The Alice in Wonderland political solution to Trump and Boris

I have commented before how the United States and United Kingdom are going through the same sort of political breakdown, particularly at the top. Trump and Boris are both fighting for their political lives and the two countries are veering towards catastrophe. I have predicted nevertheless, that Trump will survive and will probably win a second term in 2020, and Boris will scrape through the Brexit and leadership crises and emerge the other side still as prime minister. But let's take a look at an extreme scenario in which neither of these predictions bear fruit. Here is the most radical outcome and you could say an Alice in Wonderland situation that could materialise even though it seems highly unlikely. But not impossible. Let's take the US first. The Democrat impeachment drumbeat gets louder and louder and more revelations emerge about secret and devastatingly embarrasssing conversations between Trump and other foreign leaders. The Ukraine phone chat had been archived into a very secret storage site with special codes, and it seems that Trump calls to Putin and to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, that nice gentleman from Saudi Arabia, are also put into this top secret treasure trove. Putin is so alarmed that his talks with Trump might come to light that the Kremlin has already made it clear that they must remain secret. Ooooh, there must be some lively stuff there I guarantee. And heaven knows what sort of promises Trump made to his friend, the Crown Prince. Could Trump have ever said on his secret phone, "Don't worry about the Khashoggi bloke. I hate the media too." The Democrat-run House committees investigating impeachment allegations would love to get their hands on these transcripts I have no doubt. Anyway under the Alice in Wonderland scenario, the cry for impeachment becomes so overwhelming that when the House sends it on to the Senate, a dozen or so Republican senators decide to jump ship and support the Democrats. And somewhere along the line Vice President Mike Pence gets caught in the murky discoveries and his chance of replacing Trump as president for the rest of the four-year term is scuppered. The Senate trial votes for impeachment by a small majority and Donald Trump is marched from office. Mike Pence goes with him, disgraced in some way or other. All hail President Nancy Pelosi, third in line to the throne as Speaker of the House under the dear old US constitution. President Pelosi rules until January 19 2021 and then hands over to president-designate Elizabeth Warren. Right that's the US done. Now I turn to the UK. Boris struggles as more and more controversies, not least his private life, get thrust onto the front pages. He fails to get a Brexit deal in time for the October 31 deadline and after a revolt within his cabinet he is ousted as prime minister by an opposition plot. As part of the plot, for the few weeks before a general election can be held, former deputy leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, agrees to become caretaker prime minister of a national unity government. The day she moves into Number 10, Harriet Harman gets a phone call from President Nancy Pelosi. "Hya, Harriet, how you doing? Nancy here. We girls must stick together."

Should the identity of the CIA whistleblower in Ukrainegate be revealed?

Donald Trump is desperate to know the identity of the CIA whistleblower who made a formal complaint about what he or she heard when the president made a phone call in July to President Zelensky, the Ukrainian leader, and asked him to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. These must be terrifying days for this CIA intelligence analyst. He/she was so shocked by the implications of that phone call which I assume he/she either listened to as part of the job or had a full transcript of the conversation that he/she felt it was important to pursue the matter to the correct authorities. First this individual went to the CIA legal counsel to seek guidance but extraordinarily the intelligence service counsel contacted a lawyer in the White House to ask his opinion. Why on earth did he do that, immediately spilling the beans to the administration that there was trouble ahead? The would-be whistleblower became uncomfortable that his/her reservations about the lawfulness of the Trump phone call to a foreign leader were not being given proper weight. Indeed not being properly handled. So he/she then made his/her complaint to the inspector-general of the intelligence services. The formal complaint was leaked. That in itself is seriously worrying for any intelligence officer who feels it is his/her duty to raise issues of propriety against the president of the United States. Now we have a Democrat-run impeachment inquiry and already the inspector-general of the intelligence services, one Michael Atkinson, has been summoned to give evidence to the House Intelligence Committee in a closed session. Will Atkinson come under pressure to reveal the name of the whistleblower? Will he give in to the pressure and provide the name? Will the name then be leaked to The New York Times or Washington Post or to the White House? Will he or she then be villified by Trump and the White House as a Democrat-supporting traitor? Yes, this will be a worrying time for the whistleblower. There is no question in my mind that the identity of this intelligence analyst has to remain secret and must never be leaked. Atkinson and the CIA as a whole have a duty to protect this individual. Otherwise the whole system under which intelligence officers have a right to raise concerns about suspected acts of impropriety will collapse. I do not imagine for a moment that this individual made his/her complaint because he/she is a paid-up member of the Democratic party and thought it would be a great way of embarrassing the president. The intelligence officers I have come across on both sides of the Atlantic in my time as Defence Editor and Pentagon Correspondent for The Times I consider to be dedicated to their profession and patriots. If this CIA analyst felt it was necessary to raise concerns about that July phone call, it would have been for professional, not for political, reasons. If his/her name does come out it will be an outrage and will have far-reaching repercussions for the whole of the US intelligence community.

I have no confidence in a no-confidence vote

So the opposition political parties are now planning a no-confidence vote in the Boris Johnson government next week. Boris no longer has a majority of any kind and in fact if the 21 Tory MPs who were effectively expelled from the Conservative party for failing to support Boris, vote with the opposition, Boris will lose. He may refuse to go but that's another issue. The main thing is that whether Boris walks off into the sunset or not, does ANYONE in the House of Commons have a clue about what to do about Brexit? The answer is no!!! All that most MPs say is that they don't want a no-deal Brexit and they don't want to leave the EU on October 31 unless there IS a deal. But despite the claim today that the Boris government is going to table some strong concrete proposals to the EU on Monday, I simply do not believe that a new deal, any deal in fact, is going to be approved by parliament. Not just because the deal is bound to contain some of the same old problems - Northern Ireland, customs union etc - but because any deal will mean that the UK will be out of the EU but still subject to its regulations without any say in the matter now or in the future. In other words, no seat at the table, no decision-making powers, just obedient servants to whatever the other 27 EU leaders decide. I have predicted before that Boris WILL get a last-minute deal, and parliament, so exhausted by anger and violent language and despair, will just vote for it to make absolutely sure that Boris doesn't revert to his no-deal exit on October 31. That still might be what happens but I'm beginning to worry that compromise in this current House of Commons is impossible. Now it's all about ousting Boris and putting a caretaker prime minister into Number 10 Downing Street to hold the reigns until there's a general election, and asking the EU to extend the October 31 deadline to January. They can't do either of these things if Boris gets a deal and presents it triumphantly to parliament. Parliament will turn its back on Boris. For the Liberal Democrats and the Remainers in the Conservative and Labour parties, if there's the slightest chance that the UK can stay in the EU - revoking Article 50 - then they have to fight to get rid of Boris who will never support Remain, block no-deal AND prevent Jeremy Corbyn from becoming caretaker prime minister. It's a big challenge for them but not impossible. If they approve a Boris/EU deal, the UK will never be able to stay in the EU. Their dream of overturning the 2016 referendum result will be over for ever. So the no-confidence vote next week, if it happens, is going to be an Apocalyptic Moment for everyone. If Boris wins he will stick rigidly to the October 31 deadline. This is what government adverts on radio are saying every day to businesses: "Prepare to leave the EU on October 31". If Boris loses and shuts himself away in Number 10, refusing to come out, no one and I mean no one will know what to do.

