Brexit Day has arrived. Hurray or boo hoo?

Although the Big Day has arrived - 11 o'clock tonight - there is no real sense of change coming after we have left the European Union. But those who support the UK leaving the EU are buying bottles of champagne from the supermarkets and putting up Union Jacks outside their homes as if a Great War has been won and we are all at last liberated. Boris is promising a new golden era ahead of us and invites us to look to the future with optimism and hope. Well, hope certainly, but optimism? I really don't know. I don't feel optimistic. I feel sad, disillusioned, uncertain and troubled, and also a genuine loss at the thought of this island being cast off from its European family. I can imagine arriving with my passport at, say, Lisbon airport to be greeted by a sniffy immigration officer not wanting to let me in. This is probably too pessimistic, but I can imagine some European countries thinking to themselves, "From now we are going to treat Brits differently." It has to be said, however, that ever since we joined the EU all those years ago we never ever felt truly European, not like the French or the Germans or Italians. We are after all an island. And over the years UK governments have rejected much of the EU club membership special offers, such as switching from the pound to euros. We didn't want euro money in our pockets even though we always had to have euro money in our pockets when we cross over to Europe for holidays and business trips. But that was our island decision. And then of course there were all those opt-outs, making sure the UK didn't become too immersed in EU ways. And Maggie Thatcher used to battle every year demanding money back, and successfully. So in a way Brussels has been used to our somewhat reluctant membership of the European community. Now we - well half of Britain - are seemingly relieved that we don't have to put up with all that Brussels bureaucratic nonsense any more. So out come the champagne glasses. I agree we have never been a truly paid-up member of the EU, we have always complained and stamped out feet but basically, as the fifth most powerful economic country in the world, we, the Brits, gave far more than we took away during our EU membership. We and the EU will be the loser by our exit. Now we have to see what happens in the so-called transition period which Boris has set as 11 months but which Brussels says will be at least two years and probably five. That means lots of uncertainty for a long time. We are going back to having blue and gold passports but we don't know what that will mean at airports. And what happens to the mass of Brits who live and work in Europe? Will they be allowed to stay put with no changes? Surely they will. What will happen to intelligence-sharing and the defence of Europe? Well, Nato still exists so I guess the defence argument will be solved although as we, with the best armed forces in Europe, exit the EU, Paris and Berlin are bound to push ahead with their plans for a European army. And how disastrous that will be. So, all in all, today, Friday January 31 2020, is a disturbing and dispiriting day.

John Bolton's revelatory book gets redacted. Wholesale!

John Bolton, would-be bestselling author and holder of Donald Trump secrets, has become Enemy Number 1 in the White House. And Trump and co have the perfect revenge. On the grounds that his book contains top secret classified information, it has been banned from publication for the foreseeable future. In other words until at least November!! It's a classic move by the White House. Bolton's book had to be sent to the review team in the National Security Council that monitors all ex-cabinet members' memoirs and if a chunk of it hadn't been leaked to the New York Times, they would probably have sat on it for months. Now they're going to sit on it for months anyway but claiming that Bolton has breached classification rules. Worthy articles have appeared in the American press saying that under the review system books are only supposed to be evaluated by members of the "records management division" and not sent around the White House for a view, and certainly not from the president. It's all supposed to be non-political, just purely about national security. Hohohoho! EVERYTHING is political. Especially national security. National security is what you want it to be, and the dividing line between genuine secrets and geuine political emabarrassment is wavery at the best of times. By wonderful coincidence, the vice chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General John Hyten, has just declared that far too much stuff is classified as secret by the Pentagon and he wants to start lowering or declassifying a whole lot of information to make it easier for people outside the Defence Department to know what the hell is going on. He mentioned a comical incident recently when he attended a top secret briefing on America's strategic deterrence status - he was then commander of US Strategic Command. The top generals attending were all four stars and cleared for the most secret stuff but their three-star staff officers who went with them were banned from attending because they were NOT cleared for such highly classified intelligence. Hyten said that was crazy. Four stars always want to know what their three-star chaps are thinking! But for the White House, Bolton's book is obviously so full of seriously embarrassing recollections by the former national security adviser that the review board, or far more likely the president himself, wants to whip the rug from under Bolton's moneymaking book dreams by stamping national security violations all through the manuscript. It's such a wheeze, and there is nothing Bolton and his publishers and lawyers can do about it because it's the oldest game in the book. If the White House decides that, "In the morning President Trump rang the British prime minister and said, look you blithering idiot..", is top secret, then top secret it is. Is that sentence a matter of national security? Definitely not, Bolton would say. But Trump and his team would say, "Hang on, that's all about personal relations between the president of the United States and the prime minister of Her Majesty's government, so of course it's a matter of national security." You see? It's easy! By the way I'm not suggesting Bolton wrote this sentence in his book or that Trump thinks the British prime minister is a blithering idiot or that the British prime minister IS a blithering idiot. It's just an example of the kind of argument that might be made by both sides in this Bolton book drama. Bolton himself has made his view clear which is that he knows all about national security after many years in the government business and was sure that his book contained absolutely no violations whatsoever. I recall Bob Gates being annoyed when he submitted one of his memoirs to the White House, believing it to be free of any classification breaches. As a former defence secretary and CIA director he also knew all about what should remain secret. But lo and behold, the Obama administration blue-pencilled chunks of his book and he wasn't happy at all. In Bolton's case I imagine that most of the chapters now look more blue than white. Expect over the next few days further leaks to The New York Times!

Reporters under fire while trying to do their job

Journalists have had a tough week. First there was the reporter with The Washington Post who within hours of the breaking news that iconic basketball player Kobe Bryant (ooops, I had never heard of him!) had been killed in a helicopter crash, tweeted a link to a Daily Beast newspaper article from way back which detailed the charging of said basketball player with the rape of a 19-year-old girl in a hotel room; the reporter, Felicia Sonmez, was rebuked by her editor and suspended on the basis that she might have breached the paper's social media rules and damaged the paper's reputation. She has now been reinstated after the management decided she hadn't breached anything although the timing of her tweet was seen as unfortunate. Ha! My view? Truth will out, I'm sorry about the tragic death of a sports superstar but the rape charge, even though it was settled out of court with presumably lots of money handed over to the 19-year-old accuser, somewhat changed the glow of adoring words that appeared in every newspaper across the world. But Felicia could have waited 24 hours. Second there was the spat between National Public Radio reporter Mary Louise Kelly and Mike Pompeo, secretary of state. Pompeo was caught on the hop when she started asking him about Ukrainegate when he claimed he had only agreed to be questioned about Iran, and later took her to one side off-mike and berated her with four-letter words for daring to raise Ukraine. His role in the whole affair is still somewhat muddied. She then told the world what Pompeo had said to her, allegedly privately, in his burst of temper. Pompeo said his outburst was off the record and private but Kelly said he had never stipulated that his angry remarks were off the record. Oooops, Pompeo, you know the rules or should do by now. You have to state whether something is on the record, off the record, attributable or non-attributable or whatever, especially in the US where these ground rules are seen as of biblical importance. Ha again! My view on this one? Kelly claimed she had told Pompeo's staff that she would be raising Ukraine. I'm sure she did, but somehow Pompeo either wasn't informed or he wasn't listening. So he was taken by surprise by her questions on Ukraine. But hey, you're a grown-up politician, Pompeo, you should have answers to every question whether surprise ones or not. Being the secretary of state you must have known what Trump and Rudy Giuliani were doing in putting pressure on Ukraine's President Zelensky re the Bidens. So the questions were totally legitimate. As for the "private" scolding of Kelly after the interview, that smacks of heavyweight bullying. Not nice, and then the banning of an NPR reporter from joining him on his next foreign trip just underlined Pompeo's lust for revenge. Pretty unappetising. Then of course Trump had to weigh in by turning to Pompeo during the statement re his so-called peace initiative for Israel and Palestine and praising him for putting one on the NPR reporter. "You did a good job on her," he said with a smile. Yuk!! I don't know Kelly but I have had dealings with NPR. It's an excellent radio station with highly professional reporters. I'm sure Kelly is one of them. And third, there was the comment from Lord Tony Hall, outgoing BBC director-general, that the broadcaster's political journalists should be less aggressive when interviewing politicians. He said he didn't like it when interviewers tried to "catch out" politicians instead of allowing them to give uninterrupted answers. Well, he's right and he's wrong. It can be very irritating when a TV or radio interviewer constantly interrupts during a politician's answers, so much so that the interviwee never actually gets a chance to say what he/she believes he/she wants or ought to say. So, yes, slightly less of the "I'm the important one here and I want you to give me the answer I want you to give, NOW". But on the other hand, many senior politicians if unchecked just go on boringly with the Whitehall-agreed rubbish soundbites that mean very little and certainly go nowhere near answering the specific questions posed to them. Jeremy Paxman, the Great Interrupter, took his art too far and became so predictable every interview he did in his latter career tended to be about him and not the person he was interviewing. Other BBC notables have adopted the Paxman-style interrupting. My view? Provided the balance is right and the politicians can actually get across what they need to say, then robust questioning is both acceptable and necessary, and can be highly entertaining. Getting the balance right is key. Tony Hall clearly would not make a good political interviewer.

