US uses the big stick in Iraq with diplomatically disastrous consequences

The US has held back and held back and held back when provoked by Iran: not launching retaliatory strikes when Iran shot down a hugely expensive drone over international waters in the Gulf, not hitting back when Iranian-inspired or authorised bomb attacks hit shipping in the Gulf waterway, not punishing Tehran with strikes when cruise missiles and drones hit a Saudi oil processing plant. Tehran must have been delighted and made the calculation/miscalculation that Washington was opting for the quiet life and desperately didn't want any more conflict in the Middle East. As a result of this miscalculation, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard bovver boys decided to increase attacks on US forces in Iraq and ordered their proxy Shia militia fighters, bizarrely allied to the Iraqi armed forces, to launch rocket attacks on US/Iraqi bases. In one of the attacks an American contractor was killed and other Americans were wounded. The death of an American always puts things into a different context if you're sitting in the Oval Office in the White House. Restraint was over. Orders were sent to the Pentagon to give 'em hell. Thus, F-15E Strike Eagles were sent to hit five targets in Iraq and Syria, all associated with the Shia militia group known as Kataib Hezbollah. Pentagon officials insisted the retaliation was proportionate. But when a military superpower, the world's only real superpower, takes action against a bunch of extreme militia armed with rockets, it will never seem proportionate, not at least to those targeted by the F-15Es armed with precision-guided missiles. As a result there have been mass protests culminating in the storming of the huge US embassy compound in Baghdad today. While the US retaliatory strikes were understandable and I guess inevitable following the death of the American contractor, did anyone in the Pentagon or State Department warn the White House that airstrikes could have a huge negative impact on relations with the Iraqi government? The government of Adil Abdul-Mahdi relies on both the US and Iran to prop it up. It's a three-way disaster marriage. The Iraqi prime minister pleaded with Mark Esper, US defence secretary, not to go ahead with the strikes after being given 30 minutes' notice but apparently didn't tip off Tehran. That underlines the tortuous diplomacy he is faced with every day, trying to please both the US and Iran at the same time. After the strikes he accused the US of breaching Iraqi sovereignty. He probably hoped that might appease his Iranian backers. But it just emphasised the weakness of his position as Iraqi leader. He failed to stop the Iranian-backed militia from attacking US forces and he failed to stop the US from attacking Hezbollah bases. Twenty-five Hezbollah fighters are dead as a consequence. No wonder Trump wants to get the hell out of Iraq. It's a country doomed to face conflict in one form or other for the foreseeable future. Now if Saddam Hussein was still in charge........

Is it time for rapprochement with Vladimir Putin?

Donald Trump has either a year left in office or five years. Either way, there has got to be a better chance of improving relations between Moscow and Washington under a Trump presidency than, say, a Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders administration. So 2020 could be a big year for US/Russia relations if Vladimir Putin and Trump play their cards right. Trump could well take a risk and go hellbent on bringing Putin back into the international family, like inviting him into the G7 group to revert it to the old G8. You might ask, why should we forgive Putin for all his horrors and move to improve relations? Well, Putin can never be forgiven for invading and annexing Crimea, for grabbing a slab of Georgia, for inciting a war in eastern Ukraine and for sending his GRU military intelligence agency hit squad around Europe bumping off his opponents - notably his clearly authorised attempt to fatally poison Sergei Skripal and his daughter with novichok nerve agent in 2018. But, despite all that, we are about to enter a new decade and we in the West cannot afford, in every meaning of that word, to regard Russia as Enemy 1 and a potential adversary in what would the most destructive war ever to be witnessed on the planet. Putin may be regarded as a rogue president who cannot throw off his KGB past but the fact is the world will be a whole lot safer if we talk to the Russian leader and attempt to be amicable and engaging. It's time for a big effort to get Russia and the West on a more sensible footing. Putin of course may not want to be friends with the West, especially now he possesses the fastest and longest-range nuclear-capable missile in his weapons inventory, the hypersonic Avangard missile claimed by the Russians to be capable of reaching a maximum 27 times the speed of sound and so manoeuvrable it can switch direction instantly, like a lion chasing an antelope. Putin, like all his predecessors, remains convinced that the West, Nato in particular, would love to destroy Russia. But of course that is and always was rubbish paranoia. There were never any Nato plans to invade Russia but all the Cold War Russian leaders told their people that Nato was the Big Enemy ready at any moment to send its hordes of troops across the border. All paranoia, although, to be fair, we in the West suffered the same paranoia, believing that the Soviet hordes were at any moment going to launch a conventional attack on western Europe. In 2020 we can no longer afford to suffer from this tyoe of paranoia. There are too many other dangers facing this world. So let's break down the barriers with Russia and start being friends. The most positive moment of 2019 came in a phone call from Putin to Trump last week when the Russian president thanked the US president for helping to stop a planned terrorist attack in St Petersburg, following a tip-off from American intelligence services. That's a good sign. Putin saying thank you. So, Mr Trump, in the time you have left in the White House, get relations with Russia moving in a more friendly direction. In my humble view, Nato's expansion to the Baltics and Black Sea was a mistake. It might have looked a smart move after the Soviet Union collapsed but Nato went too far and revived Russian paranoia to a new level. It's too late to change all that. But the Pentagon's current strategy is to openly regard Russia and China as America's main future enemies. I always thought that was unwise if this world is ever going to move to a more stable situation. The West needs to make friends, not enemies. If Putin reads every day that Russia is viewed as America's Enemy Number 1, no wonder he is so enthusiastic about his new Avangard missiles. The arms race is truly back on the schedule and that can't be good news as we progress into the next decade.

2019 was a bad year for EU Remainers, Theresa May and Prince Andrew

In the last 12 months nothing has gone right for a lot of high-profile people. It has been a year to look back on with relief that it's over. A bad year. A year of disillusion. Let us hope that next year, the start of a new decade, will be a point in history which everyone will remember as a period of rennaissance, of fresh hope and wise political decisions. It was a terrible year for Theresa May. She was ridiculed, belittled, unloved, insulted and effectively thrown out of office. Or, as she put it, she stepped down from the job she had loved. Really? Could she have enjoyed being prime minister at any point in her three-year reign? She basically drafted a perfectly good Brexit plan but it was rejected by Parliament three times as if it was a document covered in dog faeces when actually it would have probably served this country better than the Boris Johnson version which is a harsher Brexit, in terms of extracting the UK from EU tentacles, more complex and more difficult to implement. But for ever Theresa May's leadership will be associated with dither and failure even though the dithering and failing were largely due to parliament and the extreme factions within the Conservative party and the hopeless leadership or lack of leadership in the Labour party. By the way, good riddance to Jeremy Corbyn and his Leninist team around him. No sympathy for them but definitely some empathy for Theresa who never really stood a chance and had to face up to patronising EU leaders, especially that cringing Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission until his no doubt excessively lucrative retirement a few months ago. So farewell Theresa, you did your best but it just wasn't enough. Your worst year is nearly over. EU Remainers all lost out. Brexit WILL go ahead. I have accepted it with a great deal of sadness but the hardest Remainers in Parliament who undercut everything Theresa tried to do and never accepted the 2016 referendum decision were roundly defeated when Boris took over. I am assuming Boris will NOT retain the services of the awful Jacob Rees-Mogg when he reshuffles his Cabinet in February. Rees-Mogg was definitely a loser in 2019. For one person of averagely medium profile 2019 was the worst year of his life. Prince Andrew was never a Royal Family superstar but his long friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, the loathsome teenage girl philanderer, and his questionable involvement in Epstein's shady world, plus that gruesomely throwaway I've-done-nothing-wrong TV interview with Emily Maitlis transformed the minor royal into a headline-making superbaddie. It's a year which he will want to forget but will never be allowed to forget.