The US and UK heading for chaos

The context may be totally different but the story is the same on either side of the Atlantic Ocean: The United States and the United Kingdom, both divided more than ever before, are heading for a chaotic future. Trump and Boris are two peas in the same pod. Both will fight their corner to the death but they are surrounded by angry, determined people who want them OUT or imprisoned or sent to live in Guatemala. Sorry Guatemala. As a result, normal political life, whatever that is these days, is going to come to a halt. Trump will spend all his waking hours trying to stop his opponents from booting him out of office on misdemeanour charges, and Boris is already spending every waking hour trying to stay prime minister AND take the UK out of the European Union by October 31. Nothing else matters now and so nothing else will be achieved. The two countries will grind to a halt. Congress and the House of Commons are in uproar. The similarities are endless. All we will hear about in the US between now and the 2020 election in November is the word impeachment. It will drive everything, from budget battles to the presidential campaigning. And in the UK, at least for the next three months it's all going to be about the survival or non-survival of the Boris government, and leaving or not leaving the EU. The prospect of all this anger and frustration and uncertainty is dire to say the least. As I have predicted before, I think both Trump and Boris will survive but both countries will be left exhausted and disillusioned. I have attended the funeral today of a lovely young Times journalist, she was just 34, whose life and career were cruelly cut short after she was hit by a motorbike while walking along a pavement. Such a tragic event for her family, fiance, friends and colleages puts things into a different perspective. Nevertheless the people who govern us have a lot to answer for. There is too much anger and hatred around. Congress and the House of Commons have ceased to be places where you can find generosity of spirit, compassion, or any sign of inspired and inspiring leadership. It is a sorry state of affairs.

What's going on in the legendary US Navy Seals community?

FULL VERSION OF MY TIMES STORY TODAY WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIALLY CUT: Two senior highly decorated US Navy Seals who were fired three weeks ago have demanded an investigation by the Pentagon, accusing their commanding officer of leading “by tirade”. In a long list of complaints to back up their appeal to be reinstated in the undercover naval unit, Commander Edward Mason and Command Master Chief (CMC) Hugh Spangler alleged they were the victims of “flagrant abuses of power”. Their sacking, due to “loss of confidence” in their leadership during classified combat missions, was the latest blow to the reputation and prestige of the US special operations unit which acquired legendary status when members of Seal Team 6 flew covertly into Pakistan in 2011 and killed Osama bin Laden at his secret compound near Abbottabad. The two former Seals have filed a formal complaint to the Pentagon’s inspector-general against Rear Admiral Collin Green, commander of Naval Special Warfare Command. They and another officer who was also fired, were the leaders of Seal Team 7, serving in Iraq. This was the same unit which came under the spotlight after Special Operations Chief Eddie Gallagher, one of the most decorated of all Seal Team 7 commandos, was acquitted at a court martial in July of murdering a 12-year-old captured Isis fighter in Iraq in 2017 and shooting civilians. President Trump tweeted his congratulations on the day after the acquittal. However, Special Operations Chief Gallagher was found guilty of posing for a photograph next to the dead body of the Isis prisoner, and he was recommended for demotion which has yet to be confirmed higher up the chain of command. The case provoked recriminations within the Seals community. Admiral Green came under pressure from the head of the US Navy to clear up Seal Team 7. Commander Mason took over Seal Team 7 after Gallagher had left. According to the formal complaint, Admiral Green accused him of failing to address the “Gallagher Effect” on the unit. Commander Mason and CMC Spangler, his most senior enlisted Seal Team 7 leader and a veteran of 25 combat tours, alleged Admiral Green had made them “expendable scapegoats”. Admiral Green produced “a toxic plan” to inject new discipline into Seal Team 7, and “yelled at subordinates as he scrambled to save his career”, according to the 17-page document sent to the Pentagon inspector-general (IG). The admiral was accused of engaging in “leadership by tirade”. The two sacked Seals and the other officer, Lieutenant-Commander Luke Im, whose name is not attached to the complaint, were told they were being axed because their leadership failures led to a breakdown in order and discipline. One unit was sent home from Iraq for drinking alcohol, a breach of navy rules. Jeremiah Sullivan, a San Diego lawyer representing the two ex-Seals, said they were both heroes who had only recently been awarded top marks for their leadership skills and had been praised by fellow Seal commanders in Iraq. A US Navy spokesman said: “It would be inappropriate to discuss a complaint submitted for consideration and potential review by the inspector-general. We take allegations of misconduct seriously and the IG investigates all credible allegations.”

Nancy Pelosi has made the worst decision of her career

She held off for months, saying no no no to her fellow Democrats' demands to start impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump. Then up pops Ukrainegate and Nancy Pelosi gets a rush of blood to her head and she says yes yes yes, let's impeach the president. I predict it will all end in tears. Her instincts about impeachment over the last year or so have been absolutely right. She was against it because she knew they didn't have enough of a prima facie case to bring the president down. The Russiagate stuff, collusion with Moscow etc and obstruction of justice, was never going to work especially when special counsel Robert Mueller concluded there was no case to answer, and all the other potential ingredients for an impeachment, like the president's failure to publish his tax returns, the plans to build a Trump Tower in Moscow and allegations of abuse of office, were all wishy-washy stuff that didn't amount to a whole lot, especially the Moscow Trump Tower plan which never happened. So why did Pelosi think Ukrainegate as I have called it was the answer to the Democrats' dreams? Ok, on the face of it, it looks distinctly dodgy. The president seeking the help of a foreign leader to dig dirt on a man likely to be his rival for the presidency at the next election. But Trump is brilliant at dismissing this sort of stuff as hogwash and innocent and harmless chatting and has offered to publish a transcript of his conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine in which he suggested it might be a good idea to investigate Joe Biden's son, Hunter, and the oil company he worked for in Ukraine that was suspected of being involved in corruption. Well, that now seems to have happened and there's a transcript to read which seem to stand up Trump's argument that it was all very chatty and not in the least threatening. No mention about withholding military aid unless Zelensky investigated Biden. But even if more comes out about the phone chat and other calls Trump had with Zelensky, and even if the intelligence agency whistleblower emerges from the woodwork to give evidence about what he or she heard the president say on the phone, will it amount to a row of beans? Far more likely is that Joe Biden's bid for the presidency will be destroyed when details emerge about exactly what he did when he was vice president and put pressure on the Kiev government to sack the prosecutor who was investigating corruption at his son's place work in Ukraine. And what, one might ask, was Hunter Biden doing being paid thousands of dollars as a director of a company in Ukraine and also being party to a $1.5 billion donation from a Chinese businessman to a private equity company on which he was also a director? It may be all innocent and above board but in the nasty game of politics, Trump is going to play this one till it blows up in father Biden's face. Joe Biden could be the biggest loser in the Democrats' push for impeachment. This will be good news for Trump because then Senator Elizabeth Warren will win the Democratic nomination and I really don't see her beating Trump because she is seen as a socialist, however centrist she tries to become. Thus Trump will win reelection in 2020. So, Nancy Pelosi, do you still think it was a good idea to back impeachment? Impeachment of Trump will fail, Nancy Pelosi will fail, and the Democrats will be blamed by the country for besmirching the status of the presidency. Trump, I suspect, is delighted by the call for impeachment. He will fight it all the way and it won't do his 2020 reelection campaign any harm at all. Just the opposite.

Now what does Boris do?

Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has been found guilty of an unawful act by 11 judges on the UK Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. This is deadly serious stuff. It's unprecedented. It's resignation stuff. It's fall of government stuff. It's being shackled and taken to the Tower of London stuff. Or is it? Trump has shown the way. He has stuffed the US Supreme Court with right-wingers who hold the balance of legal power and he normally gets what he wants from the judges when justices lower down the scale in district courts dare to find against him on his favourite policies, like on immigration and border walls. But in this country judges are not political appointments. They are judges through and through and the Supreme Court in its wisdom has ruled unanimously that Prime Minister Boris acted unlawfully by suspending parliament for five weeks, allegedly to prepare for the government's future policy agenda but really to stop MPs poking their noses into his Brexit affairs and trying to stop him from taking the UK out of the EU on October 31 without a deal. There is no one else Boris can appeal to, unless of course he turns to the European Court of Justice hahahaha! So should he resign? Will he resign? The judges, led by the sombre Lady Hale, effectively said Boris had lied to the Queen. In other words he and his merry men told Her Majesty that they needed to prorogue parliament to prepare for the Queen's Speech ceremony on October 14 when the monarch reads out the government's parliamentary agenda for the next session. It's true, parliament has been suspended before for this very reason. But never for FIVE weeks. Boris told the Queen a fib. So surely he must resign to save the monarchy? Well no. Boris is made of different stuff. He's an Etonian. He won't back down because he thinks he is right to have done what he did. Before the Supreme Court judgment he said he wouldn't resign if he lost and I assume therefore that he won't resign. But lots of politicians are calling for him to do so, especially Jeremy Corbyn who can at last feel the smell of power in his nostrils. Boris can't ignore the ruling by the Supreme Court which, incidentally, was a foregone conclusion. So I guess parliament will return immediately. But then what? Will Corbyn put forward a vote of no confidence in the Boris government? Will he dare to do that if there is a chance he will lose the vote? Boris is going to hang on and on until he reaches that deadline of October 31. He will get his deal with the EU, parliament will approve. There will be a general election soon after and Labour will be demolished. Then Boris, assuming he wins the election and not the Liberal Democrats or the Nigel Farage Brexit Party, will look back to today and think to himself, the Supreme Court ruling was not such a big deal after all. But I'm not ready yet to put money on any of the above predictions.

