had to remain top secret. A new judge has just taken over the 9/11 case. US Air Force Colonel Shane Cohen will face the same legal arguments. But if Judge Watkins allows for Majid Khan’s CIA treatment to impact on his sentence, Colonel Cohen will come under pressure to give a similar concession to the 9/11 defendants. “Welcome to the sewer, judge,” James Harrington, counsel for one of the 9/11 accused, told Judge Cohen last week at his opening appearance in the Guantanamo court. Underlining the potential watershed moment in the Guantanamo hearings, lawyers acting for Ammar al-Baluchi, a 9/11 suspect, have submitted a brief to the judge in the Khan case arguing that “the only appropriate remedy” was dismissal of the charge because of the “incredibly harsh conditions he was held under”. When he appeared in court in 2012, and I was there to cover it for The Times, Khan wore a blue pinstripe suit, in contrast to the 9/11 accused who always wear traditional Middle Eastern garments. He pleaded guilty to conspiring with al-Qaeda to assassinate a former Pakistan president and to being a courier for the terror group. He is held, for his own safety, in a special annexe detention site at Guantanamo. There are now only 40 detainees at Guantanamo compared with 780 held at the peak of the camp’s inmate population. Seventeen of them are regarded as “high-value” detainees, thought to be retaining key intelligence about the al-Qaeda organisation. They are housed in the top secret Camp 7 jail. Khan is the only convicted prisoner.