This has been the year of protest

The vegetable stallholder who set himself alight in Tunisia in December 2010 in protest at police harrassment indirectly led to an extraordinary movement against harsh Arab regimes. Governments were toppled. It was called the Arab Spring and affected Tunisia, Morocco, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Bahrain. The dream of real democracy developing across the Arab world proved a false dawn. Perhaps only in Tunisia did the democratic spark stay alive long enough to make a difference. Nine years later we have had another year of violent protest but in other parts of the world: Hong Kong, Venezuela, Chile and Iran. Hong Kong witnessed the most staggeringly scary protests with full-scale street warfare enveloping the former British colony before the violence was brought to an end by tough, over-robust police action. Beijing wisely did not intervene with troops and eventually the most radical protestors were surrounded and defeated. Will these protests that filled our television screens for weeks bring a promise of democracy and permanent independence for Hong Kong? No, they will not. Beijing will never brook a breakaway state that has belonged to China since the handover by the British on July 1 1997. Likewise, the mass protests in Caracas and other cities and towns in Venezuela which provoked a violent response from police and troops failed to move the rigid, corrupt and repressive Nicolas Maduro to change his ways. Maduro remains president of Venezuela and the people are still trying to leave the country in their thousands to find food and jobs and a decent way of life. Protest in Venezuela achieved nothing but misery and tragedy. Democracy under Maduro died a painful death. Many of the Venezuelans leaving their country headed for Chile where there was every expectation of a life of stability and hope. But the government of Santiago took some hard economic steps including raising the price of petrol and suddenly there were huge protests in the streets of the capital. Violence broke out. The fervour for fairness amongst the people was crushed. The same thing happened in Iran when, under inceasing strain from US and international sanctions, the Tehran government raised petrol prices. Violent protests erupted in towns across the country. In all four countries the protests brought no change. Governments suppressed. So the Arab Spring failed, resulting in many cases in harsh repression, and the 2019 protests also failed. The people rose up but were quickly brought down. What a sad commentary on this world of ours.

Could the next US vice president be a big deal?

The role of vice president in the United States is not normally of major historic importance. Probably only one has had a great impact in recent years. Dick Cheney. Basically because of the well known deal between him and George W Bush in which the second Bush president agreed to let his Number 2 become a Super Interferer-in-Chief. Cheney was into everything, whispering if not shouting into Bush's ear at every available opportunity. But Cheney was unique, and uniquely powerful. The world could probably do without another Cheney. But let's look at the possible vice presidential candidates for the 2020 election. I've written before that I believe it would be brilliant for Trump to ditch Mike Pence and ask Nikki Haley, the former US ambassador to the UN, to join his ticket. It probably won't happen, but she would be sensational and it would give her a big chance of becoming president in 2024. She's good and, amazingly, has managed to escape the wrath of Trump. But it looks like the creepy Pency will be standing by Trump's side throughout 2020. So let's look at the Democrats. The ones that count: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and, maybe Mike Bloomberg. The latest whispers reveal that Bernie Sanders' campaign team is becoming increasingly confident that he might actually make it. So would he dare to ask Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the fiery, feisty Representative for New York's 14th congressional district who is currently a very lively member of his campaign team? She has really stirred things up politically since she was elected in the 2019 mid-term elections and Trump hates her. She is only 30 but my God she keeps people awake at night. Bernie and Alexandria together for the Democratic nomination? Wow, that would be fun. Joe Biden has to be very careful who he would choose. Like Bernie, he is pretty old, but would he get away with having a young attractive woman as his vice presidential running mate? Especially with his reputation for being overly closely attentive to women. I've suggested Kamala Harris before. No longer a candidate for president, she would undoubtedly add warmth and glamour and sharpness to his campaign. But he has to be careful. Bernie and Alexandria would look terrific but Joe and Alexandria? No. Joe and Kamala? Possible. Elizabeth Warren I guess would choose a male vice president and might be smart enough to go for Buttigieg. He would add quality and youth. Assuming of course Buttigieg doesn't make it to the nomination. As for Mike Bloomberg, I doubt anyone would want to be his vice president. The most exciting of this bunch? Without doubt, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

2020 is the year for climate change action

If President Trump is reelected in November 2020 which still seems the most likely outcome, any momentum for climate-change action will vanish. Even amongst the believers who are convinced the climate is changing dangerously for the planet there is division over how to tackle the challenges. As the former Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has said today, the troulbe is no one except the real experts truly understands or wants to understand the implications of what mght happen to the planet in the next 20 years. We have all seen the Hollywood disaster movies when the world comes to an end and it's scary but fun. Now however the human race is unquestionably facing a truly scary future of increasingy dire weather conditions and sea rises and desperate heat and all the other things that come with abusing the planet. Even if Trump, a total non-believer in climate change, is ousted in November, I doubt any of his challengers have the real guts to make a difference and persuade the whole world to look on climate change as the single most deadly challenge facing us all. When you're in middle or old age it is too easy to think to yourself, well they're talking about 50-100 years, so that won't affect me. But there are two reasons why that is selfish, unforgiveable and totally unacceptable. First, the youngest generation and the next generation and so on will have to suffer the consequences of the inaction of today's so-called adults; and second, the 50-100 year timeframe is already looking far too optimistic. The changes have begun and over the next 10-20 years there are going to be some frightening weather patterns that could destroy the lives of millions of people. The Swedish teenager has tried her best to empower the younger generation to confront the politicians, but somehow, because of her age and piercing message, her seniors but not betters have partially dismissed her as a nuisance. Trump was positively rude to her when he brushed past her with his entourage earlier this year. I'm surprised he didn't pat her on the head. The trouble is too many leaders have other things on their mind, Boris with Brexit, Macron with national protests, Merkel with her legacy, Xi Zinping with his grandeur and hegemony ambitions, Putin with his malevolence and the EU with striving to stay relevant and afloat. The climate will change as political in-fighting and natonal rivalries continue apace. Is it too much to ask that 2020 be made the year of real climate-change action? I fear it may be.

The death of a Green Beret in Afghanistan

While the world seems to have turned topsy-turvy in 2019, the war in Afghanistan has just ploughed on, taking lives. The latest American soldier to die was Sergeant 1st Class Michael Goble. He died from a roadside bomb in Kunduz province in the north. He was 33. He was the 20th American soldier to die in Afghanistan this year. Nearly 2,400 US military personnel have died in this wretched war since it began in 2001. A thousand more coalition troops have died. Statistics are relentless. And each death means tragedy and grief and the constant nagging question: has it all been worth it? The only answer has to be, yes, many things have changed for the better in Afghanistan, but the killings and injuries never stop. Next year is surely the year when this war must finally come to an end. The US wants to start withdrawing its troops from around the world, including from the Middle East and West Africa, according to the New York Times, but Afghanistan has to be at the top of the withdrawal list. But the death of Sergeant Goble from 1st Battalion 7th Special Forces Group is a reminder that no one in the White House or Pentagon can give the order to leave until the right political circumstances have been negotiated and set in concrete. He and all the others died for a purpose, they died to give Afghans a better and more stable life. So it's the responsibility of the US and the Afghan government and possibly Russia and Pakistan to make sure that the Taliban, many of whom have known nothing but war all their lives, agree and abide by an honourabe peace settlement. 2020 must be the last year of the Afghanistan war.