Trump, Joe Biden and Ukrainegate

The Ukrainegate story is marching on but Donald Trump seems quite relaxed about it. Why? Because he thinks Joe Biden, chief rival for the presidency in 2020, has something to hide which he doesn't want investigated. Trump says Biden, when he was vice president, tried to get the Ukrainian government to sack a prosecutor who was investigating corruption in a gas company where son Hunter Biden was a director OR face having $1 billion in aid withheld by the US. Oops that would be naughty if true. Sounds like blackmail. But the fact that Trump thinks it's true doesn't necessarily mean there's a cast-iron case against Joe Biden. Just like there doesn't seem to be a cast-iron case against Trump for being involved in similar skulduggery with the Ukrainian president - ringing President Zelensky eight times and asking him to uncover dirt on Hunter Biden re gas company corruption story. Trump is so relaxed about his side of the Ukrainegate scandal that he has even suggested publishing the transcript of his phone conversations with Zelensky. Ukraine has apparently referred to these conversations as "nice". Did Trump mention Joe and/or Hunter Biden in these calls? Yes he did. But Trump says he wasn't trying to harm Biden, just felt the need to have a chat to Zelensky about stuff, including Biden. Who knows what all that means. But could Joe Biden have threatened Ukraine to withhold aid unless this prosecutor was fired? I think we, well the American people, need to know. Mike Pompeo, secretary of state, and Steven Mnuchin, treasury secretary, have both come out and said publishing private conversations between world leaders would set a bad precedent and was not a good idea. But if Trump has raised the possibility, perhaps we will get to read the fascinating sort of things the president of the United States and the president of Ukraine chat about. Possibly just as interesting would be to see the transcript of the phone call between Joe Biden and his Ukrainian counterpart. And, by the way, did Obama know about it? Did he approve? Or did Biden keep it all quiet? Indeed, did it happen at all? Trump says it did so he must have seen something or heard something. Was there a worried intelligence service officer listening in to the Biden call and, if so, did he make representations to the inspector-general of the intelligence community? Like in the present situation with Trump and Zelensky. There is a lot more to be uncovered here. A Deep Throat may need emerge!

The Iranian leader has got such cheek!

President Hassan Rouhani is thought to be a moderate, if that word means anything in Iran. Although I suppose compared with the leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps - the other government in Tehran - he is not a wild radical extremist. But he has such cheek to accuse the United States of undermining security in the Gulf by deploying more troops to Saudi Arabia. Might I point out please, Mr Rouhani, that the ony reason Trump agreed to send a few hundred more troops to your hated enemy, Saudi Arabia, is because you launched a bunch of armed drones and cruise missiles to hit two Saudi oil installations, thus reducing the world's oil supply by five per cent. I mean really, who is responsible for destroying security in the Gulf? Don't you know what the hell is going on in the name of your government, Mr Rouhani? Ok, so there's still no prima facie proof that the drones and missiles came from southern Iran rather than Yemen. But you have got to have failed geography at school big time if you don't know the difference between north and south. The missiles and drones came from the north or northwest, not from the south. So unless the Houthi rebels in Yemen took all their rockets and missiles on a boat journey to Iran before launching them at the Saudi oil plants, it must have been Iran, or more specifically the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), that struck Saudi Arabia. It's simple geography, Mr Rouhani. And for him to say it was all America's fault is so much bunkum. I am assuming that the troops being sent to Saudi Arabia will come from air-defence batteries of the US Air Force and will man up a couple of extra Patriot anti-missile units to make sure they cover all the angles to avoid any future attempt by Iran to sneak missiles and drones in behind the backs of their existing Patriots that are facing south. It's the least Trump could do, especially after he seems to have decided, for the moment anyway, not to retaliate militarily to last weekend's strikes in Saudi Arabia by showering Iranian bases with Tomahawks and precision-guided air-launched bombs. The Wall Street Journal today is saying that Houthi rebel sources are warning of more Iranian attacks in the future. Would Rouhani dare to have another go at Saudi Arabia, just because the royal kingdom has agreed to have American troops on its soil (sorry, sand). Do you know, they might just launch another attack to tempt Trump into military retaliation. It's the sort of psychological argument which I can easily envisage the IRGC making. "Trump is afraid of us, so let's bash him again and see what he does and whether he has the balls to hit us. If he does, then, great, we'll wage war and show the Great Satan what we're made of." If Rouhani is this so-called moderate, will he stop the IRGC from launching another attack? He may try but I predict he will fail, and another attack will happen, not necessarily against Saudi Arabia but somewhere in the Gulf. And then let's see whether Rouhani tries again to blame the US for stirring the pot.

Ukrainegate is building up into a huge scandal

Slowly slowly, every day, Ukrainegate is turning into a massive political scandal. Trump rang the UKrainian president on a number of occasions "asking" him to investigate Joe Biden's son and his business activities in UKraine, working for a gas company which is suspected of corruption. Now why on earth would Trump do that if he didn't want the Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky to dig up some dirt on Biden's son to embarrass the leading contender for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. I can't think of any other reason. So Trump is scared of being beaten by him in 2020 and wants a foreign power to investigate a Biden family matter. Again, I can't think of any other reason for the president to make EIGHT phone calls to Zelenski, and then, to top it up, he instructs his charming personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to make similar representations. Giuliani, in a way that sums up his lawyer expertise, denied that he had done any such thing during a television interview and then a few minutes later blatantly said of course he had, as if that was the most natural thing to do. Well done Giuliani, another special confession in your long history of confessions that aren't supposed to be confessions but just sort of matter-of-fact truth-telling. The whole thing only came into the public domain when someone in the intelligence services was so worried about the implications of the Trump/Zelenski phone calls that he or she made a formal whistleblower complaint to the inspector general of the intelligence community, and then it was leaked to the press. Of course. Trump has dismissed the whole thing as if it was quite nornal for the president of the United States to badger a foreign leader to carry out a job for him that is aimed at knocking his main rival for the presidency in the next election. It is breathtaking and alarming and quite frightening and brings back the 2016 election like a train smashing into the buffers. Then it was Russiagate. Did Trump and his campaign team collude with the Russians to spread dirt about Hillary Clinton? Trump denied it and after a long investigation special counsel Robert Mueller agreed and exonerated him. But Russia was up to something, we know that. The Moscow intelligence boys were doing their best to interfere in the elections, apparently to make sure that Trump won, and not Hillary whom they hated. Ok, no Trump and co involvement, but fishy as hell. Now here we are approaching the next election, and both Trump and his personal lawyer have breasily rejected Ukraingate as fake news. Trump has refused to say what he talked to Zelensky about, but he did admonish reporters for not investigating corruption in UKraine. So there's a hinted link to the Biden junior gas company alleged corruption allegation. Then out comes dear old Giuliani who says yes yes yes he was looking into Biden junior's goings-on in Ukraine "but so what!" We are still in the early stages of Ukrainegate but the Democrats are getting very interested, there's yet more talk of impeachment, Hillary has tweeted astonishment, and some Republicans must be wondering what the hell is happening and should they any longer support Trump. But as I have written many times, this is all Washington drama. Outside the capital and Capitol, Trump base supporters probably don't even know where Ukraine is and certainly won't have heard of Zelensky but will think that if Joe Biden has a son working in this far-off country that apparently used to be part of the Soviet Union, there must be something dodgy and will stick to their beloved president even closer.