No actual crime has been committed claims Trump lawyer egghead

Lawyers acting for Donald Trump in his impeachment trial are doing a fine job arguing the toss over whether an actual crime has been committed and whether the president abused his power as chief executive. The highly paid legal experts obviously take exactly the opposite view of those legal colleagues who are claiming that all the evidence points to a clear case of impeachable crimes. For the senators, Republican and Democrat, I doubt any of these sophisticated arguments and counter-arguments will make any difference. They have aleady made up their minds, based on their political allegiance, not on their view of constitutional niceties. So in a sense all this trial back and forth is a waste of time. Unless there is a dramatic revelation, such as a piece of unbelievably damaging intelligence not previously made public, the trial will come to an end and Trump will be acquitted. I don't believe that even if John Bolton is allowed to appear as a witness he will make such a huge difference that Republican waverers such as Mitt Romney will stand up and be counted and vote with the Democrats. Bolton's position has already been sullied by having bits of his forthcoming book leaked to The New York Times. Lawyers for Trump will just say Bolton did it - leaked the damaging bits about what he says Trump told him about Ukraine and the military aid quid pro quo - as a publicity stunt to boost sales. It doesn't matter whether Bolton and his publishers had nothing to do with the leak. The lawyers will make the accusation anyway, just like lawyers do in criminal court cases. "I put it to you that you were so angry you went to your friend's house, broke down the door and killed him with a samurai sword." "But I was in Australia at the time and don't possess a samurai sword." And so on. The most blantant lawyer for Trump so far is the super-distinguished Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus. With such a job title he surely knows what he is talking about? He's a constitutional expert. He rather sweetly told the trial that he wasn't doing what he was doing to protect the president and to engage in political matters. He was there solely to protect the constitution and see that the founding fathers' wishes were duly carried out. And just for good measure he said he loved his country AND the constitution. If you were a Democrat listening to such elegant words you might have thought that, wow what drama, Professor Dershowitz was about to say something like, "As a result I believe that the constitution under President Trump has been abused and misused and seriously damaged." But no, the wise professor said exactly the opposite. Trump had acted in accordance with the noble constitution. What he had done in phoning up the new president of Ukraine re the Bidens and arranging separately for nearly $400 million in military aid to be suspended did not breach the founding fathers' requirements. All was absolutely fine. No crime had been committed, and under the constitution a crime HAD to be committed by the president for him to be found guilty of impeachment and abuse of power. No crime, so no case. To emphasise his total political neutrality vis a vis Trump and the Republicans, he revealed he had voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. So there we are. Professor Dershowitz has spoken. I add only one more thing but without making any comment or judgment: the illustrious professor defended O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein.

Who leaked John Bolton's draft manuscript to The New York Times?

Let me get this straight. So John Bolton, former Trump national security adviser, and his publishers sent a draft manuscript of his forthcoming book to the National Security Council for vetting purposes, to make sure he had not inadvertently included classified information in his account of his time serving in the Trump administration. And the draft was leaked to The New York Times! One copy only was sent to the committee that vets former administration officials' books and someone, presumably either serving on this committee or somewhere within the National Security Council decided to make a copy and send it to the newspaper. Absolutely extraordinary. Or perhaps not. Trump has known almost ever since he came to power that he does not attract total loyalty among his closest advisers. But this is a serious breach of confidence and loyalty. The timing of the leak is also so obvious. The Senate trial of Trump on impeachment charges has got to the point where a decision has to be made about allowing or banning witnesses from appearing before the Senate. The House members want it, a few Republican Senators are wavering and Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican leader, is determined to forbid witnesses from appearing. So bang! The New York Times publishes the juiciest morsel from the Bolton book which makes it clear, in Bolton's memory, that Trump categorically stated he wanted the Pentagon to withhold the near-$400 million due to the Ukrainian government to fight off the pesky Russians in eastern Ukraine, UNTIL the Kiev government under the newly elected President Zelensky had agreed to investigate and dig up dirt on Joe Biden, Trump's main Democratic rival for the 2020 election. Well, you might argue, the Democrats have been claiming this for weeks/months. It's the notorious quid pro quo which lies at the heart of the impeachment charge and which Trump has always denied. But ths is Bolton saying it, or writing it. Few people are closer to the president than the national security adviser. If Bolton recalls those were the words of Trump, then most people would probably believe it to be true. So of course now the Democrats are even more insistent that Bolton must give evidence to the Senate trial. He didn't appear in the House stage of the impeachment process because he had been ordered not to appear by the president, and Bolton did as he was told. But now Bolton's dramatic recollection has appeared in print it's going to be more difficult for McConnell to say no to witnesses. Either way, the Democrats are going to bring up the book contents at every available opportunity. Who leaked the manuscript? Was it someone in the National Security Council? The draft manuscript was sent to the NSC's records management division on December 30, so it has been sitting around for nearly a month. Either The New York Times got a copy some time ago and just bided their time to make the greatest impact, or it was delivered into their hands very recently and they rushed into print. Bolton's lawyers have accused the NSC of "corrupting" the pre-publication review process, although it has to be said the publicity will do the book's sales prospects no harm at all! Trump, for probably the 100th time since he became president, will be furious and will be regretting he ever appointed Bolton to be his national security adviser.

Boris's relatively quiet start is about to become hugely controversial

After the Boris runwaway election victory, we as a country just seem to have been waiting for the moment when we leave the EU in less than five days' time and then see what happens. Boris has carried on with being prime minister without causing a national stir about anything. But that is all going to change in the next week or so. First there is the HS2 (High Speed) decision, whether to continue with the superfast rail link between London and Birmingham and in a later phase to Manchester and Leeds. Apparently $12 billion has been spent already and much of the required land has been purchased. Despite the ridiculous cost estimated to be more than $100 billion, to scrap it now when Boris has stressed how vital it is to develop infrastructure for the Midlands and North, would be madness. He and the Cabinet must surely approve the project and get on with it and make sure that the costs are brought down. When the Channel Tunnel was beng built, costs rose and rose and there were calls for the whole idea to be scrapped but with the British and French governments determined to get the historic project completed it carried on and today it has transformed travel between the two countries and is seen as a success story. The HS2 rail link must go ahead, although I totally sympathise with those who are going to lose their houses and gardens and, in some cases, villages, to let the rail route run through the middle of England. But, as I have written before, the North desperately needs huge investment and a high-speed rail link will play a key part in improving living and working conditions. So, Boris, yes to HS2, please. As for the other big decisions, on Huawei, trade with the US and trade with the EU, a formula which keeps everyone happy has to be found. It's an industrial decision, a political decision and a diplomatic decision. It's time for Boris to demonstrate he has the intellect and strength of mind and vision to sort through the mass of differing arguments for and against and go for what's best for this country in the long term. There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't negotiate two separate trade deals at the same time, one with the EU and the other with the US, provided enough effort and manpower are provided. The trick will be to avoid pissing off either the US or the EU. Right now, the US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says he wants a trade deal with the UK by the end of the year, Boris says he wants a trade deal with the EU by the end of the year, and the EU says a trade deal with the UK by the end of the year is impossible. So, go for the US deal and press as hard as possible with the EU to at least try and get a trade deal before, say, the summer of 2021. Mnuchin of course is playing the political game, hoping Boris will do what the Trump administration wants on Huawei and other issues and promising, in return, a big fat trade deal in double quick time. It's unrealistic but Boris might as well play along, although he will need to find a magic formula to please Trump over Huawei and its 5G technology. That may be wishful thinking. But come on Boris, get that brain working. And don't listen too much to certain senior civil servants who seem to be pushing him away from doing anything to please Trump. We HAVE to keep that so-called special relationship intact as well as keep the EU happy. Impossible? Maybe. But that, as they say, is why the prime minister and his cabinet are paid big bucks!