The world waits for Kim Jong-un to do something stupid

FULLER VERSION OF MY STORY IN THE TIMES TODAY: The United States is expecting North Korea to test a new missile capability if it goes ahead with the threatened “Christmas gift” to pressure Washington into agreeing economic concessions. US surveillance aircraft and intelligence-gathering satellites are focused on pinpointing the first sign of ballistic-missile launch activity, as the Pyongyang-imposed end-of-year deadline nears. US forces in the region are also on high alert. There is increasing concern throughout America’s intelligence community over what North Korean leader Kim Jong-un may be planning and whether it will be a significant development or a familiar test launch dressed up as something new. “If North Korea does something new and different to try and put more leverage on the US that will really ratchet things up,” a US intelligence source said. The source acknowledged that North Korea was expected to try and prove it had made advances in missile capability. “They are clearly trying to achieve more accuracy and reliability with their ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles] and to make advances with technologies such as self-propelled missile launchers,” the source said. Two static rocket engine tests carried out by North Korea on December 7 and 13 at the Sohae satellite launch site in the west of the country were aimed at “trying to show they had developed new capabilities to step up leverage”. The new more powerful engine could have been an advanced version of the one used for North Korea’s Hwaseong-15 ICBM still in development, according to Jane’s Missiles & Rockets. A test of the Hwasong -15 in November 2017 reached an altitude of 2,780 miles and flew for 590 miles before landing in the sea off Japan. But it is believed to have a potential range of more than 8,000 miles, and even longer if launched on a flatter trajectory, bringing the whole of the US within reach. A former senior Pentagon official said that apart from greater accuracy and range for its missiles, North Korea had other significant barriers to overcome. Minituarisation of the nuclear warhead was the biggest technological challenge. “It’s one thing to detonate a nuclear weapon, it’s quite another to make it small and rugged enough to survive being launched on a ballistic missile,” the former official said. In addition, North Korea would want to prove whether a warhead re-entering Earth’s atmosphere from space would be sufficiently resistant to the intense heat. “But this is far less of a technical challenge than minituarisation,” he said. A new test launch of the Hwaseong-15 could fatally damage President Trump’s charm offensive with Chairman Kim who had promised to suspend long-range missile-testing when the two leaders met for their first summit in Singapore in June last year. Two subsequent summits between the two leaders, in Hanoi in February and, historically, at the Korean demilitarised zone at Panmunjom in June, failed to advance Washington’s hopes of reaching any form of deal to reduce and finally eliminate the nuclear threat posed by North Korea. With the total breakdown in talks on denuclearisation, Pyongyang appears to have turned its back on Mr Trump and his state department negotiating team, headed by Stephen Biegun. The US special envoy’s appeal to restart talks last week was snubbed by Pyongyang. Pentagon chiefs have insisted that the US military is fully prepared for any type of response in the event of a provocative move by North Korea. But Mark Esper, US defence secretary, has stuck to the Washington position which currently places all the focus on diplomacy to resolve the confrontation with Pyongyang. A new ICBM missile test could lead to more sanctions and a demand from Washington for an emergency meeting of the United Nations security council. The so-called “bloody nose” strategy in which the US would launch limited military strikes to punish North Korea has been kept under wraps since it was first mooted more than 20 months ago, and seems an unlikely option.

Nancy Pelosi has had a good year. Trump, not so much.

This has been Nancy Pelosi's year. In Washington at least. She has never ever look flustered in her determination to ensure that the president of the United States is not allowed to be above the law of the land and of the constitution. She always looks stunningly elegant and when she stands up to Trump oh my goodness she stands up to Trump. She is the only person in Washington who can get away with finger-waving at the president. She also knows when to leave the room, especially if Trump is still in it. She has style and brooks no nonsense from any of her male rivals, either Democrats or Republicans. Basically, she has been in charge ever since she was elected Speaker of the House. She is in every way more impresssive than Senator Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader in the Senate who looks like a crestfallen mountain goat half the time and always seems to be grumbling. Nancy ain't afraid of McConnell. Look in the mirror, McConnell, Nancy is right behind you looking superior. So a good year for Nancy and she goes away for Congress's three-week Christmas holiday eminently satisfied that she has lain the groundwork for a huge high-profile trial of the president in the New Year. I doubt Trump can look back on 2019 and smile with contentment. Too many things have gone wrong for him. But with the economy still looking good I don't suppose he minds very much. He feels he will have the last laugh when the Republicans in the Senate vote in his favour at the impeachment trial. Others who have had a mixed year in the US: Mike Pompeo, still a big cheese in Washington but has little to show for his robust diplomacy as secretary of state and is close enough to the president's alleged wrongdoing over Ukraine to have his reputation besmirched. He might even resign next year and stand for the Senate if things are looking dodgy for him. Joe Biden has had a steady-as-you-go year, making gradual progress towards nomination as the Democratic challenger for the White House but without turning on the lightbulbs. Bernie Sanders seems unlikely ever to give up as a presidential contender, determined as ever to push his socialist views in parts of the country where socialism stinks. Elizabeth Warren, likewise, is a bold challenger and still believes she can make it. And lastly, there's Rudy Giuliani. If anyone was born to be called a Svengali it's the former Mayor of New York. His particular combination of deviousness, cunning and interference has been spotted in every nook and cranny of Trumpism. He has had a very very wicked year.

Jeremy Corbyn has lost the plot

Her Majestys' Leader of the Opposition is still fighting his corner even when he has no corner, no support, no friends, and certainly no future as the boss of the Labour Party. It was one of the more bizarre moments in the House of Commons yesterday when Jeremy Corbyn stood up on the Labour Frontbench and proceeded to harangue Boris Johnson over his Queen's Speech legislative programme, dismissing it as a meaningless manifesto of hyped-up Labour ideas without the money to pay for them. Hohoho. What fun. One moment he is annihilated as the leader of the Labour Party in the Christmas general election and the next he is standing up in the chamber of the House as if nothing untoward had happened. Ok there isn't a new leader yet although there are plenty of interested parties including two lady Labour MPs who are flatmates who want to share top job and deputy! So I suppose Corbyn has to do the honours until someone is found who is suitable to become Her Majesty's Leader of the Opposition for the next five to ten years. But for him to stand up and sound all righteous as if he knows better how to run the country was a moment to savour. It certainly attracted derision on the other side of the House where the overwhelming number of Conservative MPs, all stuffed with the confidence of being on the winning ticket, were sitting very comfortably enjoying Corbyn's discomfort. It's going to be a tough few weeks/months for Corbyn, a long pre-retirement period for a man who totally failed to inspire the country to vote for him and his policies. There will be sadder and sadder pictures of Corbyn coming out of his house with his bag over his shoulder and cycling to work. I don't want to feel harsh. Magnanimity is a good quality especially at Christmas. But had Corbyn become prime minister this country of mine would have been ruined. And I could never have forgiven him for that.