The Trump Doctrine is no wars please

Now that Donald Trump has announced yet more sanctions against Iran, this time against its central bank, as opposed to launching military strikes against the base from where the armed drones and cruise missles aimed at Saudia Arabia are supposed to have come in southwestern Iran, we have finally grasped what Trump's doctrine is. The Trump Doctrine is no wars please. He wants the US to be tough and strong and all-powerful, deterring every potential hostile nation from doing anything malign just by deploying an aircraft carrier strike group close to their coastline. What he doesn't want to do is actually order the fighter jets onboard the carrier to launch missiles at enemy targets. Power projection by sheer presence rather than by sheer firepower. For a superpower, and there is still only one on the planet, this is a pretty odd doctrine. America's potential enemies, paticularly Iran right now, must get confused. They expect the US bombers to arrive but there is no sign of them. In fact by now Tehran must be pretty confident that they have got wise to Trump. He's harsh on the rhetoric but keeps the generals and admirals tucked away with their hands tied behind their backs. The fact that Iran felt confident enough to warn that any attempt by the US to mount military action against Iranian targets would lead to all-out war tells you quite a lot about the psychology going on between the US president and the Tehran leaders. They don't think Trump will ever attack them. All he will do is impose more and more sanctions. So they will take risks, they will not be cowed, they will put two fingers up to Trump and go on as before. Tehran thinks it's winning the psychological war. And they're probably right. But I doubt Trump will worry about that. He wants to be reelected in 2020 and he is not going to do anything that will spoil his chances. He told his political popular base that he didn't want the US engaging in any more wars, especially in the Middle East, so almost whatever Iran does next he is going to avoid pressing the military button. Of course avoiding more wars in the Middle East is a good policy. But there are dangers too. If Trump backs down every time, allowing Iran to shoot down America's most expensive drone, the Global Hawk, doing nothing of any real consequence when they send a flurry of armed drones and cruise missiles to hit Saudi oil installations, then the risk is every nasty leader in the world will think Trump is weak and afraid of military action, and they will seek to turn this knowledge to their advantage. The Trump Doctrine of no wars is fine but it strengthens the hand of those who want to disperse evil and hatred and death.

Would a Jeremy Corbyn government destroy the special relationship with the US?

John Bolton hasn't taken long to criticise Trump and his foreign policies post his sacking as national security adviser. According to Politico, Bolton attended a private gathering of same-minded people on Wednesday and was not slow in piling on the attacks, mostly about what he sees as the disaster policies of being nice to North Korea and attempting to win around Iran. Both policies, he said, would fail because all Kim Jong-un and President Hassan Rouhani wanted was to get the US to lift sanctions against their countries. He's probably right but Trump is determined to push ahead with these twin ideas. Bolton also said, according to Politico who spoke to one of the attendees, that if Trump had authorised military retaliation for the shooting down of the $220 million US Global Hawk drone over the Gulf in June, perhaps there wouldn't have been the drone and cruise missile attack against the Saudi oil installations at the weekend. Trump pulled back from attacking Iran over the drone shootdown saying it would have been disproportionate. I fear Bolton may be right with this too. However, what struck me as interesting about his "private" comments at the "private" meeting was Bolton's remark that if Jeremy Corbyn became prime minister of the United Kingdom it would spell doom for the special relationship between America and Britain. I don't know whether that is accurate but it may well be so. Corbyn and Trump together would be like two people suffering from severe deafness. Corbyn wouldn't even be bothered about the special relationship, he'd be far too busy renationalising the railways and having cosy chats with trade union leaders at Number 10 about how to redistribute the country's wealth to the workers. Corbyn on the other hand has been around a long time. So I assume he knows that the special relationship is more about two things: we share the same language and we share all, or most, of intelligence stuff. Plus the US allows us to have its Trident D5 ballistic missiles to put into the Royal Navy's four deterrent submarines. If Corbyn were to screw up the intelligence and Trident relationship with the US then we would all be in serious trouble. But Corbyn hates Britain's independent nuclear deterrent - unlike most past Labour leaders, with the exception of Michael Foot- and probably thinks US intelligence is all skewed by the White House to suit Trump's needs and biases. So Bolton is almost certainly right. A Corbyn government would be fatal for Washington/London relations.

Trump goes for an unknown as his national security adviser

Mike Pompeo, US secretary of state, is already one of the most powerful people in the Trump administration. But now he has climbed a notch higher up the ladder in the business of advising the president. He has persuaded Trump to appoint one of HIS officials to be the next national security adviser. Robert O'Brien, a very clever lawyer and serious Republican and the State Department's expert in hostage negotiations, is to become Trump's fourth national security adviser, following the abrupt departure of John Bolton. He's a Pompeo man through and through. So definitely one up for Pompeo, especially after the falling out with Bolton. He and Bolton started off sounding like each other. They both, for example, had a thing about Iran. Pompeo, from his CIA days, knew or said he knew that Iraq was cheating with its suspected clandestine nuclear weapons programme. Even after the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was signed which allowed for verification of Iranian nuclear plants, Pompeo said they were cheating and fooling everyone. Bolton always felt the same way. Pompeo and Bolton were two tough cookies together standing on either side of Trump and whispering into his ears about the malevolence of the Tehran regime. Trump didn't need any persuading which was why he withdrew the US from the 2015 deal. But Pompeo I think was better at reading the runes in the White House than his Cold War warrior compatriot. Bolton plugged away with his own right-wing views on the world while Pompeo realised that Trump wanted to do different things, even crazy things, like talk to Kim Jong-un, North Korean Rocket Man, and therefore became more circumspect with his advice. Bolton had rows with him and wasn't slow in demonstrating his opposition to the North Korea policy to Trump. So Bolton got shafted and Pompeo reigns supreme. Now his man O'Brien is getting the top security job in the White House and the two of them will be like Tweedledum and Tweedledee, no offence intended. The other names on the shortlist for the national security adviser job were a mixed bunch of individuals, none of them in the super high-profile class, like Bolton. Probably the best of them was Fred Fleitz, former chief of staff to Bolton with a long career behind him in the CIA and Defence Intelligence Agency. But I guess his close connection to Bolton somewhat mired his chances of getting the job. So it's lawyer O'Brien who steps into Bolton's shoes. Good luck.

Trump stuck between war and diplomacy with Iran

The US is rapidly gathering evidence to try and prove that it was Iran and not Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen who fired armed drones and cruise missiles at the two Saudi oil plants at the weekend. One US official is already being quoted on CBS as saying they have pinpointed the location of the base fron where the drones and missiles were launched. In southern Iran. We shall see. Pinpointng the launch of a ballistic missile is relatively straightforward but plotting the course of a low-flying cruise missile or drone is not nearly so easy. But if this US official is authoritatively saying a southern Iranian base was where it had all started from, then the world will need to see the evidence. If it's 100 per cent true and the international community, including Russia and China, believe it to be accurate, then watch out Iran. There will be retaliation of some sort. The trouble for Trump is that he has this yearning to do a Kim Jong-un with Hassan Rouhani. In other words hold a love-in summit somewhere nice with the Iranian president and talk man-to-man about how important it is for Iran to be loved and respected as part of this planet and to stop being horrible and malevolent and violent and odious and domineering. Such a wonderful idea!! But if Trump is told by his national security advisers that for the sake of world stability and America's reputation and the future of those nice Saudis, a military strike of some significance should be launched on the drone and cruise missile base in southern Iraq, then what does he do? Because sure as hell if the US gets involved in a bombing operation against Iran, he can give up for ever having his longed-for summit with Rouhani. It was a pretty long shot anyway but Trump truly believes in his skills to woo the most awful people back to sanity. So bomb Iran or stick to diplomacy? If it's to be bombing then there is no question the proof of Iran's guilt for the Saudi oil plant attacks has to be copper-bottomed. Will Russia and China give their support? I seriously doubt it. And bombing always has unintended consequences. Oh dear, thank goodness I'm not president of the United States!