Bezos Mohammed bin Salman Israel and the hacking scandal

The Israeli company at the centre of allegations that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was the victim of a malicious phone hack by the crown prince of Saudi Arabia faces court action by Facebook's WhatsApp next month over a cyber attack against 1,400 people in 2019. The company, NSO Group, a subsidiary of Q Cyber Technologies, based near Tel Aviv, developed the Pegasus spyware which was allegedly used by Mohammed bin Salman to breach Mr Bezos's iPhone and extract a mass of private data including details of an affair from his WhatsApp account. Saudi officials have described the accusation made in a UN-backed report as "absurd". US sources linked to American service providers, said NSO was paid "by governments" to provide the highly sophisticated spyware, One source said the US and Britain seemed reluctant to strengthen laws against the use of such advanced spyware. WhatsApp has urged the US Justice Department to investigate the alleged use of Pegasus spyware against its customers. But the US government had been reticent about acting against spyware companies, the sources said. US intelligence sources said any investigation into the hacking of Mr Bezos's phone was a matter for the FBI as it involved an American citizen. An FBI spokesman would not comment on whether the agency had begun an investigation or whether there was any suggestion of a wider involvement in the accusation that Mr Bezos's phone had been targeted. Mr Bezos is owner of The Washington Post, often seen as a critic of the Trump administration. Details of the affair which ended Mr Bezos's marriage were leaked to The National Inquirer, the American tabloid whose owner is a strong supporter of President Trump. WhatsApp is already suing NSO, accusing the company of being behind a cyber attack that affected the video calling system used by 1,400 customers, including 100 journalists and human rights activists. It's the first time an encrypted message provider has taken legal action against a private company accused of targeting its users. NSO denies being involved. The court case starts in San Francisco early next month. When the law suit was filed in October ast year, the NSO Group said it would vigorously fight the lawsuit and issued a statement saying the sole purpose of the company was "to provide technology to licensed government intelligence and law enforcement agencies to help them fight terrorism and serious crime".

The impeachment drama loses its edge

Already the Trump impeachment drama in the Senate trial is losing any sense of excitement or freshness or, well, drama. The reason for this is that the Democratic impeachment "managers" are going over the same ground again and again and again and the Republicans are just sayng the president didn't do anything wrong. Those not involved in the toing and froing in the Senate are all obliged to stay quiet. The only person who felt the need to intervene was Republican Senator Susan Collins who didn't like the way House Representative Jerrold Nadler, one of the Democratic advocates, and White House counsel Pat Cippolone, went hammer and tongs at each other. Very un-Senate like, breaking all the protocol rules in her view. So she wrote a note to the Chief Justice John Roberts in charge of the proceedings pointing out her dismay. Sure enough the chief judge called for order. But apart from that the Senate has sat quietly, and some of the Republicans have even left the room, presumably out of boredom. The only way this trial is going to become a dramatic event again, like it was on the first day, is if the Republicans give in and vote for new witnesses to be brought in to give evidence and be cross-examined. Witnesses like John Bolton, the former national security adviser, whose presence at the trial would certainly wake everyone up. But the Republicans show no sign of allowing this, and Trump himself has apparently said he can't allow Bolton to give witness evidence because he knows too much about what his former boss has said about individual foreign leaders and doesn't want any of that to come out. The presence of Bolton and his moustache at the trial would be brilliant. But I fear it's not going to happen. Trump and the Republicans say the House Democrats should have called all the witnesses they needed during the House phase of the impeachment process. But that was a dilemma for Nancy Pelosi and co. If they had subpoenaed Bolton and others from the White House, they would have had to take the matter to court to overturn Trump's refusal to let them be questioned. That would have gone on for months, dragging on the whole process. No one wanted that, so Pelosi went ahead with what they had managed to glean from all the officials who did appear as witnesses. It was probably the right decision but it now gives the Republicans what they see as justification for saying, no more witnesses. So the trial will continue into next week and then probably be wrapped up with the expected Republican majority acquittal. Life for Trump will continue and Pelosi will wonder whether she did it right.

Trump is playing the bully boy with his friend Boris

Boris Johnson and his government are entering a crucial moment which will affect pretty well every aspect of this country's future. Donald Trump is applying maximum pressure, one could argue bully boy tactics, on the UK to go down the route that will favour the United States and put the European Union into second place. Basically this is what Trump wants/demands: a trade deal with the UK post-Brexit ahead of a trade arrangement with the EU, a ban on allowing China's 5G network to be embedded in government infrastructure and scrapping UK plans to impose a two per cent tax on major social media companies Facebook, Amazon etc because they are American-owned. If Boris surrenders to Trump's ultimatums, all the promises of negotiating a trade deal with the EU by December 31 will go out of the window. If Boris puts the US before the EU on trade, the EU lot will be seriously miffed and will slow down talks and basically play hardball. British companies will suffer. Boris wants to do both US and EU trade negotiations at the same time. Good luck with that when there are two mighty egos at stake here - Trump's and the EU's. On the 5G question, Trump and the big guns in his cabinet have all warned Boris that if he so much as dares allow the advanced Chinese system into the UK networks, it will force the US to restrict intelligence-sharing. In other words the UK will no longer be treated as an equal member of the so-called Five Eyes ntelligence-sharing club - alongside the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand - but will be sidelined. This would be totally disastrous as all the US intelligence-gathering systems, such as the National Security Agency, are inextricably linked to the UK's GCHQ, MI5 and MI6. They are one big happy family. Sir Andrew Parker, director-general of MI5, says he doesn't think the government decision on China's 5G will affect the 70-year-old Five Eyes arrangement. How does he know that? Has he spoken personally to Trump? Trump will do what Trump will do. If he orders the US intelligence community to limit their intelligence-sharing with the Brits, he is the commander-in-chief and that's what they will have to do, although it's difficult to see how the National Security Agency and GCHQ could be disentangled. They are one and the same. But the threat is there. What else can Trump threaten to do to damage the UK? Well,for a start, the US supplies the Trident II D5 missiles for the Vanguard ballistic-missile submarines that represent the UK's nuclear deterrent. The UK leases the missiles and relies on the US to maintain and refurbish them at the US Navy's King's Bay base in Georgia. We design and fit the nuclear warheads but the missiles are American. Could Trump threaten to stop the leasing of these missiles? Well, he could, but I doubt even he would go down that path. But Trump is currently playing the Big Ogre and Boris is just a small chap with a lot of blond hair. Will he have the b...s to stand up to his friend in the White House and put Britain first? The UK cannot afford to damage its relations with the US but does that mean we have to do everything Trump wants us to do? It reminds me of the wonderful Love Actually film when Hugh Grant, as the new prime minister, has a Downing Street summit with the US president, and, to his advisers' astonishment, declares at a press conference that he won't be bullied by the president and that Britain is a great country that is blessed with David Beckham's right and left foot hahaha. Boris has to show he is not a Trump poodle but at the same time emphasise that America remains our biggest and best ally, which it is. He also has to demonstrate to the voters who gave him a big mandate at the election that he will stand up for Britain's best interests. It is without question a huge conundrum. He has to get the balance right. On the 5G issue, I doubt there is much choice. The Chinese firm Huawei is miles ahead of its world rivals with this technology and Huawei is already everywhere in this country, 5Ging towns and cities all over the place. If the government says no to 5G for all its systems, how will that affect what has already been installed up and down the country? The sensible solution is to go for the Theresa May compromise, ban Huawei from the really sensitive core stuff, like the networks vital to GCHQ, but allow the technology to be used in more peripheral systems. I don't know whether that will work but the May government and now the Boris government seem to think it will. I agree with the Americans, it would be madness for China's 5G to be embedded in anything connected with intelligence and security. But if a compromise is possible, Boris should go for it and hope that the MI5 chief knows what he is talking about. Trump, nevertheless, could still take revenge. Two members of Five Eyes, Australia and the US have already said no to Huawei 5G. Canada and New Zealand are, like the UK, considering their options. As for the two per cent tax on Facebook etc, Trump and his Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have warned that if it goes ahead the US will impose tariffs on UK cars exported to America. Charming!!! Trump uses trade tariffs like Bill Clinton used to use Tomahawk cruise missiles. France was going to do the same tax but backed down under US pressure. Boris may feel that for political reasons and for the sake of his wish to be seen as a tough prime minister, he will have to go ahead with this one because he said he would. Trump will then go ahead with his threat to impose tariffs on British cars, and a mini trade war will start. But I predict it won't last long. Whatever happens Boris must keep Trump on side but without surrendering to his bully boy tactics. Tricky, especially in the mood Trump is in right now over impeachment. This all makes the Harry and Meghan drama wither into the background.