Nancy plays a new card - impeachment delay

Nancy Pelosi has been pretty sure-footed ever since being appointed Speaker of the House of Representatives and now she has taken what will turn out to be a smart move. The House has voted to impeach Donald Trump on two charges, abuse of office and obstruction of Congress. Next stage is to hand the two articles of impeachment over to managers who pass them formally to the Senate for the Republican-controlled body to lay out the plans for a trial. But, as Pelosi has increasingly become aware, handing over the articles of impeachment to the Republican hierarchy of the Senate is a bit like asking a robber to deposit your gold bullion into your bank safe on your behalf. Mitch McConnell, the cunning Senate Majority Leader, has already made clear in public that he is not going to be an honest broker and deal with the Democrat-controlled House's request in the most honourable and responsible manner. He is opposed to a trial, he is opposed to impeachment, so he will orchestrate a trial that will no doubt best suit Trump and the Republicans, and suddenly those precious articles will just disappear into nothingness. Just like those gold bars faithfully handed over to the robber! So Pelosi has listened to Democrats worried about a trial stitch-up and caused a storm when she said she was in no hurry to hand over the articles of impeachment until she was good and ready. A masterful stroke. The White House blew up in righteous anger. Trump and co who have always said the impeachment process was a witch hunt and thought they had got it all sorted after Mitch McConnell had pronounced his determination to make sure Trump ended up being found NOT GUILTY. Now with Pelosi's delaying tactics it means the Democrats and Republicans will have to do some horse-trading before those fragile-do-not-drop articles are passed to the Senate. As a result we are now talking aout a trial that may be in January but probably more likely February or even later. Trump will be steaming mad throughout that time. Pelosi has to get her timing right but whatever is decided about the rules and guidelines for a trial, Trump will still escape conviction unless Pelosi can encourage some of the Republicans to put country before career. But not rushing into a Senate trial looks to me like a clever move.

President Mike Pence waiting in the wings

There is a scenario which cannot be discounted. The impeachment trial of Donald Trump leads to a full vote of GUILTY by the Democratic members of the Senate and then out of the blue, a just large enough number of Republicans also vote against Trump, leading to him being ousted from the White House. Why would Republican senators do such a thing? After three years of Trumpism it's not too difficult to see their argument. Trump's America First strategy has led to battles and divisions at home and abroad, his confrontation with China has damaged trade long-term between the two countries and the whole of politics in the United States is in a state of chaos. Some Republicans might just see a way forward to bring their party back to its roots. Get rid of Trump and bring in Vice President Mike Pence who although a neo-con by nature and instinct, would probably calm things down and at the same time would inject a new ingredient into the 2020 presidential election campaign which would not be welcomed by the Democrats. Pence, if he played his cards right, could strike a blow to the Democrats' hopes of winning the election. If that were to happen Nancy Pelosi might regret ever giving her approval to the Trump impeachment. Pence himself must be thinking along these lines even if he never hints at any such thing. But secretly at night in the confines of his home I bet he has turned to his wife Karen and said: "Darling, you do realise that there is a small possibility I could be president in the early part of next year and you could be First Lady. How about that?" Ok, it's unlikely because the Senate trial will probably go the way everyone expects, an acquittal by the Republicans voting en mass aganst the Democrats. Trump then feels vindicated and goes on to win reelection. But there must be some Republicans, not the senior hierarchy, who hate Trump, hate what he stands for, and might feel tempted to seize the one historic chance they have to get rid of him. Pence is no hero, no white horse champion waiting to save the nation from dishonour. But there are huge swathes of people, politicians and ordinary citizens, who would sign up to an Anyone but Trump campaign. This could be Pence's great moment!

Boris reigns supreme

It is extraordinary how a big political majority in parliament changes everything, not just the fact that the Conservative government can start to do what it really wants in planning ahead for the next five years but because Boris Johnson has been unleished. He has the golden opportunity to be bold and decisive. He has already shown that he is now brimming with confidence by effectively telling the EU that he will not brook any further delay in negotiating a trade deal beyond December 31 2020. He is going to legislate this ultimatum by putting the date into his Brexit bill. He could never have done that if he had won by a small margin last week. And there is no opposition to fight him. The Labour Party is in a total mess with Jeremy Corbyn unbelievably still around claiming to be leader but no one is listening to him, the Liberal Democrats have lost their leader and their parliamentary status and the Brexit Party is off the map. Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish Nationalists, has more seats after the election but she is so obsessed with independence for Scotland that she will soon become the bore of the year. So Boris reigns supreme and in his first 100 days he will need to start implementing his many promises. Cabinet ministers are going to be working harder than ever to prove they are worthy of their places in government. Again, this gives enormous power to Boris. They all know that but for Boris's leadership and single-slogan mission throughout the election campaign - get Brexit done - they might well be sitting at home with their families with nothing to do. They owe him and Boris will no doubt remind them of that if they fail to meet his demands. Boris's danger is that if he relies too much on unelected advisers, especially those who masterminded his campaign, he will undermine his Cabinet and cause ripples of anger and frustration in Whitehall. But for the moment the world is at his feet and he looks like he is loving it.

Is Kim Jong-un prepared to risk everything?

It is a sad comment on diplomacy that both North Korea and President Trump have reverted to the language of insult which was so prevalent two years ago. Pyongyang has started to refer to Trump as a dotard which it first did in September 2017 and Trump has reintroduced his favourite name for Kim Jong-un - Rocket Man, following the new series of short-range missile test firings. It does not bode well. The North Korean leader has set a deadline for the end of this year for Washington to come up with something concessionary if Trump wants another summit with him. That means a promise to start lifting sanctions which have been helping to cripple the North Korean economy although Kim and his cohorts have found cunning ways to circumvent them. Deadlines are always dangerous because if nothing happens before the last day it puts pressure on the deadine-maker to do something spectacular (stupid) to underline who is boss. If the December 31 deadline passes without a move from Washington it's almost inevitable that Kim will order his generals to carry out a nuclear test or launch an intercontinental ballistic missile flight test to prove he has a weapon that can reach the United States. His recent tests on more powerful rocket engines prove that that is what he has in mind. Washington has issued warnings about the need for North Korea to do nothing to damage the painful negotiations that had been going on but without any obvious success. Kim is clearly running out of patience and wants his "friend" Donald Trump to demonstrate his good faith or face the consequences. It's difficult if not impossible for Trump to row back on his red-line position which is that sanctions will not be lifted until North Korea has totally dismantled its nuclear weapons and facilities. And the more dangerously threatening North Korea becomes it makes it even more impossible for Trump to concede anything because it would be seen in Pyongyang as a classic case of Washington being forced to back down. Does Kim want war? Does he want annihilation as Trump once threatened? Surely not. But it's the most risky brinkmanship game since the Cuban missile crisis in the 1960s. Whatever Kim does, whatever "Christmas gift" he has in mind cannot be so major that it provokes Trump into some form of military action. No one in the Pentagon will be advocating a military response. So it's up to Trump and his advisers to produce a formula of words that will appease Kim without actually promising anything. Tricky but not impossible. Something like, "Look Chairman Kim, we know our sanctions are biting hard but there is a reason why we imposed them in the first place. So let's have another summit and talk about it, and at the same time discuss what you can do to reassure the rest of the world that you really are prepared to denuclearise. Happy Christmas."

Afghanistan war, who cares about the Afghanistan war?