Iran grabs its moment after John Bolton sacking

If it's proven that Iran was behind the multiple armed drone attacks on two Saudi Arabian oil facilities it represents one of the most outrageous acts ever committed by this current or any previous Tehran regime. What on earth do they think they're doing? It's such a blatant signal to Washington that it almost makes you think they want to be attacked by the US military. I think the most malevolent members of the regime, not a million miles aways from the Republican Guards Corps, decided that after Trump's sacking of John Bolton, his national security adviser and the biggest anti-Iran hawk in his cabinet, now was the time to be bold and strike out just to see what Trump minus Bolton would do. Because you can be sure Bolton would have urged Trump to strike back with a huge onslaught on Iranian targets. But with only an acting national security adviser probably taking a more cautious line, perhaps Trump would be less bellicose and look for a way out. In which case, huge victory for Tehran and a blow to Trump's reputation as a tough warrior president. The fact that Iran is vociferously denying involvement in the drone attacks is all part of the game, to try and confuse Trump's decision-making. The satellite images are pretty clear. The drones came from one direction - north of Saudia Arabia, either Iraq or Iran, not south of Saudia Arabia from Yemen, despite the claims of responsibility by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. Drones lanched from Yemen would have a long way to go to reach their targets, whereas from Iraq or Iran it would be more practical. So no one believes Iran when it claims innocence. What makes the attack so outrageous is that Trump has been offering to talk to President Hassan Rouhani and there were hints that some sort of meeting might be possible with the Iranian leader at the UN General Assembly. Assuming Rouhani did not order the drone strikes (?!), then the head honchos of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps probably dreamt up the drone strikes to make sure the Tehran president stopped thinking about ever meeting with Trump. This was a massive spoiler operation. Trump now has to face the fact that if he backs down, as he did after Iran shot down an American Global Hawk drone over the Gulf in June, and puts off any military retaliation, the Revolutionary Guard Corps will triumph. This is a dangerous week for the US president.

Could there be a Northern Ireland solution to the Brexit impasse?

There has been much talk about a watering down of the infamous Irish backstop clause in the three-times-rejected Theresa May withdrawal agreement for the UK to leave the EU. The main obstacle has been Arlene Foster and her nine other Democratic Unionist party of Northern Ireland colleagues who have refused point blank ever to consider anything which might mean their province is somehow more attached to the EU than any other part of the United Kingdom. Absolutely point blank. No No No!! Theresa May got round this huge obstruction by agreeing to allow the whole of the United Kingdom to remain in the EU's customs union so that there was never any question of imposing border checks between north and south of the island of Ireland. At the time it seemed the only way out. But of course parliament hated it because it meant the UK, after leaving the EU, would still be stuck like a Kafka novel scenario inside the EU for ever. Well, inside its customs union, and as a result the UK would be unable to go seeking wonderful trade deals outside the EU, such as the United States, because we would still be governed by EU trade regulations. Ever since then we've been back to square one and whenever any politician, especially Boris Johnson, hints that the Irish backstop should go go go, Arlene Foster with her implacable face turns up on TV to denounce any such move, whether it be removing the backstop or watering it down or rephrasing it. Yet here we are now focusing on this very issue again and, apparently Boris is revisiting the idea of having a Northern Ireland-only arrangement while the rest of the UK remains totally outside the EU customs union. The EU has responded with cautious enthusiasm that this could break the deadlock and lead to a deal after all. Boris keeps on coming out and saying he's hopeful of getting a deal and it's largely based on this idea of a special arrangement for Northern Ireland. The Times newspaper even reported that the DUP was now moving slowly towards supporting such an idea and that this meant the Big Breakthrough could be upon us. But lo and behold up pops Ms Foster and says, for the millionth time, No No No. No watering down, no special arrangement. No border checks on the Irish Sea. No nothing. Northern Ireland HAD to be treated the same as every other region in the UK. Behind the scenes I'm sure Ms Foster is engaged in all kinds of deal-making. Perhaps in exchange for a huge amount of money for Northern Ireland she might contemplate something other than No No No. I have no idea whether this is true but I do recall that Theresa May agreed for the Treasury to dish out £1 billion to Northern Ireland in exchange for the DUP's guarantee to support her minute-majority government. That was pretty blatant bribery. This is very different now because the DUP is adamant it won't allow the province to have anything to do with the EU's regulations once the UK has left the union. But there HAS to be a watering down of the Irish backstop if Boris is going to get his deal and stop Jeremy Corbyn from ousting him from power. Ms Foster knows that more than anyone, so could there be a fudge in the making? All the whispers from within the government and the EU suggest this is exactly what is happening. Hmmmm, we'll see.

US Air Force crews enjoy Trump's Turnberry hospitality

There are some stories which bring a smile to my face. Recently amid all the gloom of Brexit and a key sacking from the White House (John Bolton), along came the revelation that US Air Force transport crews using Prestwick airport near Glasgow for refuelling are taken off by bus to Turnberry golf club to stay the night or two at Trump's Scotland resort. So Trump benefiting financially from having air force crews paying for rooms at his place. But what was really good fun was the detailed explanation from the Pentagon about why they spent the night at Turnberry rather than at the local fleapit. Well to be fair, American, and RAF, air crews, never stay in fleapit accommodation. They get decent hotel rooms, easily three-star and probably four-star. That's what air forces do. But according to the Pentagon it was cheaper to stay at the Turnberry golf club than the other nearby hotel, the Marriott. But of course the Marriott is not owned by Trump, the Turnberry is. Tricky one for the air force chaps. They are bound by admin rules to go for the cheaper option because they are using taxpayers'money. But when it's between a Trump-owned place and somewhere else does anyone in the Pentagon start to have worries about being accused of doing the president and his family's finances a favour. Trump of course said he had nothing to do with the decision and he probably didn't because why would he be asked about air crews and where they stay when in Scotland. If asked I have no doubt he would have replied: "Hey, they can stay at my place. We do rooms at good prices." Under those circumstances, the Pentagon would probably have responded, " Sorry Mr President but I don't think it would look right." But faced with a stark choice of booking Turnberry or Marriott when the latter is charging several pounds more a night is a difficult decision. I expect some officials probably said, "Fingers crossed no one will find out." But of course they did. Politico got the details and then it was all over every newspaper in the world. Now Politico is quoting the US Air Force as saying that air crews have stayed at Turnberry about 40 times since 2015. So a nice tidy sum for Trump Incorporated. But embarrassment all round for the air force and Pentagon. I suspect the last word will come from Congress.

David Cameron speaks on Brexit at last

David Cameron. There's a name from the past. And in the context of today's farcical Brexit mess, the name David Cameron will not bring out the cheers. He has written his memoirs and timed the publication beautifully to muddy the waters as the dreaded deadline of Otober 31 creeps upon us. Personally I have no intention of reading Cameron's memoirs. He made the worst political decision in a generation by promising a referendum on staying in or leaving the European Union and now we are all in the lurch, not knowing what future we have anymore in this country. He berates Boris and Michael Gove for the way they behaved in the referendum campaign as supporters of the Leave side, and it's true they did behave badly and untruthfully and dishonestly. But I don't think Cameron has a right to cast stones. It's all too late for looking back and blaming others. We all, including Cameron, need to look forwards and come up with a proper plan to survive, in or out of the EU. I'm amazed that Boris is still saying he is determined to leave the EU on October 31 with or without a deal. Didn't parliament pass legislation prohibiting Boris from going for a no-deal Brexit? So is he preparing to break the law? Staggering! But David Cameron please don't give us your platitudes. You gave us this mess. We don't want you involved anymore.

Did Boris lie to the Queen?