Meghan and the paparazzi

First of all a somewhat bizarre development. This week posh London lawyers acting for "Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Sussex" warned all media that photographers camping outside their new home on Vancouver Island were hiding behind bushes and using long lenses to peer into the house and this must stop becasue it was an invasion of their privacy. Legal steps were threatened. At the top of the letter addressed to all editors were the words: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. Yet almost immediately the lawyers' intervention became big news, appearing on the BBC and all newspapers online. I don't know what happened to the "not for pubication" notice but either it was totally ignored or the legal firm realised it was impossible to hold the story back and relented about publication. Anyway it became the main news. One of the points made was that it might look as if Meghan was happy to have her photograph taken, seeing as how she was smiling brilliantly as she carried baby Archie in a sling while walking in the woods close by her new home, accompanied a few feet back by a British royal protection officer and a Royal Mounted Canadian police officer on his mobile phone. Was he phoning his wife: "Guess what I'm doing, darling?" Why was she smiling so radiantly if she had just spotted a paparazzi photographer poking his lens throgh the bushes? Surely she would have swung round to her bodyguards and ordered them to arrest the spying cameraman? Or shouted angrily? Or looked dismayed? Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps she had spotted a rare tree warbler on a branch or the sun breaking through the clouds or a rabbit scurrying into its warren. Whatever it was, it was a wonderful picture and the caption and stories that went with the picture all focused on how she happy she looked, although there were a few bitchy comments by some papers about the odd way she was holding Archie. He did look a bit skewed to one side but hey all Mums have their way of holding their baby. Anyway her lawyers said she wasn't at all happy and sent out their warning. Incidentally, if parapazzi were hiding behind the bushes why on earth did the protection officers do nothing? The hidden photographers could have been something more threatening. The two cops seemed not very bothered, and unless the Mounty (but not mounted) was phoning for back-up, he was otherwise engaged. The sad fact for Harry and Meghan is that their decision to move to Vancouver Island, a beautiful spot, is going to attract reporters and photographers to the area. It was inevitable. And it's likely to continue for some time, whatever their lawyers back in London say. Trying to take pictures of the couple inside their house with long lenses is obviously a breach of their privacy and all editors should be wary of publishing any pictures taken under such circumstances. But photographing them as they walk around in the woods or other public places seems to me to be legitimate, though every care should be taken not to be overtly intrusive. They remain public figures even though they want to live a quiet life away from all publicity. For the moment. Of course when they start their grand money-making commercial business selling their royal Sussex wares, I'm sure they will seek as much publicity as possible.

Chinese fishermen with a paramilitary role

A story I wrote for The Times but not used: THE sixth century BC Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu said the mark of a great leader was not the winning of a hundred battles but to win without fighting. China’s secretive naval militia force which operates disguised as fishermen is expected to fulfil this dictum as Beijing pursues its policy of trying to dominate the South China Sea by occupying and militarising islands whose sovereignty is disputed by countries in the region. The Pentagon has been warning about the role played by the China Maritime Militia (CMM) since 2017. This Chinese military “fishing fleet” has rapidly increased its operations not just in support of Beijing’s programme to convert islands in the East and South China Seas into military bases but also in snooping operations against foreign ships operating in international waters in the Asia-Pacific region. The China Maritime Militia is known as Beijing’s third “sea force”, operating in conjunction with the navy and coast guard. In its annual report on China’s military published in 2018, the Pentagon wrote: “In August 1917 China conducted a coordinated PLA Navy, China coast guard and People’s armed forces maritime militia patrol around Thitu Island [part of the Spratly Islands archipelago claimed by Beijing] and planted a flag on Sandy Cay, a sandbar within 12 nautical miles of Subi Reef [also in the Spratly Islands and occupied by China] and Thitu Island.” “The use of militia and coast guard forces is designed to keep the threshold of violence below that of open war,” Andrew Krepinevich, a former Pentagon official, said. It was part of Beijing’s policy to win “the international community’s de facto acceptance of China’s control of the South China Sea”, he said. “Chinese fishing boats are also used to contest other states’ sovereignty, such as by fishing in waters belonging to other countries,” Mr Krepinevich said. In its first acknowledgement of the maritime militia’s growing role in the South China Sea the Pentagon said in its 2017 report: “In the South China Sea, the CMM plays a major role in coercive activities to achieve China’s political goals without fighting, part of a broader military doctrine that states that confrontational operations short of war can be an effective means of accomplishing political objectives.” In the past the CMM rented vessels from companies or individual fishermen. But Chinese leaders realised the value of having fishing vessels used as a coercive addition to the navy and coast guard. Beijing subsequently ordered the construction of 84 large militia fishing vessels, the Pentagon said. In May last year the maritime militia was accused of being responsible for laser attacks against an Australian naval helicopter flying over the South China Sea. The helicopter managed to land safely back on its ship and no member of the crew was injured. The then outgoing US chief of naval operations Admiral John Richardson warned in an interview with the Financial Times last year that Chinese “civilian” fishing vessels operating with the maritime militia would be treated as combatants if they were caught acting against American warships.

Harry reveals his misery

Now I really do feel sorry for Prince Harry. He is becoming more and more like his relative the Duke of Windsor. The latter was of course king and abdicated because the monarchy as a whole could not accept his desire to marry and be with the woman he loved, a divorcee. He sacrificed duty for love. Harry is doing the same although he is a long way from ever becoming king. Like the Duke of Windsor, Harry has gone through agonies to make his decision, but as he said in his first personal pronouncement last night, he had no choice. He could not possibly give up his wife and there was nothing else he could do once the weighty establishment of Buckingham Palace had stipulated that he could not represent the Queen or continue with royal duties if he wanted to live most of his time in Canada and try to earn a living without public funds. The Palace was clearly rigid on that point. Harry had no option but to give everything up for the love of Meghan. I have to admit I was surprised after the Sandringham summit with the Queen, Prince of Wales, Prince William and Prince Harry, and assorted Palace advisers, that a semi-detached half-in-half-out role for Harry and Meghan was even contemplated. The statement put out by the Queen suggested at the time that she was in favour of this arrangement and called on everyone to sort it out in a few days. But that hint of a compromise lasted for only a short time. Once it became clear that Harry and Meghan were plotting to make millions out of commercialising their brand names, the Queen must have thought, "No this isn't going to work." So the door was effectively slammed in their face and Harry was told, by all means go and live in Canada with Meghan and Archie but don't expect to benefit from it by doing royal duties four months of the year. The semi-detached royal arrangement was dead. Last night Harry made it pefectly clear, even though he used careful understated language, that he is bitterly disappointed with the way things have gone and that what he and Meghan wanted which was to remain members of the Royal rota while enjoying a separate life wasn't going to happen. His speech to a charity event was a cry from the heart. I wonder what he told Meghan over the phone when he realised that his grandmother had given his blessing to his living away from Brtain but NOTHING else. It was I guess inevitable but poor Harry. As he said, he loves his country and wants to remain a cherished member of the Royal Family. But despite the Queen's loving words, he is going to be living in exile for most of the rest of his life. This is truly a tragedy. Maybe this was bound to happen as soon as he fell in love with and married a woman who was outside the usual British royal circle - an American divorcee from Hollywood. I wonder if Harry thought of that risk when he proposed to Meghan? Of course he didn't, he was in love. Now he has been effectively punished for falling in love with an outsider. It's a cruel world.