The White House and Pentagon have adopted a sort of "what who cares" attitude to the series of articles published by the Washington Post about how the war in Afghanistan was mishandled from the beginning. The articles were based on hundreds of interviews with participants carried out by the US Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) in a lessons-learned inquiry in 2014 which had remained confidential until the Washington Post put in a bunch of Freedom of Information requests. The excellent journalist Craig Whitlock, one of my nicest former colleagues in the Pentagon press corps when I was in Washington 2010-2013, produced a stunning series of articles underlining the hopelessly ill-informed strategy that lay behind the campaign against the Taliban in the longest war since Vietnam. The Pentagon's response to the articles has been basically shoulder-shrugging. Yeah yeah things went wrong but the Taliban was prevented from taking over the government again, so the US and Nato campaign had achieved positive results. Even General Jim Mattis, former defence secretary and former commander of Central Command overseeing the war in Afghanistan from 2010-2013, has been pretty casual in his reaction, saying there was nothing revelatory in the articles. Mark Esper, current US defence secretary, merely said it was important to look forward not back. To an extent Mattis and the Pentagon officials commenting are right. There is nothing truly explosive about the SIGAR reports and the Washington Post articles because actually journalists involved in writing about Afghanistan since 2001, including me, have known about and reported on the weaknesses and failures of the huge Afghanistan campaign. Nevertheless, Craig Whitlock's intrepid determination to reveal everything in the lessons-learned inquiry has been a classic piece of reporting which the public needs to know. He has done a great service and for the current US administration - admittedly only involved in Afghanistan since 2017 - to dismiss the whole thing as old news is both unfair and dishonest. The 18-year campaign was and is a disastrous example of misjudgments, failures in leadership and a total misunderstanding at the hghest political and military level of what could be realistically achieved in a country as backward as Afghanistan. The Brits went into Helmand without having the first idea of how the Taliban would react to the arrival of 3,300 British troops in 2006 in the province that was their spiritual heartland. It turned out to be a hopelessly inadequate number to face the resurgent Taliban and British paratroopers were slaughtered. They were sent to help with reconstruction but ended up fighting for their lives. It was a disaster. The Washington Post articles are littered with similar examples of fatal misjudgments. The anti-heroin campaign was also a farce. Some bright spark came up with the idea of paying thousands of dollars to individual poppy farmers to stop planting poppy seeds and switch to wheat and cereal. The farmers agreed and took the money but just carried on planting poppy because the Taliban warned them they would be killed if they didn't. And anyway there was no transport system for carrying wheat and cereal to the markets. Britain alone handed over about £11 million in cash piled into suitcases but got nothing in return. But officials back in Whitehall no doubt thought it was a splendid idea. Totally misguided! In my view the Washington Post articles, while not revelatory, were a brilliant summing up of a campaign that went wrong wrong wrong and there is still no end to it.

Boris has to invest in the North big-time

If Boris means what he says about wanting unity in the United Kingdom he will have to be hugely generous in splashing Treasury funds all across the North and Midlands. The people who live in these areas need jobs, better housing, improved public transport, new industries and a proper future. They have been neglected for a decade and the difference between the wealthy, healthy, thriving towns and cities in the south is so marked that when you get off a train after a long journey north from London it hits you in the face. It can be like a different world where real poverty is there for all to see. Michael Heseltine when he was Conservative Environment Secretary in the Margaret Thatcher government in the 1980s invested so much in Liverpool that the regeneration he ordered transformed the city. It was a Labour-controlled city but the Heseltine impact was so profound that they awarded him the Freedom of the City in 2012 by which time he was Lord Heseltine. He fell in love with Liverpool and saved the city from falling into an abyss. Amazing achievement. Boris needs to do the same. He needs to fall in love with the North and the Midlands and spend spend spend. First because it's vital for these regions of the UK and second because Labour supporters for the first time in their lives voted for Boris instead of for Labour and its leader Jeremy Corbyn. They put their trust in Boris because they had no confidence in Corbyn's leadership. So Boris owes them. I hope he doesn't let them down. If he does he will be thrown out of Downing Street in five years' time.

Boris wins in style and promises a UNITED Kingdom

Well, it's all over, all the predictions of a hung parliament and a close call - apart from my prediction yesterday!!! - were wrong totally wrong. Corbyn never stood a chance, not with his 1950s political extremism. Boris claimed to be worried on the even of the election day about a close vote but surely he must have known from his own internal polls that he was set to win big. But I think most pundits were suprised by the size of his victory. It was staggering and must have made poor poor Theresa May sob into her leopard-skin shoes. Not because the Conservatives had won but because the man who succeeded her did so so much better than her apalling showing in the 2017 election. It was Boris's day. He wiped the floor, he sent Jeremy Corbyn into premature retirement, sat heavily on the Lib Dems, indirectly ousting leader Jo Swinson, and drove Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party into oblivion. He, directy or indirectly, achieved another unexpected coup. Dennis Skinner, veteran Labour MP for Bolsover (by veteran I mean veteran - 49 years as MP for Bolsover), the MP who always wore the same sports jacket in the Commons chamber ever since I can remember and the man with a pointed quip on his lips in every debate, lost his seat. Totally unbelievable. The Skinner demise says more about the total defeat of the Corbyn Labour movement than almost anything else. The ideology of the Corbyn era, the horrible Momentum group that kept him afloat and the smug hand-rubbing we're-in-charge grin on the face of the most outspoken union leaders, notably Len McKluskey, leader of the Unite trade union, a big-time donor to the Labour Party, all have been shunted into a dark cupboard with the door locked. Boris has the key. Meanwhile I hope a new fresh democracy-loving, bright, young, inspirational Labour Party will rise from the ashes. One of its members must be James Frith who sadly lost his seat in Bury North last night but deserves to be given another constituency as swiftly as possible. He is what the Labour Party should look and sound like in the future. OK, I am biased. He is my godson. But he has been a brilliant constituency MP and has been recognised in parliament as a talent to watch out for. But this is now Boris's time. He has promised not to let down those who voted for him, he has promised to unite the country, he has promised to act in the best interests of everyone whether in the south, north, east or west of this United Kingdom. After four years of dire almost unprintable political dithering and backbiting in the House of Commons over Brexit I think we all deserve a period of stability, hope and reassurance that we have a government who can properly govern and do its duty to Queen and country.

Trump and Boris, leaders with bluster and swagger

Boris Johnson will win the UK general election today because he has fulfilled the necessary requirements for succeeding as a modern-day political honcho. He talks general not specifics, he blusters well, he appeals to the popularist tendency in the electorate, he offers more than he could ever possibly achieve, he answers tough questions with slogans and makes bogeymen of his opponents. Voila Boris, voila Donald Trump. They have a lot in common. This is the way of political leadership today. And for that reason, Jeremy Corbyn looks old-fashioned and out of date and boring and really had little hope of taking over in Number 10 from the moment he was made leader of the Labour Party in 2015. Well I'm happy with that because I don't want Corbyn in Downing Street. Ever. In the US, Trump will win reelection because he approaches the political game in a way that is totally different from his leading Democratic rivals. The word Trump is now a brand, just as the word Boris is. With impeachment about to be voted on by the House of Representatives and then sent to the Senate for trial, Trump should look cowed, worried, angry and even nervous. But no, he is laughing at the whole process, mocking his Democrat opponents and predicting victory. Never mind all the evidence the Democrats have uncovered of alleged abuse of power and obstruction, Trump looks totally unbowed, as if as president he is above the law. There are two ways of looking at this conduct: either he is supremely confident of the outcome because he has done nothing wrong and has been genuinely maligned by the Democrats, or, even if he has broken every constitutional rule in the book, in his eyes it doesn't matter because he is the president and always knows what's best. If you believe the latter, then Trump is guilty of incredible arrogance and makes him unaccountable, a chief executive with uncontrollable powers. Trump and Boris have both been loose and economical with the truth but the way things are today it doesn't seem to matter as much as it used to. Bernie Sanders has no chance of defeating Trump, nor has Elizabeth Warren. Nor has Michael Bloomberg although his billions will get him closer than most. None of them have the swagger of Donald Trump. No one could accuse Jeremy Corbyn of having swagger. But Boris does. And swagger is a key ingredient it seems for success in politics these days.