The constitutional crisis in Britain is getting dramatically worse. Did Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, lie to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II when she agreed to prorogue parliament for five weeks. We don't know exactly how the conversation went because it's confidential, but basically the Queen was told that parliament needed to be suspended so that the government could focus all its efforts on drawing up a political agenda to present during the Queen's Speech ceremony on October 14. This is when the poor Queen has to sit in parliament in regal splendour and inform everyone what legislation her government plans to bring forth during the next parliamentary session. But nearly everyone, politician or otherwise, reckoned Boris wanted to prorogue parliament for these vital five weeks in order to get on with getting a Brexit deal without having to tell MPs what it was up to. The Queen surely must have had her own suspicions. But if her prime minster tells her he wants the suspension for other reasons she is obliged to believe him. The Scottish court yesterday concluded that Boris HAD been lying because they ruled that the suspension of parliament was illegal on the grounds that the government wanted to avoid scrutiny over Brexit. The Supreme Court in London will make the final judgment next week. If the Supreme Court judges in their wisdom agree with their Scottish brethren, then Boris's head will be on a plate. He could even be sent to the Tower of London for lying to Her Majesty!! Well, that won't happen of course but such a decision would have huge consequences. For a start, Boris will have to give in and call back MPs so that they can debate whatever has to be debated. The only glimmer of light for Boris is that an English judge in an English court has already decided the suspension of parliament is a matter for politicians, not for the courts. I strongly suspect the Supreme Court, mindful of its weighty responsibilities, will agree with that judgment, although it could be a close call. Either way, the opposition - Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and rebel Tories - will continue to gasp in horror at the mere thought that the prime minister might have actually told the Queen a fib. Relations between the Queen and Boris are going to be distinctly tricky in the future. Will some Royal source approach a newspaper to reveal all? Prince Philip must be seething. "Send that blighter to the Tower, Elizabeth", I can imagine him saying. Boris will continue to deny it, as he has been doing today, and unless that Royal source emerges, the Queen's thoughts will remain buried in secrecy.

Bye bye John Bolton, your sacking was inevitable

When Donald Trump first became president and was looking around for people to put into his cabinet I recall him saying something like how much he admired John Bolton and had no doubt that there would be a place for him in his administration at some point. But he wasn't chosen then for either of the two jobs he could potentially have filled with his background, secretary of state or national security adviser. Others were appointed, although national security advisers never lasted long. So Bolton bided his time. Then the call came after Trump had tried Mike Flynn, retired Lieutenant-General Keith Kellogg (in an acting capacity) and Lieutenant-General HR McMaster. Trump couldn't resist turning to Bolton because he thought he was a man after his own heart, the type of man who would love to throw his weight around the world. So the Cold War warrior with the ridiculous walrus moustache, which incidentally Trump never liked, became national security adviser and started to throw his weight around, attacking Iran, Russia and North Korea like a happy schoolboy given his first chemistry set. So how weird it must have been for Bolton when he discovered that actually his president had this bizarre idea that it was better to have nice little chats with the bogeymen leaders he, Bolton, hated so much rather than threaten them with cruise missiles and shock and awe. First, Trump was determined to keep lines open to Putin despite the mass of evidence from US intelligence services that the Russian leader had masterminded a plot to mess about with the 2016 presidential election. Second, for heaven's sake, instead of bombing North Korea's nuclear facilities to hell, Trump invited Kim Jong-un, its tyrant leader, to tea and cakes and a get-to-know-you summit and then announced to the world that the two of them were kind of in love. Third, Trump came up with this crazy idea of inviting the Taliban hoodlums who had helped kill 2,400 American soldiers in Afghanistan over 18 years to join him at Camp David - at least it wasn't his Florida resort at Mar-a-Lago - to talk peace and friendship. And fourth, the president launched into happy-clappy mode and dreamed up the idea of having face-to-face talks with President Hassan Rouhani of Iran to ask him not to be a naughty boy anymore. I mean! Put yourself in Bolton's leather shoes. He must have been steaming every time he left the Oval Office, thinking his boss had turned into Mr Blobby. So of course Bolton had to be sacked, or had to resgn as he has insisted. How could old Walrus Moustache carry on each day when his president wanted to be nice to the leaders who, in Bolton's books, were America's greatest enemies. Bolton was out of the White House so fast his deputy Charlie Kupperman was already sitting in his chair before he had had a chance to pack up his possessions - moustache comb, photo of Ronald Reagan, three uneaten burgers and contacts book with the numbers of all major newspaper editors. Bolton has gone. Probably for ever. Although no doubt he will emerge as a consultant for Fox News, spilling out his familiar stuff about the need for the United States of America to drive its enemies into the ground. Farewell John Bolton.

Boris is now on his own

Parliament in the UK is suspended until October 14. Brexit deadline is October 31. There is no deal in sight. Boris Johnson is now truly on his own. He can't call an election until after October 31, by order of the House of Commons, and he can't opt for a no-deal Brexit, also under orders from parliament. His only way out, his very last hope of surviving as prime minister is to somehow get a deal agreed with the EU and approved by parliament. But there are two things going against that unlikely possibility. First there isn't time before October 17, the start of the European Council summit meeting, to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement which took three years to complete under Theresa May, and even if by some miracle Boris did manage to get some vital concessions to please the House of Commons, it's almost bound to be vigorously opposed by the so-called European Research Group, the quaintly named Conservative extreme Brexiteer lot and the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland. This is because it would have to have some version of the Irish border backstop, meaning the province of Ulster would have to remain in the EU single market. The DUP will never agree to that. There's a third obstacle. If Boris persuades the EU to offer concessions, there is no guarantee that Labour will support it in the House of Commons. Jeremy Corbyn is being pushed by the Labour hierarchy to campaign in a future general election to remain in the EU and, if he agrees, he won't want to spoil such a strategy by getting Labour MPs to vote in favour of a Boris deal. Of course if Labour campaigns to remain in the EU, Corbyn and co will come up against 17 million voters who voted to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum. None of them will vote for Labour but will stick with the Conservatives or turn to the Nigel Farage Brexit Party. In this sense Brexit is a total nightmare politically for both Boris AND Corbyn. It's going to be people versus politicians whichever side of the debate you stand. This is hugely harmful for our country and for our democracy. The Queen is currently at Balmoral in Scotland, her favourite home, and must be wondering whether her nation and her subjects are all doomed to an uncertain and potentially dangerous future. And there is nothing she can do about it.

Trump's grand foreign policy gestures are not working

Personally I have always been in favour of Donald Trump's wild instinctive gestures aimed at America's most implacable foes. Provided there is a reasonable chance of success. Enemies or potential enemies have to be talked to at some point, and not shouted at or invaded. But I wonder whether, as he is contemplating holding out his hand of friendship to the enemy he ponders for a moment what every military commander learns to do before engaging in combat: what's in the mind of the opposition, how will the enemy commanders on the other side of the border respond? In other words, you have to think like your enemy, get inside his head and try and anticipate his every move. It's not that difficult to get inside the mind of the average Taliban commander because we know what they want, we know they are fighters for life and will never give up unless they get what they want. They are about as implacable an enemy as you could find. The only difference between the Taliban and, say, a terrorist organisation such as al-Qaeda, is that the Taliban have political ambitions. They ruled Afghanistan before the US and the Northern Alliance toppled them from power in 2001. It's because of this that it's not implausible for the US to attempt to come to a peace settlement. You can't and never should negotiate anything with al-Qaeda. They don't have a political agenda. They just have an ideological hate agenda. There's nothing to negotiate because they have nothing to offer. The Taliban, like I suppose the Provisional IRA, have a political mission which they are determined to fulfil through violence and intimidation and murder. The IRA did the same, until, after 30 years, they got tired and agreed to secret talks with the British government which finally ended in the Good Friday Agreement. Trump's gesture to the Taliban - come and see me at Camp David and sign a peace deal - was pure Donald. Bring the war to an end with a spectacular face-to-face with the men who have waged war against US and coalition and Aghan troops for more than 18 years. There is no doubt this idea appealed to Trump, although there must have been State Department and Pentagon advisers who thought it was crazy and risky and probably doomed to failure. These are hardened tough warriors who have absolutely no interest in turning their country into a McDonald's franchise. This is where the coalition as a whole got it wrong with the Taliban. When the nation-building part of the operation got underway, a lot of people benefited, especially Afghan women and kids. But it never impressed the Taliban. They didn't want women in politics and teaching in schools. Their view of life is still in the Middle Ages. If they had had even a microgram of common sense they would have secretly ordered a halt to all suicide bombing until the Camp David meeting had been completed. But that is simply not the way an organisation like the Taliban thinks. They think violence is the only way to achieve results. They wanted to hear Trump plead with them not to kill any more American soldiers. So perhaps the whole grand gesture thing was doomed from the start. It's the same with Trump's offer to talk to President Rouhani of Iran. Trump would have said to his advisers, "Look I can talk to Kim Jong-un and he likes me, so why not Rouhani, man to man." But America stands for everything Rouhani hates the most and he must personally loathe Trump for helping to destroy Iran's economy. Instead of talking to Trump he is going, bit by bit, to renege totally on the infamous 2015 nuclear deal and build himself a nuclear bomb or two. He may wait until Trump is out of office but he will wait for his moment. Just like the Taliban do. They wait and wait and wait and keep on killing. That's what they do. Did Trump really thnk he could schmooze the Taliban. The Taliban are not for schmoozing!