Harry has to try and fall in love with Canada

I'm sure Canada is wonderful, full of awesome space and friendly people, a nice country to live in. I've only been to Toronto, so my experience is limited. Harry, the Duke of Sussex, as we are supposed to call him from now on, will have to think of Canada as his second or even maybe first home after the final deal announced by Buckingham Palace on Saturday evening for the sixth in line to the throne and his wife Meghan. They are out out out of the Royal Family circle. They are no longer HRH's, no longer cushioned by public funds, no longer able to represent the Queen wherever they go, and no longer allowed to be patron of regiments and other military associations. Harry will probably leave for Canada this week to rejoin Meghan and their baby Archie, and that's it for the moment. Maybe Harry will not be homesick but I seriously doubt it. If Meghan goes on and on about how much she hates Britain and the British media, I wouldn't be suprised if Harry gets homesick pangs. He has had to give up everything for Meghan. What has she given up, apart from the priviliges and luxuries afforded her as Harry's wife? She is living where she wants to live, she doesn't have to face the British press cameras every day and she no longer has to encase her life in royal protocol. So I assume she is happy. Harry will obviously be delighted to be reunited with Meghan and Archie when he flies back to Canada but then what? Will he really be happy selling t-shirts, mugs, scarves and books with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex emblem? Will the two of them make millions from commercial ventures as most of the press seem to be predicting? In my judgment, the commercial side of things will slip quite quickly, especially if Harry and Meghan stay in Canada for most of their time. They were briefly royal superstars when they were first married but now they are no longer four-star members of the Royal Family, won't the star dust start to fall to the ground? The couple have put so much emphasis on their wish to be financially independent - ok, good for them - but if they believe they're going to be guaranteed an inexhaustible income flow from commercial deals, they might well be disappointed. It's all a bit tacky anyway. Roll up roll up, buy your Duke and Duchess of Sussex dinner service! Good luck Sussexes. You're going to need it.

It's Ayatollah Khamenei versus Donald Trump

Ayatollah Khamenei is taking the rhetoric route once favoured by Kim Jong-un, abuse and insult. Clearly it hasn't impressed Trump who has warned the Iranian Supreme Leader to watch his words. The tweeting world we live in is so totally different from the old world. In former days words between leaders were selected very carefully after much internal discussions. There was always the what-if question. If we say this what will be the reaction, if we say that, how will they respond. Not anymore. Khamenei who as Trump put it hasn't been very supreme lately, addressed his seemingly adoring crowd of supporters and described Trump and co as "American clowns". He stood up for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who panicked and shot down a Ukrainian airliner with the loss of 176 lives, praised them indeed and bellowed at the United States. Trump heard and reacted with a tweet to warn the Supreme Leader. This is Trump diplomacy, a tweet with hidden, not that hidden, menace. When you look at the balance in terms of action between the US and Iran, on the American side, they have killed Iran's most powerful and effective military leader and have survived a ballistic-missile attack on a key military base in Iraq. On the Iranian side, they fired 16 ballistic missiles at al Assad airbase in Iraq causing damage but no fatalities, injured 11 American soldiers with concussion, some of which might develop into traumatic brain injury, and killed 176 innocent people by mistaking a passenger plane for a US cruise missile. It seems pretty clear that Khamenei's wild rhetoric is born of failure and defeat while Trump's response is somewhat smug because he knows the US has come out stronger from this whole episode. But that doesn't make it a victory in any sense. Relations between the US and Iran are currently at a dangerous point. Iran is pushing ahead fast with enriching uranium. To what end? Is Iran rushing to get a nuclear bomb? That would be the Supreme Leader's gravest mistake. Trump has said, just as Obama did actually, that Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. I am pretty sure he means it. Can Khamenei take the risk? Please not.

Trump picks a surprise lawyer for his impeachment team

The name Kenneth Starr is inextricably linked to Monica Lewinsky, a sex-soiled blue dress and Bill Clinton, the saxophone-playing former president of the United States. He was the impeachment prosecutor in the notorious case of the White House intern who performed a certain sex act with the president which he denied ever took place. Now, unbelievably, having failed in his efforts to collect sufficient evidence to persuade Democrats in the Senate to kick Clinton out of the White House, he has been recruited by Donald Trump to make sure he sails through his impeachment trial starting properly next Tuesday. Wow, I suppose it's what lawyers do. They serve whichever client asks for advice whoever it is and whatever he has allegedly done. So, Clinton in one era and Trump in another. Big fees, so what the hell. But I loved Monica Lewinsky's reaction when she heard. It's a "are you f.....kidding me kinda day?", she wrote in a tweet. Well quite. Starr will now devote his time, his very lucrative time no doubt, fighting for Trump's cause just as he fought AGAINST Clinton. It's almost comical except that, like Monica Lewinsky, my first reaction was, you must be joking. Surely? The big trial is already set up, with the Chief Justice in charge and the Democrat prosecutors sworn in. The beginning of proceedings opens on Tuesday and could continue for two or three weeks. Trump wants it all to be over as quickly as possible and lawyer Starr will ensure that he meets his clients wishes. Will any of the Democrat prosecutors bring up Monica Lewinsky in passing? It will be difficult to prevent the name from slipping out. Starr of course being a professional lawyer, will admit no shame. It's just a job, he will say. Hohoho. I can't wait for the trial to begin.

Trump impeachment trial ready to go but will it make a difference?

In the view of some Democrats no doubt it has taken three years to bring an impeachment charge against Donald Trump to full trial in the Senate. They wanted to get him removed from the White House from day one of his presidency. But now it really is going to happen, starting next Tuesday. Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker, has played the key role, putting off impeachment for as long as she could because she didn't feel it was worth going for such a momentous decision just on the basis of not liking having Trump as president. But Ukraingate made up her mind. As she said yesterday, Trump's alleged pressure on the new Ukrianian president to dig up dirt on Joe Biden or lose nearly $400 million in military aid finally made it impossible to avoid impeachment. The big question now is: if, as expected, Trump is acquitted by a majority Republican Senate after what could be a two-week trial, will it still have a lasting impact on his presidency, on his legacy and on his chances of being reelected in November? Pelosi insists that it will. She says Trump will always be known as the impeachment president. Well, she is right in some ways. Of course everyone in America will remember that Trump faced an impeachment trial. But I guess the response from voters will still be divided down party lines. Democratic voters will say impeachment was justified and Republican voters will say it was all cooked up by the Democrats and of no consequence. Or will they? Depending on what comes out that is new and dramatic during the trial, might some Trump supporters start to think to themselves that maybe having Trump for another four years could be dangerous? Today I think that is unlikely but over the next few months could there be a swing away from Trump? Could milder Republican voters change their allegiance and vote for a Democrat for the good of the country? Again, it seems unlikely. But what if the US goes down the UK path? Strong Labour voters decided to reject Jeremy Corbyn, the out-and-out socialist leader, and went for Boris Johnson because he and only he had promised to take Britain out of the European Union and by January 31. The problem with that possibility is that there is no single issue like Brexit confronting the American voters. Pelosi would like to think that impeachment is the single issue to dissuade voters from giving Trump another four years. But on that she is wrong. In the end once the trial is over, a lot of Americans will just shrug their shoulders and say it was all Washington stuff anyway and get on with our lives. For the Democrats "Impeachment Trump" WILL be a big issue. But unless some Republicans start to feel uncomfortable about voting for Trump again, next week's trial won't necessarily make any difference. And the problem for the Democrats is that if they really hope to persuade Republican votes to change their alliegance who are they going to put up as the man or woman who can beat Trump and be a better president? In the mind of Republicans, I predict, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are too left wing, Pete Buttigieg isn't ready yet for the White House, Mike Bloomberg is just rich and Joe Biden is more of Obama. So no choice for them at all. Reluctantly these Republican Trump doubters will vote for Trump because there is no alternative.

Vladimir Putin president for life

Vladimir Putin has done a Xi Zinping. He, like the Chinese leader, is about to change the consitution so he can be president for life. Oh what fun it is not to have to run a democracy. All you have to do is inform parliament or congress in China's case that you intend to stay longer than the normally-limited two terms in office and would like to stay in the job until your dying day, and voila, that's what happens. In Putin's case he has effectively sacked the prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, after telling him he planned to rewrite the constitution - did Medvedev object a little bit? - the rest of the cabinet resigned and then Putin sent for his lawyers to start producing a new constitution. Easy! President-for-Life. He mucked around with the constituiton before to allow him to remain president until 2024 but obviously he has decided that for the good of the country he needs to be solely in charge for the next few decades. He's only in his 60s, so we could have Putin for another 30 years. Trump has another five years at the most, and maybe only a year. Macron will surely be gone in the next few years. Merkel will be gone by next year. Boris has five years annd possibly a second five years if Labour fails to get its act together under a new leader. No one else counts in the world really, apart from President Xi who has already made sure he can stay in power for ever, well for the rest of his life. So on that basis, Presidents Xi and Putin will become the most powerful leaders on the planet, with infinite and everlasting influence over the way the world goes in the next three decades. Poor Medvedev. He has been a mouse-like Russian prime minister with no power and now he has lost that job and has been given the role of deputy leader of the National Security Council. We all know of course who is the head of the National Security Council. So bye bye Medvedev, not that he had been around much anyway under his previous job. The rest of the world needs to take note. We have or will soon have a for-ever leader in Russia to go with a for-ever leader in China. That will change the political balance and make every other leader feel nervous. For Trump it's a reminder that he lives in a democracy where the rules are quite clear. He can only serve a maximum of two terms. If he wins in November, his presidency will still come to an end by 2024 and there is nothing he can do about it. Putin and Xi will still be on their respective thrones. It unquestionably gives them the edge in terms of global power. Still, it looks like climate change will ruin this planet the way things are going before these two gentlemen take over the world!