How the intelligence community worries about Jeremy Corbyn

Behind the scenes in Whitehall where the civil service estabishment lives and breathes and plots our future, there are super senior officials whispering in dark corners about the worst scenario facing this country - in their iew and most people's view: the arrival in Number 10 Downing Street of Jeremy Corbyn, furiously socialist left winger and his motley crew of Marxists and Leninists. The implications of having such extreme left wingers taking charge of this country are anathema to these individuals and I'm sure they are discussing what they are going to do and how they're going to confront such a prospect if it happens. For example what will a Corbyn government do with the UK's four nuclear deterrent ballistic missile submarines, will ministers and their political advisers respect the top secret intelligence that will come their way, much of it from the US, how will they respond when Washington asks for the UK's support for going to war with North Korea/Iran/? etc etc? There are some secrets that are so secret hardly anyone knows about them. Could Corbyn and co ever be trusted to have knowledge of them? A previous Labour Government, under James Callaghan, approved a multi-million pound secret nuclear warhead programme to boost the killing power of the then Polaris ballistic missile submarines. It was called the Chevaline pogramme. Most of the Callaghan cabinet knew nothing about it and Parliament was kept in the dark till many years later. Could a Corbyn government ever consider doing anything like that on the grounds that the security of the country's survival was deemed to be at stake? No, Corbyn and his Marxist advisers would not because fundamentally they don't believe in the nuclear deterrent, not for Britain anyway. So the intelligence and security mandarins in Whitehall are bound to be going over all these sort of scenarios, trying to come up with answers that will mean the UK's safety remains in the hands of the establishment and not the Marxist ideologists. There must be some scary plotting going on. But above all they are all walking around with their fingers crossed, praying that Boris wins.

The President of the United States accused of abuse of power!

So the Democrats have done it. They have unveiled two articles of impeachment against Donald Trump. In the "family" pic of leading Democrats making the annuncemrent you have never seen such a miserable-looking crowd. All down in the mouth, most of them not looking at the camera and all them wishing they were not there. I guess impeaching a president is a sobre moment. It wouldn't be right if they were all grinning like mad. But I still have a sneaking feeling that each one in the photograph, including and especially Nancy Pelosi, knows that it is all going to be a waste of time and potentially damaging for their hopes of ousting Trump from the White House next November. The two articles accuse Trump of high crimes and misdemeanours - the official language that justifies an impeachment charge. The articles focus on one issue, Trump's attempt to persuade the new Ukrainian president in a phone call to dig up any dirt on his main political rival for the White House Joe Biden linked to his son Hunter's employment by a suspected corrupt gas company in Ukraine. In return - the famous quid pro quo which Trump denies - President Zelensky, the former comedian turned political leader, would be guaranteed an invitation to see Trump in the White House AND get the military aid which had been promised but put on hold. Basically, Ukrainegate. Pelosi, Speaker of the House, had said she had no choice but to go for impeachment but the misery on her face and on the faces of her senior colleagues was a sight to behold. Now the House has to formally vote on the two articles of impeachment and then it's up to the Republican-controlled Senate to hold a trial. If it wasn't Trump who was the president facing this mighty attack on his character and reputation it would be a huge event both for the United States and for the rest of the universe. But Trump being Trump has just dismissed the whole thing as a witchhunt fake news blaa blaa blaa. Absolutely no remorse whatsoever. And he knows the Republicans in the Senate will vote to acquit him so he is just readying himself to shout abuse at the Democrats when they eventually fail in their endeavours to sack him as president. Then poor Pelosi and co will look even more miserable than they do today in that photograph. I like Pelosi by the way.

Pensacola killings have the halmarks of a planned terrorist attack

The FBI is still being cautious about the motivation for the fatal shootings at the US Naval Air Station Pensacola base in Florida although agents are becoming convinced it was probably a terrorist attack. All the signs are that it was a planned and premeditated and deliberate attempt to kill as many US Navy personnel as possible. Apart from the three sailors who died, the shooter injured eight others. The gunman, Second Lieutenant Mohammed Alshamrani, a Saudi national, was part of a team of Saudis receiving training at the base. Initial suspicions of a terrorist act were raised when it emerged that the shooter, who was subseqently killed by police, was a Saudi national who appeared to have had an interest in Osama bin Laden. It is not possible, never possible, to forget that 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorist plane hijackers were Saudis and that they learnt how to fly commercial arliners in South Florida. Osama bin Laden was Saudi. And here we have a Saudi Air Force pilot being given specalist training at the famous US military base. Saudi Arabia I am sure will be desperate to delink Lieutenant Alshamrani from terrorism but the fact is that as a guest of the United States he went to a gunshop and bought himself a 9mm Glock 45 pistol in Florida. He had clearly done his homework because as a foreign holder of a hunting licence he was permitted under the law in Florida to buy a gun and ammunition over the counter and walk off down the road without a care in the world. He also smuggled the gun into the base, another act of premeditated malevolence, knowing that he intended to use it, not for a hunting and shooting party, but to commit murder within the base. If, as is being suggested, he had a row with his training instructor who teased him over the shape of his moustache, then surely Alshamrani would have sought him out and shot him if his sole motive was to take revenge on an individual who had humiliated him. But no, he opened fire on 11 of his supposed comrades. One remembers a similar outrage at Fort Hood in Texas on November 5 2009 when Major Nidal Hasan of the US Army opened fire at random and killed 13 soldiers and wounded 32 others. It was a massed shooting which was unquestionably a terrorist act. Mohammed Alshamrani will be remembered for committing another appalling terrorist act in the US.The purchase of the Glock pistol may have been legal in the eyes of the US constitution and Florida law but it was the act of a man with murder on his mind.