Trump's patience with the Taliban finally breaks

I'm not sure if the Taliban will care that much but Donald Trump had had enough on Saturday. He had secretly invited Taliban leaders and the Afghan president to come and see him at Camp David the following day to sign a peace deal. But the Taliban kept on killing and, most importantly, killing American soldiers. The latest one to die was on Thursday, blown up by a vehicle suicide bomb in eastern Kabul. When he was told of the death, the fourth in about two weeks, he must have begun to think then that his grand plan was not working. The Taliban clearly thought, Trump tweeted on Saturday, that the more killings the greater the leverage for a peace deal. But while that may be Taliban logic it ain't Trump logic. I should imagine there were a lot of expletives uttered in the White House. Why on earth, the president must have been asking, am I inviting these b.....ds into Camp David when they are still deliberately targeting my soldiers? Was this a serious miscalculation by the Taliban who had proudly acknowledged their responsibility for the killing of the soldier on Thursday, or was Trump progressively getting angry and decided at the last moment that he couldn't face shaking the hands of these turbaned warriors? Mike Pompeo, US secretary of state, was already having second thoughts and I bet Zalmay Khalilzad, the main US negotiator in the Taliban talks in Qatar, wasn't that happy with the settlement he had squeezed out of the Taliban delegates. It was probably the best he could do, given that Trump had made it clear he wanted to withdraw American forces from Afghanistan and hoped to do so by the time of the 2020 presidential election. Now that Trump has cancelled the Camp David session it's difficult to know what will happen next. The Taliban will put all the blame on Trump and Trump has already put all the blame on the Taliban. It will not be easy for the White House to even consider restarting the negotiations and trying again for a settlement if the Taliban just go on killing US soldiers. And you can be sure the insurgents will not change their position. They believe the only way to get the Americans to withdraw under a settlement is to pile on the pressure. But I think the Taliban underestimated Trump. He is the type of president who makes decisions according to his gut and instincts. He had gone for this extraordinary secret Camp David meeting. The Taliban had pretty well everything they wanted in the draft settlement. So why on earth did they approve a suicide bomb attack in Kabul literally 72 hours before they were to fly to the US and get Trump's signature on a piece of paper? History will say: BIG MISTAKE.

Jeremy Corbyn has outflanked Boris

It looks like Jeremy Corbyn, famous for sitting on the political fence about everything to do with Brexit, has finally come up with a winning strategy to defeat Boris Johnson at every turn. Boris is now totally trapped in a cul-de-sac. Corbyn has struck a deal with the Scottish Nationalist leader at Westminster under which their two parties will not sign up to a general election until after the EU has agreed to and confirmed yet another delay in the Brexit decision-making process, from October 31 to January 31. Under their cunning plotting, Boris will be screwed. He won't be able to stick to his promised "out by October 31 do or die" and to make matters worse he will be forced by the House of Commons to ask the EU leaders at the next summit in October to extend the deadline, something he vowed he would never never do. But Corbyn has outsmarted him and Generalisimo Dominic Cummings. There is no way out. Or is there? Has Boris got one more card to play? Well we know he has one because he has revealed it already. He's going to try to offer an October 15 election again on Monday and get the Commons to vote on it. Unless the Speaker of the House, the outrageous John Bercow, finds a clause in a parliamentary textbook which he can use to stop it. But surely Boris has something else up his sleeve. Because if he doesn't, and his election offer on Monday fails, what else is left? The political cul-de-sac will be gien another name: a dead end. Certainly Boris has made some mistakes. Sacking the 21 rebel Conservative MPs who voted against the government this week may have seemed a sign of tough leadership at the time but it has slapped him back in the face. Even his Chancellor Sajid Javid thinks it was a bad idea and that the 21 MPs should be reinstated. But that would be seen as weakness if Boris did change his mind and he can't afford to look weak especially now that Corbyn has come off the fence and is coming up with all kinds of devious tactics. The resignation of Boris's brother, Jo, as universities minister and as an MP was a gift for Corbyn and a kick in the nether regions for Boris. Even members of his own family are turning against him. Boris is without doubt in a sorry mess and all of us who love this country are in the same situation.

How will people vote if there's a snap UK election?

I wouldn't like to be Boris Johnson's poll adviser. The prime minster is determined to continue pushing for a snap general election despite the setback in parliament last night when MPS voted against the idea until the no-deal Brexit legislation has been passed and given the Royal Assent. Whatever happens in the next few days there WILL be an election soon. There is no other way. But can Boris feel confident he will win the election AND get a sizeable majority - big enough to govern? Predicting the result of a general election is always a mug's game. So-called pollster experts frequently get it wrong. But this time, who can say what people will decide when they go into the voting booth. I would suggest that a majority of people in the UK are now heartily sick of the whole Brexit saga, they are universally angry about the way parliament is behaving, disillusioned about politics in general and uncertain about this country's future. Who amongst the party leaders is going to solve all the problems and lead Britain into a bright future? Being a traditional Conservative or Labour or Liberal Democrat voter - ie voting for party whatever - no longer holds. I suspect there will be more tactical voting than ever before. The Lib Dems will get a huge boost, partly because there is a new leader, Jo Swinson, and she looks nice and sounds good, and mostly because they want to UK to stay in the EU. But people who like Jo Swinson but hate the EU and want to leave will not vote for them in the current Brexit climate. Those who voted to remain in the EU referendum in 2016 will stick to the Lib Dems like glue. But for those who voted leave, where will they turn? They probably don't trust either Boris or Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, so they might just say to themselves: "To hell with the lot of them, I'll vote for Nigel Farage and the Brexit Party." It could happen. Farage has got candidates for all the constituencies and I bet he does well. But if Farage grabs a pile of seats, who will suffer most as a result? Surely Jeremy Corbyn and Labour. Their position on Brexit has been so muddled no voters will know for sure what Corbyn really wants. And too many people are scared of having Corbyn as prime minister. So, here is my prediction: the Lib Dems will increase their seats from the current 16 to around 45, the Brexit party will win 28 seats, the Scottish Nationalists will increase their numbers from 35 to 50. Labour will do surprisingly badly, losing 10-20 seats. Conservatives will get a small boost, perhaps winning another 3-5 seats. In the end, with the other parties, such as Democratic Unionists, Sinn Fein and the Independents staing about the same, Boris will have to go for a Devil's deal with Nigel Farage to get Brexit sorted once and for all. So, a huge gamble for Boris. If the no-deal Brexit legislation is given the Royal Asset BEFORE the election, Boris's options will be limited. Theresa May's withdrawal agreement will come back into its own, and this time parliament will approve. It will not be a victory for Boris and it could spell the end of his premiership one way or the other.

Does Boris really think his plan is working?