Can Meghan ever return from Canada?

The Duchess of Sussex is apparently in a house in Vancouver while her husband negotiates with the rest of the Royal Family how he, his wife and child Archie should live in the future. To be brutally honest, the longer Meghan stays in Canada the more difficult it's going to be for her to return to Britain. She should have been at Harry's side when the Sandringham summit was going on. She is his wife and is therefore very much part of the Royal Family and definitely should have been with him to discuss everything together. Now we know that the original reported plan for her to take part in a phone call from Canada during the Sunday meeting never took place. Well of course it didn't. I can just hear the Queen's advisers: "Ma'am, the duchess has made the decision to stay in Canada, so I really think it would be best if we just deal with the Duke of Sussex. He is your grandson, your blood, she isn't." So two mistakes by Meghan. First she left Archie behind in Canada when she returned briefly with Harry to fulfill an engagement. Second she flew straight back to Canada once it was over, not to pick up Archie and bring him home but to stay in exile, effectively indicating she no longer wanted to live in Britain. And now, as I said, the longer she stays over there it will become increasingly difficult, nee impossible, for her to come back and live a normal royal life, ie attending functions etc as if nothing has happened. As soon as she returns, the press and press photographers will go mad, and everything will be recycled all over again. She must know that, so she will dread ever coming back. If she has any advisers left they must all be telling her this but presumably she is ignoring them because now it seems she hates Britain, she hates the British press and she cannot tolerate the Royal Family. It is truly a personal disaster for her. Harry has persuaded the Queen to go along with his plans for a semi-detached royal role but I don't think it's going to work because the more Meghan is required to make herself publicly available for events and functions in Britain alongside Harry, she is going to be miserable. What she wants is to be left alone to live a private life in Canada without having to play any role anymore in the British way of life. That obviously is my assessment, not based on any sources. So the next few weeks are crucial. If Harry returns to Canada in the next few days, following the rubgy function he is due to attend on Thursday,he will have to try and persuade Meghan that actually the world is not against her and she needs to be courageous and come home to Frogmore Cottage in Windsor Park with her husband and child and present a happy face and a more amicable attitude towards the press. However, I fear it's all too late. Things have got too bad. Basically she has had enough of Britain, and that's very bad news for Harry and his future with the Royal Family.

Prince Harry is basically a good bloke who served and loves his country.Don't destroy him!

A million words have been written about Harry and Meghan since their extraordinary statement last Wednesday that they wanted to be partially out of the Royal Family and lead their own life, financially independent. A lot of the stuff about them is probably misplaced or wrong, whispered by courtier "sources" who have their own prejudices and who are saying what they think it all means without actually knowing fully what it all means. So, from the million words, there are tales of rifts between William and Harry, non-speaking purdah between Meghan and Kate, ultimatums from Meghan to Harry - me or your country - bitterness, hatred, despair, misery, backbiting and Buckingham Palace brick-wall protocol. Some of it is no doubt true and some of it may be embellished by those allegedly in-the-know and other parts may be influenced by a singular prejudice against Meghan herself. Not because she is "black" I don't think - anyway she is mixed race and doesn't even look like a "woman of colour" as she herself puts it. There may be a hint of racism buried somewhere in all the reports but I really don't believe the media in this country are racist. On the contrary I reckon the press in general thought it was bloody amazing and rather wonderful that Harry married a woman whose mother is black and father white. Brilliant for Harry, brilliant for the Royal Family and brilliant for all of us. The reaction from the British press was mightily refreshing, especially at the time of the engagement and wedding. So, racism? No. What got to the media was her attitude towards them and her new role. She didn't play ball with things like having her picture taken with her baby when she emerged from hospital, like good old Kate did. And she refused to allow the press to know about the christening and who the godparents were. Well there are two issues here. She and Harry have a right to do things differently and the press is not God. They shouldn't expect everything to go the way they want it to go. But actually Harry and Meghan are royals, not Hollywood stars. They do have a duty to play ball like William and Kate, not because their lives should be subject to the wishes of the press but because the British people and fans of the monarchy around the world wanted to see the new baby. What is so difficult about posing for pictures for ten minutes? It keeps everyone and I mean everyone in the country happy and newspapers would have been full of joyous pictures and nice headlines. All lovey dovey. There would not have been a word spoken against Meghan. As a new member of the Royal Family that's what she should have done. Instead of which, she and Harry went on to further antagonise the press until the prince exploded in anger and angst and made his statement in Africa announcing legal action against the Mail on Sunday but really against all reporters and photographers. From then on there was no turning back. Now whatever happens, Meghan will get the blame because she has given the impression of wanting things her own way, never mind the impact it is going to have on her husband who remains sixth in line to the throne and is devoted to the Queen, his grandmother, and to his country. Does he really want to live half his life in Canada or Los Angeles away from all those whom he loves back in Blighty? Of course he loves Meghan and Archie and desperately wants to be a great husband and father and to be happy. But the way things are going, whatever the Queen and Prince Charles come up with at Sandringham today, this whole episode is going to be worse for Harry than for Meghan. She has all her friends and mother in Canada. It would be truly shocking if in his search for happiness, Harry who served valiantly for his country in Afghanistan, becomes a sad, set-apart figure in exile. Like the late Duke of Windsor.

UK to fight wars on its own without the United States?!! Get real!

Ben Wallace, the UK Defence Secretary, has warned in an interview in the Sunday Times that Britain must be prepared to fight wars in the future on its own without the support of the United States. What world does this minister believe he is living in? What wars exactly is he talking about? The last time Britain fought a war on its own was in 1982 - 38 years ago - although it has to be said the US supplied a lot of help behind the scenes, with shells and other munitions and satellite intelligence. The ammo was provided because those nice Belgians, fellow members of Nato, refused to supply shells which they had provided before, presumably because they didn't approve of Maggie Thatcher's escapade in the South Atlantic, liberating the British-owned islands from the Argentinian military junta's occupation. But the actual on-the-ground fighting was all done by the Brits, on their own. Now Mr Wallace seems to think that the UK will be fighting all kinds of wars in the future when we shall be once again on our own. I cannot think of a single scenario in which this belief makes any sense whatsoever. I suppose theoretically Sierra Leone could go wrong again and we might be asked to send troops to keep order and stop nasties from entering Freetown,just as we did in 2000 in Operation Palliser. But that wasn't a war and we handled that perfectly well. Despite defence cuts and mismanagement of the equipment procurement programme going back decades, the UK could still do one of those sorts of operations and certainly wouldn't need to beg the US for help. So what does Mr Wallace have in mind? Are we going to go to war with Russia, Iran, China or Libya? Without the US getting involved? What nonsense. Is Russia going to invade the UK and we are to be left to fight them on the beaches without our American allies? Don't be ridiculous. Has Mr Wallace not heard of Nato and Article 5 under which all member nations are committed to helping each other in the event of an attack by a foreign power? OK I guess he is suggesting that if there was an attack on the UK, the Americans might not bother, under Donald Trump, to fulfil their Article 5 obligations. But that's plain daft and stupid. If Latvia was invaded by Russia, would the UK be on its own rushing to help? Of course it wouldn't. It would be a huge moment for Nato as an alliance, not the UK as a single nation. So the UK Defence Secretary is talking nonsense and, by the way, he is being distinctly disrespectful to the US. Whatever Trump says or tweets there is no way that America would not come to Britain's aid if under attack and no way that the US would stay on the sidelines if any other member of the alliance came under attack. So why speculate on the potential dire future that we face here in dear old Blighty? It's a politician trying to make a point but not thinking of what he is saying. He sounded like a poor whingeing Brit overwhelmed by the responsibility of his job. What worries me is that he may be preparing the ground for seeking funds for building all those things for which we currently do rely on the US - air refuelling, surveillance and intelligence aircraft, satellites, heavyweight transport aircraft etc etc. If so, then the upcoming defence and security review will be a disaster because Wallace and co will be arguing for huge equipment contracts to fill a gap just in case the US refuses to be on our side. Instead of deciding once and for all precisely what we think the UK is good at in military terms and how we should find the money to pay for specific much-needed capabilities and to have the service personnel to match. the MoD would be trying to have everything but never enough money to pay for it. The past has seen so many appalling procurement decisions: special Chinook helicopters that can't fly in bad weather, state-of-the-art diesel-electric submarines that cost £1 billion but never came into service and were sold to Canada for a bargain price, super-advanced Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft that were scrapped before they were ready for operations, and of course the two mighty aircraft carriers which look terrific when they are moored side by side in Portsmouth but which represent a naval greatness that outmatches our status in the world. Two 65,000-tonne carriers and an army of just 78,000 soldiers and falling. Somewhat of an imbalance don't you think? So Mr Ben Wallace please don't start planning a defence review on the basis that this small nation of ours is going to become a global policeman, rushing all over the place fighting wars on our own. Get real!!