The Europe-roving Russian GRU hit squad

FULL VERSION OF MY TIMES PIECE TODAY: MI5 “hostile state” investigators have been at the centre of efforts by a number of western intelligence agencies to plot the movements and activities of a covert Russian assassination and espionage team operating in Europe. Unit 29155, part of Russia’s military intelligence directorate, GRU (Glavnoye Razvedyvatelnoye Upravlenie) , has been exposed as a roving Kremlin-backed hit squad. This week the French newspaper Le Monde revealed members of the unit had been based at three Alpine towns in France, Chamonix, Evian and Annemasse, to carry out their Europe-wide assignments. MI5’s investigation into the unit began after the near-fatal poisoning of GRU defector Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, on March 4 last year in Salisbury, Wiltshire. Deadly novichok nerve agent suspected of having been developed in a Russian military laboratory was smeared on the front door knob of their house. The MI5 investigators swiftly uncovered the movements of two main Russian suspects leading to their arrival in Salisbury. The two men were named as Alexander Petrov and Rusian Boshirov. However, their real identities, according to the Bellingcat investigative website, were Dr Alexander Mishkin and Colonel Anatoliy Chepiga, both suspected members of GRU Unit 29155, commanded by Major-General Andrei Averyanov. The confirmed link between the Skripal poisoning and the GRU unit initiated a multi-agency operation, involving the UK, US, France and Switzerland to trace the movements of up to 15 members of the Russian hit squad. Checking facial-recognition CCTV systems, hotel registrations, shops and restaurants where suspects had been spotted, MI5 and the other agencies built up a life pattern of many of the Europe-based members of Unit 29155. Traces of the unit’s presence were found going back to 2014. The three Alpine towns were pinpointed as key staging-posts, selected, it was assumed, because of their location close to the Italian and Swiss borders. UK security sources would not confirm whether the two Skripal suspects had also operated from France. They flew into the UK from Moscow on March 2, 2018. The British investigators led the way, according to US intelligence sources. However, the new revelations about the unit published in Le Monde came from French intelligence officials. The US sources said it seemed the French wanted the details to come out. The US sources in particular emphasised the importance of linking Unit 29155 directly to the Kremlin. “This isn’t some rogue unit operating with autonomy. They do what they do at the behest of [President] Putin,” one US intelligence source said. The GRU unit, the source said, was “in general far more aggressive” than other Russian intelligence agencies. It also operated on the basis of a “higher tolerance of risk”, confirming observations following the Skripal poisoning that the suspects appeared to be acting in a reckless manner, seemingly unafraid of being caught in the act. MI5’s retrospective investigation into the Skripal suspects which helped uncover the French connection involved intelligence officers from the security service’s department dealing with hostile state activities. Twenty per cent of MI5’s budget is now spent on such investigations, much of it Russia-related. Following the attempt by Unit 29155 to assassinate Mr Skripal who worked as a double agent for MI6, the British government expelled 23 Russian diplomats from the UK. They were all known or suspected GRU officers. “We are confident that they are all gone. It will take a decade for the GRU to attempt to resurge, so we have significantly and generationally dealt with the GRU presence in the UK, “ a security source said. The US sources said collaboration between the various intelligence agencies had had results, pointing to the expulsion of two Russian diplomats after the murder of a Chechen exile in Berlin in broad daylight and Bulgaria's expulsion of a Russian diplomat for espionage.

Boris and Corbyn go head to head

Watching Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn hammering away at each other in tonight's TV debate makes you wish for the golden era - if there ever was one - when political leaders spoke with eloquence and intelligence and conducted themselves in a respectful and dignified way. There is little dignity these days, just a mish-mash of claims and counter-claims about policies which will probably never be implemented. The two men clearly don't like each other and watching them is painful. This country needs uplifting. After nearly four years of Brexit confrontations, the nation is weary. The last thing we want is to watch two candidates for Number 10 Downing Street arguing like overgrown schoolboys, each claiming to know how to run a country but neither sounding remotely convincing. But one way or the other the election in less than a week's time HAS to produce a clear result. This country needs a prime minister with a majority mandate to confront all the problems, not just Brexit, that are sitting in the in-tray. It has to be Boris although the more I watch him on the campaign trail the more fearful I get of the sort of leadership he is going to provide.

Trump back to impeachment after Nato verbal punch-up

You can understand why Donald Trump wants the impeachment process to be wrapped up fast. It seems to have been going on for ever and having a president with an impeachment dagger hovering above his head wherever he goes can't do much for the prestige and authority of the United States. It's the world's greatest military power but with a commander-in-chief who could be facing the sack. Nancy Pelosi had wanted it all done and dusted by Christmas but the House proceedings have now entered their second phase with the judiciary committee taking over from the intelligence committee. It's a longwinded process and it's time for the big decison by the House and then move over to the Senate for a trial. But it will never be done by Christmas. Trump remains confident it will all blow away when his Republican supporters in the Senate reject the impeachment charges. But there must still be nervous moments in the White House. What if...? The Nato summit in Watford, Hertfordshire, should have been a welcome relief for Trump from the battering he gets in Congress over the Ukrainegate affair but of course there was no let-up for the president after he had fallen out with Emmanuel Macron and then Justin Trudeau. The person I feel sorriest for is Jens Stoltenberg, Nato secretary-general, who had spent weeks devising a crisis-free, division-free summit in which all leaders would follow his example by avoiding attacking Trump and, if possible, praising him. He might as well have called it the eggshell summit. In other words, getting all leaders to walk on eggshells with Trump to avoid breaking them and allowing the contents to spill out and make a mess. All to no avail. The eggs were well and truly broken and Trump went home in a bad mood. He arrived back at the White House and it was immediately all impeachment impeachment impeachment. Three scholars recruited by the Democrats agreed there were grounds for impeachment. One more scholar was invited, by the Republicans, but he said impeachment was NOT justified. So now Trump has got the Three Wise Men against him as well. Actually one of the wise men was a woman but I wanted a Christmas reference!! I predict there is going to be a series of very angry Trump tweets over the next few weeks leading up to Christmas. Throughout the Nato summit Trump looked pretty stony-faced, and that didn't change when he arrived back in Washington.

Never whisper about Trump near a microphone

Donald Trump looks upon Justin Trudeau as a jumped-up foolish kid. So whenever the Canadian prime minister steps out of line, Trump weighs into him in public. It has happened a lot. Today Trump was in steaming mood because of a video that went viral with Trudeau slagging off the president for being late for a bilateral meeting. Trudeau was chatting to Macron and Boris at a reception at Buckingham Palace yesterday before today's Nato summit at a luxury hotel in Watford north of London. He was unaware of microphones picking up his conversation which duly got aired by Canadian Broadcasting. Fortunately for Macron and Boris whatever they had to say in reply wasn't included in the videotape. Macron was probably rude but he spoke too quietly - sensibly - for his words to be heard. It's all a storm in a teacup. It was not like Trudeau blasted Trump for being rude as well as late or anything like that. So it's hardly a big deal that the Canadian leader was upset over Trump's lateness. The US president was holding an extended press conference at the time and let it run longer than planned. So, as I say, no big deal. Although he did add that he had observed Trump's "team" with their jaws dropping to the floor as they listened to his answers at the press conference. That will have riled Trump. But more than anything else, Trump was infuriated that other leaders should so much as dare gossip about him behind his back. That's why Trump called Trudeau two-faced and speculated that the Canadian prime minister was angry over being criticised for failing to reach the long-time-ago agreed policy for each alliance nation to spend two per cent of GDP on defence. That videotape did a lot of damage. Apart from scolding Trudeau in public, Trump then flounced off when the summit was over and said he wasn't going to do the planned press conference and intended to head straight back to Washington. So there! Golden rule, don't gossip about Trump anywhere near a microphone unless you're going to say something nice about him. One little bit of gossip and the whole Nato summit has been cast into the shadows. All the headlines will be how Trump stormed off and snubbed the carefully-laid Nato plans to hold a "unity" press conference. Trump did exactly the same at the G7 summit in Canada in June 2018. He not only stormed out but refused to sign the communique. Who's fault was that? Hahaha, none other than Justin Trudeau. At least, in Trump's eyes because the Canadian had been less than amicable about US trade policy. So another golden rule, never say anything against Trump and his policies anywhere, in pivate or in public, just to be on the safe side, or in Trudeau's case, Justin to be on the safe side!