Is Boris laughing or crying behind the front door of Number 10 Downing Street? By rights he should be blubbering. He has lost two crucial votes in the House of Commons, parliament has effectively taken over the government's business in the Commons, a no-deal Brexit option has been legislated against, the Octber 31 deadline for leaving the EU is now looking distinctly shakey and the prime minister has deselected 21 of his own MPs for rebelling against the government. They include some singular grandees who have represented the patrician Conservative establishment for decades. So nothing but tears and frustration and anger behind that Number 10 door? Apparently not. Apparently this was all scripted by the master tacticians - ie Generalissimo Dominic Cummings, the man in the long sleeveless quilted jacket - and everything is fine. Well I don't believe that, I don't think they did enough "what-if" preparations. Like: "What if the 21 Tory rebels all stuck to their guns despite the warnings of beng deselected?" And "what if Jeremy Corbyn decides not to support a general election despite telling the world for the last three years that all he wanted was a general election?" Because the 21 rebel MPs DID stick to their guns and Corbyn is now wavering like a balloon in a strong wind about a snap election. So how do these two small matters interfere with your grand plan, Boris and Generalissimo Cummings? I have no doubt they will try to get round it but the fact is Number 10 is at this moment not in control of its destiny. Boris is not in charge of anything as far as I can see. As for the negotiations in EU re Brexit,they are going nowhere. The EU feels Boris has lost the plot - in more ways than one - and is probably now holding out for a change in government, one that will offer the British voters the chance to stay in the EU after all. But will this be a Corbyn government? Does Corbyn really want the UK to remain in the EU? He has always hated the EU. He's a Socialist with a huge S and just wants a Marxist-style government controlled by the trades unions and to hell with everyone else. Corbyn wants power, so his support for another EU referendum and the promise of a Labour campaign to stay in the EU might just get him into Downing Street. But Boris and Cummings will definitely have thought of that "what if", and I seriously doubt they will let that happen if they can possibly avoid it. So I think behind the closed door of Number 10, Boris and Generalissimo Cummings are thinking up a new plot. But it could still all end in tears, with Boris crying and Jeremy Corbyn laughing his head off.

Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have the smell of power in their nostrils

The Brexit drama is getting worse. We're now in an Alice in Wonderland situation. Boris Johnson has lost his majority after some Tory MP decides to get his 15 seconds of fame by defecting to the Liberal Democrats and, in true House of Commons theatrical style, crosses the floor to take up residence with his new party. I'm not even going to name this pathetic MP. He will sink into oblivion. But yet more bad news for Boris although, to be frank, there was no workable majority anyway. But it was just another ingredient in an afternoon of hysteria. Will Boris survive the attempt to force him by legislation to drop the option of a no-deal Brexit? Even if does or even if he doesn't, will it make any difference? We seem to have got to the point where the Theresa May withdrawal agreement which has been rejected THREE times by the House of Commons is now seen by Boris and his government as fine provided the EU drops the Irish border backstop. But the EU has said it will not drop this insurance policy to keep the border open between north and south Ireland. So where exactly are all these encouraging signs of movement by the EU negotiators claimed by Boris? There is no indication that the EU will change anything dramatic, despite what seemed like reasonable comments from both Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron last week. If they do offer changes BUT stick with the Irish backstop, there will be no deal. So negotiating with the EU is a lost cause and Boris should come out and say so instead of trying to suggest there is going to be a miracle between now and the EU summit next month. The politics of this country is so torn apart that even if there was a miracle and it did include rowing back on the Irish backstop I doubt the House of Commons will approve because it's all too late. There is so much hatred and division that now it's nothing to do with a deal or a no-deal Brexit. It's about power. As simple as that. Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leader, believes he has a real chance of ousting Boris from Downing Street, and the Marxist Leninist John McDonnell, Chancelllor-in-waiting, is probably choosing the curtains for Number 11 even now. These two are not going to do anything that might prevent them from seizing power. They will promise anything and everything. But do they want a general election right now? They claim they do but they have to be worried about the numbers. Labour has lost ground in recent surveys and the Liberal Democrats are looking good in voters' eyes. Then there is the ghastly Brexit party led by the incomparably awful Nigel Farage. Could they zip ahead if there is an election next month? Oh God I hope not! Farage actually wants a no-deal Brexit. I assume he never passed maths exams at school!! But the ones to watch out for are Corbyn and McDonnell. They have the smell of power in their nostrils. In that sense, Boris is our only hope!

Brexit day challenge for Boris

Pretty well the first day Boris Johnson took office it has been one challenge after another both to his leadership and to his government. But tomorrow Tuesday September 3 is the start of the biggest challenge of all. All MPs opposing any thought of a no-deal Brexit will try and introduce a tiny piece of legislation to stop Boris going down that route. And then there could be a no-confidence vote or a revolution or who knows what. In anticipation of facing rebels from his own party siding with he opposition, Boris has made this extraordinary threat to deselect them - ie remove them from the list of Conservative candidates to stand at the next general election - if they so much as dare vote with Jeremy Corbyn and co to stop him maintaining his no-deal Brexit option. It's brutal stuff. Boris is no whimp, although I suspect it's his Machievellian sidekick, Dominic Cummings, chief enforcer and ruthless Generalissimo Number 10 adviser who is pulling all the strings. Cummings is a piece of work. At some point he is going to overstep his ruthlessness and infuriate so many of the cabinet and others in the Boris team that he will have to be sacked. But for the moment he rules the roost, wearing his long quilted sleeveless jacket as a sort of in-your-face message to all those who come to Downing Street wearing ties and well-ironed shirts or nicely fashioned blouse and skirt. The Boris warning to Conservative MPs about deselection might frighten some of them into submission but there are nuber of MPs who don't want to stand for reelection at the next election and their determination to oppose Boris will get harder and more ferocious. If this bit of legislation IS passed, banning a no-deal Brexit, then it will be largely as a result of rebel Conservatives. Generalissimo Cummings will be so angry I fear for their lives and livelihoods. Although clever lawyers will probably find a way for Boris to ignore the legislation and push on with his no-deal Brexit as an option regardless. Perhaps an appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking to undo the legslation on the grounds that it undermines the role and power of the executive at a crucial time in this country's history. Judging by Michael Gove's "let's see" approach in his interview on BBC TV yesterday, I'm sure there is a counter-plan up their sleeve, or in the case of Generalisimo Cummings, hidden up his sleveless jacket.

Jim Mattis is an honourable man

Instead of rushing into print with blistering criticisms of Donald Trump, Jim Mattis who was generally thought to be a brilliant US defence secretary until he ran foul of the president and resigned, has remained pretty quiet since he left office on January 1. He has given a couple of interviews and has hinted at the difficultes of being a cabinet member of the Trump administration but we knew that anyway. He also spoke in his interview with the Atlantic magazine of how divided the United States is. But we know that too. What was most interesting about his latest interview, with CBS News, was his veiled threat to reveal all at some time in the future. Thanks to Bob Woodward, the Watergate journalist, we know that Mattis had several confrontations with Trump and made some particularly critical comments about serving under such a president. But that wasn't Mattis saying it. It was Woodward claiming what Mattis had said. Like his comment about Trump having the understanding of a fifth or sixth grader when confronting major foreign policy issues. Woodward also told us Mattis refused to obey a number of orders from Trump because he thought they were ridiculous. But Mattis himself has kept quiet. And when he walked out on Trump after disagreeing with his announcement about pulling all US troops out of Syria, he didn't start writing his memoirs to put his side of the case. He did write a book which is due out next week. But "Call Sign Chaos: Learning to Lead" sounds like a worthy tome about leadership, although I'm sure journalists will hunt for any implicit criticism of Trump. However, Mattis told CBS that he did not intend to stay silent for ever. "It's not going to be for ever," he said. So there's a blockbuster memoir in hs head which at some point is going to make big headlines. But how long will Mattis wait? Well I guess he's going to wait longer than his former boss Bob Gates when HE was defence secretary. Gates burst into print with his memoir while Obama was still president, and it contained lots of criticisms of Obama's style of leadership. I had a lot of time for Gates. He was one of my defence secretaries when I was Pentagon Correspondent for The Times. But it did seem a little quick to produce a critical memoir with his commander-in-chief still in office. His book "Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War", came out in January 2014, with two years left of the Obama administration. Gates had retired in July 2011. There was quite a lot of criticism of Gates at the time although he retorted that he felt it was important to bring his book out while he had relevant things to say on topical issues. I'm sure his publisher agreed with that! General Mattis might take on board the criticism of Gates when he decides to start writing hs memoir of his time serving under Trump. But Mattis is an honourable man and I think he will be more careful before he starts attacking Trump. Unless Trump loses the 2020 election. Then I guess Mattis might feel he can at last reveal all.