So now Iran says it DID shoot down the Ukrainian plane!

Well it took them a few days but Iran has finally admitted early today it did shoot down the Ukrainian plane with 176 people on board. Here is the full version of what I wrote for The Times yesterday (Friday): Vital “raw” intelligence shared between the United States, Britain and Canada led to the conviction that an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps air-defence unit shot down the Ukrainian passenger aircraft with the loss of 176 lives, Western security sources have told The Times. Skilled analysis of US satellite imagery and intercepted communications on the ground in Iran provided the evidence which was referred to only in general terms by President Trump, Boris Johnson and Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister. Under the codenamed Echelon agreement, part of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing arrangement between the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, formed in the late 1950s, all the images supplied by America’s satellites over the Middle East, operated by the US National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), were passed around the members of the unique club. “The US knows that the UK and Canada have the skills to analyse such images as well as other intelligence but the details cannot be made public because it would give away technical capabilities,” one former top Western intelligence official said. The analysis of satellite images would have been combined with any electronic interceptions of communications between officers of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps in the moments before the decision to launch the two surface-to-air missiles against the Ukrainian plane. The former intelligence official, however, said encryption technology was now so widely available that the Iranian military would normally “deeply encrypt” any communications, presenting a challenge to the codebreakers at Britain’s GCHQ, Canada’s Communications Security Establishment (CSE) and America’s National Security Agency (NSA). “Unless of course in the heat of the moment the Iranian military commanders used their mobile phones, but it is more likely the evidence came from US satellites and the interpretations that followed a peer review of the images,” the former official said. Mr Trudeau referred to “multiple sources”, however, indicating that some ground communications may have been intercepted. Any contacts would have been in Farsi, the official language in Iran, although there are numerous different dialects. GCHQ and the other Five Eyes members have computers to provide instant translations of Farsi. But Farsi language analysts would have been used to go through the translations to pick up any ambiguities or perceived errors, sources said. For the US, UK and Canadian leaders to come out publically and state their belief that Iranian missiles hit the Ukrainian plane, a network of listening and monitoring stations were involved in providing the evidence. The principal British one was GCHQ’s signals intelligence station at Ayios Nikolaos in eastern Cyprus which can tap into digital communications across the Middle East. Run by a tri-service British military unit, the station’s staff includes experts from NSA. The closely guarded facility on the main road to Famagusta is linked to all the Five Eyes members.

Did Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps shoot down the Ukrainian passenger plane?

Judging by the statements put out by Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Justin Trudeau, there is more than sufficient intelligence to show that an Iranian air-defence unit panicked when it saw a large object in the sky within hours of Tehran's swarm of ballistic missiles hitting US-occupied bases across the border in Iraq and ordered a missile launch to bring it down. IT was a Ukrainian commercial aircraft carrying 176 people out of Tehran airport. A terrible mistake? Surely yes. Did the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps air-defence commanders think it was a B-52 bomber coming to strike revenge, as Donald Trump threatened he would? Probably yes. They had seconds to make a decision and they took the wrong one. Ironically, it was that type of split-second decision which ended up with a US Navy warship shooting down an Iranian airliner with 290 people on board on July 3 1988. The commanding officer of the guided-missile cruiser, USS Vincennes, thought the plane was an Iranian military aircraft coming to attack his warship. Terribly wrong judgments in each case brought on by panic and stress and a fear of failing to take action. But in this case Iran has resolutely refused to acknowledge that two surface-to-air missiles were fired at the Ukrainian plane. Officials, including the Iranian ambassador in London, have denied and denied that it was a missile hit and claimed it was a technical fault. No one, especially Boeing, the plane's manufacturer, believes that. The failure in the air was so sudden and so dramatic and without warning that it looked far more likely to be a missile strike - and that was before the US satellite evidence emerged of two missiles heading for the aircraft. The Iranians are desperately trying to destroy the evidence by bulldozing the crash site, removing any bits of surface-to-air missile and THEN inviting Boeing to come and have a look. The black box won't help because apparently there had been no warning of anything untoward, so the pilots were just happily getting on with the business of flying the plane out of Iranian airspace. So unless the US reveals all the evidence and makes public every scrap of intelligence it and allies Britain and Canada gathered before the attack - which they won't do for obvious reasons - the Iranian denials might hold up. The death of 176 people is a huge tragedy and the victims' families will want to know the truth. But will they ever get it? No doubt if Iran ever does accept the blame, the ayatollahs will say it was all America's fault because of the assassination of Soleimani and Trump's threat to strike back if US interests were attacked.

Harry and Meghan, a very sad and unnecessary farewell

The decision by Prince Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex, to become semi-detached members of the Royal Family is, first of all, very sad, secondly a very selfish move that will cause more angst for the Queen in her 94th year,and thirdly, a loss for all of us. They looked a lovely couple. Harry and Meghan and William and Kate seemed on the surface to be a perfect foursome, the new royals, the ones who would guarantee a fresh and hopeful future for the monarchy. Now I realise that is a romantic view of the royal family, perhaps a fantasy view, but I think in these days of relentless bad news and political incompetence, a rosy view of the royal family is actually comforting. But it is not to be, and of course none of us know what really goes on behind the Buckingham Palace doors and the front doors of the other royal houses. William and Harry had fallen out over what I believe are very personal reasons, but more than anything, Harry and Meghan no longer wanted to be part of the royal protocol regime which defines the way they are supposed to act, behave, live and breathe. Meghan was warned by her friends, and probably by Harry, that it was not going to be easy to become a member of the British royal family. But she loved Harry, you could see that, and probably felt that provided they stayed in love together, everything else would work out. It clearly hasn't. The arrival of baby Archie made them both yearn for a different way of life. This is understandable, but the only way they can do that is to break away and live apart from the rest of the family. And live abroad! It is truly sad that it has come to this. It really wasn't that long ago that Harry and Meghan were seen as a Hollywood couple. The nation adored them. During their Africa tour last year they received nothing but favourable publicity, until Harry suddenly made his statement announcing that he was going to sue the Mail on Sunday for malicious reporting. From that moment Harry and Meghan went down an inevitable non-royal path, breaking away not only from the royal family but also from Britain itself, and certainly from the British press. One has to feel sympathy for them, but perhaps especially for Meghan who was an outsider and perhaps was always going to be an outsider. Harry stuck loyally to her side, wanting to show that she would come first, and the royal family, including the Queen, second. They will end up not even being semi-detached. Harry and Meghan have as good as given up their membership of the most privileged and unique family in Britain. It's certainly selfish on their part but they deserve a happy life and if breaking away is the only solution for them, then so be it. Farewell Harry and Meghan.

So how alarming WAS the Iran-attack-plotting intelligence?