Kamala Harris had star quality but no hope of beating Trump

Kamala Harris was my pick of the Democratic presidential candidates. But after months of trailing in opinion polls behind the four big beasts - Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg - she had to face reality, and today she has ended her campaign to be president. She really had no choice but it is still a shame that someone of her calibre and presence and background has had to step aside.The Democratic race for the nomination was always crazy because there were far too many candidates throwing their names in the ring. She was an early star and there were moments when it looked as if she might pose a threat to the big four. But it was not to be. Perhaps in the future she will try again. Two others backed out over the weekend but neither of them had the Harris charisma: Montana Governor Steve Bullock and former Representative Joe Sestak both acknowledged that they were not attracting sufficient support to make it worthwhile to carry on. But the Democratic candidate list is still long and growing. Mike Bloomberg, former New York mayor, is already making headway with his late entry. His billions are making all the other candidates nervous. Biden is still in the lead despite his fumbles and often bizarre moments, such as when he nibbled the fingertips of his wife Jill after she made a political campaign point by sweeping her arm around to point at her husband. At home in the privacy of his family that might not look so odd but out in the open in a public place it only served to remind people that Biden was not unknown to be a touch creepily and physically over enthusiastic in the presence of women. With Kamala Harris sadly out of the race, I really don't know who to support. Not that I have a vote of course but someone charismatic, able and strong needs to be chosen to have a go at removing Trump. The way things are going Joe Biden will win the nomination by default, even though Barack Obama is reported to have told one Democratic candidate that he didn't think his former vice president was up to the job. Ouch! Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are still runners but I can't imagine either will win the nomination. Pete Buttigieg could well have a little surge because he looks and sounds so damned good. But he's lying fourth right now and will need a huge boost in popularity to push ahead of the others. If it has to be Biden, then his choice of running mate will be crucial. Step forward Kamala Harris. She has been whispered about as a possible vice presidential candidate to go with Biden but when the whispers first became headlines some months back, she was still running for the top job and dismissed such talk. Now she's out of the race, the Biden camp might come running. That would be good news in my view.

Nato's future at risk from internal cracks and Putin malevolence

FULL VERSION OF MY NATO PIECE FOR THE TIMES TODAY: Internal “cracks” in Nato and doubts raised about the alliance’s survival present a gift to President Putin who is determined to undermine the 29-member organisation as it approaches its 70th anniversary, a former top US commander in Europe warns. “There are a lot of factors weighing on the Nato alliance, including nations that are unwilling to invest properly and nations that want to see a more European alliance less dominated by the US,” General Philip Breedlove, supreme allied commander Europe (Saceur) from 2013-2016, old The Times. He pointed to the challenge of having Nato nations turning elsewhere for their weapon systems rather than from within the alliance, an implicit reference to Turkey, a key ally which has purchased Russia’s SS-400 air defence system despite appeals from the US to reject the deal with Moscow. “This does present problems for the alliance, creating cracks and fissures that Mr Putin encourages and then exploits to try and tear our alliance apart,” he said. “We face many challenges, to include the rise in Russia’s aggressiveness, and the bottom line is Nato is more important than it ever was,” he said. “When it comes to asymmetric measures [such as sending Russian mercenary troops to eastern Ukraine and Libya and elsewhere, and Moscow’s involvement in cyber warfare ] the tools are not surprising, what is surprising is how brazen Russia is in their use. It’s scary how brazen they are,” General Breedlove said. He described these Russian interventions as “actions below the line”. “In the Cold War we understood our opponent. We knew where the lines were and the ground rules. Now we don’t understand where the lines are, ” he said. This was why Nato, which had prevented large-scale war in Europe since the end of the Second World War, remained a vital alliance. “Article 5 [under which each alliance state is committed to considering an armed attack on one member in Europe or North America an attack against them all] is still the essence of Nato,” he said. General Breedlove’s conviction is that Article 5 remains the central principle of the alliance. This is hard to rectify with the highly controversial remark by President Macron in an interview with The Economist this month in which he said Nato was suffering from “brain death”. “What will Article 5 mean tomorrow?” the French leader posed. General Breedlove said there were “a lot of people saying a lot of things but we live as an alliance by what nations do, not what they say”. His remarks were echoed by General Jim Jones, Saceur from 2003-2006 and President Obama’s first national security adviser (2009-2010). “Macron’s remark about Nato suffering from brain death was unfortunate. For a head of state to bring in this kind of discord on the eve of the 70th anniversary of one of the greatest alliances in the world is disappointing,” he told The Times. “The new line of defence for the alliance today starts at the Black Sea and the Baltic states rather than Germany. We have rotational forces in Romania, Bulgaria and Poland, “ General Jones sad. Mr Putin had found this “objectionable” and Russia had made “skillful use of social media to create the impression that Nato is irrelevant”. General Jones warned that it would be “bad form” if any head of state” tried to spoil the 70th anniversary celebrations. “Nato doesn’t deserve that,” he said. General Breedlove pointed out that while Mr Macron was casting doubt on Nato’s future as a US-dominated alliance, France was, for example, heavily dependent on American military support for its counter-terrorism operations in North Africa, including Mali, Chad and Niger. “We’re assisting them with transport aircraft, refuelling tankers and intelligence reconnaissance,” he said. Perhaps more crucially, President Trump has shown antipathy towards Nato in numerous critical comments since he took office. However, General Breedlove said the US had significantly increased its investment in Europe every year “since Russia invaded eastern Ukraine”. This was over and above what had originally been planned, and included both forces and investments. Mr Trump has frequently attacked European members of the alliance for failing to increase defence spending. But General Breedlove said Mr Trump’s three predecessors had all done exactly the same thing. “But this is the first president to get any results,” he said. Official Nato figures show there has been a real increase in defence spending in Europe in recent years: 4.19 per cent in 2017 and an estimated increase in 2018 and 2019 of 5.21 per cent and 4.26 per cent respectively.

Usman Khan was a monster and can never be forgiven

Terrorist attacks are always inexplicable. Why do people of whatever supposed religion hate so much that they have to kill to demonstrate their evil? But in the case of Usman Khan there is another question. Why did he want or need to target the very people who had dedicated their careers to helping people like him - "former" terrorists, murderers and other criminals who had spent years in prison and apparently wanted to be rehabilitated? Khan, a monster of an inhuman being, killed two young Cambridge University graduates who had done everything they could to understand, help and nurture Khan and the others who attended the conference at Fishmongers' Hall near London Bridge. Jack Merritt, aged 25, and Saskia Jones, 23, were both forgiving selfless young people who had chosen to do a job which they hoped would be rewarding and meaningful and fulfilling. Khan had been given special permission to breach his release licence conditions by spending the day in London to attend the conference and benefit from people like Jack and Saskia. It is beyond comprehension that from the moment he was granted permission to travel to London he clearly had only one objective in mind. Did no one in authority think to themselves, this conference is going to be held at London Bridge, scene of an even more devastating terrorist attack two years ago? Would this attack have happened had the conference been held in say, Cambridge or Birmingham or Liverpool? We will never know of course, but the two words, London Bridge, must have set off in Khan's evil mind a thought process that led him to plot murder. All sinners should be forgiven, it is often claimed. But never Usman Khan. The only memory left from this terrorist attack must be the never-to-be-forgotten tragedy of the death of two young inspiring people and the families left to grieve.