The trouble with taking preemptive action to try and stop an imminent attack is that it can then lead to a retaliatory strike which defeats the whole point. That's exactly what has happened in the current US/Iran confrontation. The US claimed to have such alarming intelligence of an imminent Iranian plot to attack American forces in the Middle East that President Trump authorised the assassination of the man doing the plotting, Major-General Qasem Soleimani, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force. Kill Soleimani and eliminate the imminent threat. Four days later Iran launches more than a dozen medium-range ballistic missiles at two bases in Iraq occupied by American troops. So the assassination did not stop an attack, it provoked one. Interestingly Trump must have been warned that it looked like Iran was about to launch a missile attack - satellite imagery? - but there were no moves to take preemptive action on this occasion and hit the missile bases before they could be launched. You wonder why not. What was "intelligence" saying in the lead-up to the missile launches at 2am local Iranian time? And, most important, how spectacular was the intelligence that led to Trump's decision to hit Soleimani as soon as he had arrived at Baghdad airport last Friday? Was it really warning of a specific imminent attack? If so, Soleimani was taking a helluva risk turning up in Baghdad just when an attack inspired by him was about to take place. How specific was the intelligence? When asked about the status of the intelligence, General Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave no details when asked by reporters but rather coyly implied that if they had seen what he and Mark Esper, his political boss at the Pentagon, had seen they would understand what it was all about. Ha! I've heard that one before over the years. "If only you could see the intelligence stuff I have to see every day, you would be astonished," one British defence secretary once told me in confidence. The fact is that however alarming the intelligence was, it cannot be acceptable under international law for a nation's president to kill another country's senior military commander however much blood he has on his hands. Many many many people, some of them presidents and prime ministers, have blood on their hands. So this justification is not really justifiable. However, if any case can be made under law for killing Soleimani then it must be a decision made within the context of a strategic plan and with the clearest expectation of the likely consequences. Where did the strategic thinking come from on this occasion, was it from the Pentagon, the State Department or the White House? Did Esper and Milley say to Trump: "Well there is always the option to target this monster Soleimani but we would seriously advise against it and you would need to seek the advice of the attorney general." But if that is what they thought, why did the Pentagon include the kill-Soleimani option at all? Mike Pompeo, secretary of state, is reported to have been a strong advocate for this option but then he has always hated Iran, just like his former cabinet colleague John Bolton. So hitting Soleimani had probably been on his agenda ever since he took over at the State Department. Bolton has made it clear he thoroughly approved. So we're back to the big questions: how serious and authentic was the intelligence (we may never know), did the preemptive attack actually eliminate the threat (NO), and what does Trump really want to do in the Middle East? Keep US troops in Iraq for ever? After the ballistic-missile attack on the two bases, his instinct will be to say no no no, get them out of there. So perhaps Brigadier-General William Seely's letter to the Iraqi government will come back into play after all!!

Dear Iraqi Government we're leaving, regards Brigadier General William Seely

The name Brigadier General William Seely will for ever be associated with confusion and bewilderment.The current comnmander of US forces in Iraq had his name attached to a letter to the Iraqi Government which basically said or implied that American troops were about to leave the country for good and sorry about the nighttime noise of helicopters getting them the hell out. The letter, strangely unsigned, made a point of how important it was for the US to honour the wishes of the Iraqi parliament which had voted for all US forces to withdraw from Iraq. Just totally weird! It contradicted everything the Pentagon and White House had said. So how on earth did General Seely wake up that morning AFTER the assassination of the Quds Force leader Major-General Qasem Soleimani outside Baghdad airport and decide to tell the Iraqis America was giving up and moving out. Without anyone knowing what he was doing back in Washington? Obviously General Seely, a Marine, didn't actually write the letter. He would have got his military assistant to do it, but he would have given the gist of what he wanted to say. Anyway the letter was circulated all over the place and of course a copy was passed to the media and out it all came last night. I've never so much damage limitation erupt from within the Pentagon. Mark Esper, Defence Secretary, and General Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, rushed to do a media "gaggle" to pour cold water on the letter. Esper claimed he didn't even know about the letter although later he said he had read it. But he said no decision had been made about US troops leaving Iraq. "Period". He and General Milley then explained there was a lot of moving around of troops right now but that was all about ensuring troops were in better protective positions in case there was an almighty Iranian revenge attack for the death by Hellfire-armed drone of General Soleimani. So troops WERE being helicoptered out of Baghdad's Green Zone. Fair enough. But how the hell did that redeployment translate in the Seely letter into a pledge to withdraw from Iraq altogether. General Milley summed it up by saying it was all a mistake. I should say! The mistake could not have come at a worse time, just when Trump was feeling good about removing General Soleimani from the planet. We don't know what Trump must have said to Esper and/or Milley but it can't have been pleasant. In his press gaggle Esper sounded like someone who hadn't a clue what was going on which is not very reassuring from the defence secretary of the most powerful nation on Earth. Milley didn't sound much better. I reckon the skids will be under both of these men. As for General Seely, bye bye Seely, your presence is no longer required. Period.

Iran threatens revenge but does it want to confront the world's military superpower?

Donald Trump is in a superpower mood. He is a president with an unlimited amount of firepower at his beck and call and he has as good as threatened to use it if Tehran so much as dares retaliate for the killing of Major-General Qassem Soleimani. This will not have escaped the ayatollahs in Tehran who are clearly wrestling with the options for striking back at the US. Whatever Iran does, the US can do better and bigger. The long-suffering people of Iran, already angry and desperate over the deteriorating economy, thanks to US sanctions, will hardly welcome war with the United States. Their leaders have chosen a path which has ruined their lives and livelihoods. A huge proportion of the country's funds have been spent on waging proxy wars throughout the Middle East. For them General Soleimani was no hero. He was the man who helped turn Iran into a pariah state. Yes his passing is being mourned by hundreds of thousands and there are cries of death to America, like the bad old days when Iran's autocracy under the Shah was overthrown by the wild revolutionary mullahs. But since then the world has changed dramatically, and Iran has stuttered and stumbled and stamped its foot and attempted to build a powerbase that would dominate the Middle East. But in the end all the ayatollahs and their mischief-making Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force achieved was ruin for their country and a mass spread of violence throughout the region. So do the ayatollahs really want to take on the United States under Donald Trump? Trump WILL hit back again and again until they get the message. That will mean more misery for the Iranian people, more demolition of the Iranian economy and, inevitably, more deaths. It's a grim prospect for Iran, for the Middle East, and for the world. Of course Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, might be tempted to push hard to develop nuclear weapons, believing that that and only that would keep the Americans at bay. But the US will be aware of this option and you can bet that the first sign of Iran attempting to "break out" for a fast move towards a nuclear weapon will bring devastating consequences. Trump will not hesitate and will order bombers to target the nuclear sites. So this is a dangerous moment for Iran. One false move and Trump will pounce. There is no question about that. But can Iran lose face by doing nothing in revenge for the death of Soleimani? Will the ayatollahs surprise us all by opting for peace and diplomacy? I very much fear not.

Qassem Soleimani, the man who never hid from view

Full version of my story in today's Times: Major-General Qassem Soleimani was America's easiest target. Iran's most powerful military leader never hid from view, he always flaunted his presence across the Middle East. It took the CIA ten years to track down Osama bin Laden and five years to pinpoint the whereabouts of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader and founder of Isis. However, the CIA which has a significant "station" in Baghdad, had little difficulty monitoring the movements and plottings of the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force. General Soleimani was Iran's very public face abroad, especially in Iraq. His trimly white-flecked bearded face was often photographed, sometimes peering upwards as if daring his enemies to target him. The CIA knew so much about him that the intelligence agency would have had the details of his flight plan from Tehran to Baghdad, who was waiting to meet him at the international airport and what vehicles would be used to drive him downtown. Bin Laden and al-Baghdadi eluded the CIA and the signals intelligence satellites of the National Security Agency even though their faces were as well known as General Soleimani's. But the difference was that they knew they were marked men, to be killed if they ever revealed their whereabouts. General Soleimani would have known he too was a marked man and that the US and Israel had him in their sights. But he was the Iranian supreme leader's most trusted aide. Targeting him always had much greater potential consequences. Killing the Iranian general and mastermind of Tehran's proxy wars in Iraq and Yemen and elsewhere in thee Middle Eastmust have been authorised by President Trump at the same time as his decision to bomb five targets in Iraq and Syria linked to the Iranian-backed militia Kata'ib Hezbollah. It was why the Pentagon rushed 100 Marines to reinforce the US embassy compound in Baghdad, deployed 750 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division to Kuwait and put on standby another 4000 troops for the region. The US Air Force Reaper squadron at al-Udeid airbase in Qatar was put on alert for the assassination decision. Two Reapers flew to the target from Qatar, one as back-up. However, the release of the precision-guided missile that destroyed the two vehicles as they left Baghdad international airport was carried out by an operator sitting at his console in the US Air Force base at Creech in Nevada.

The killing of Qassem Soleimani - Trump strikes back

The assassination of Major-General Qassem Soleimani, possibly Donald Trump's most skilled and deadly enemy,is a huge huge deal. It's huge for the Middle East, huge for Trump and his relection hopes and huge for the ayatollahs who have to decide whether to go on a war footing or go quiet. Trump will expect his Big Decision will sweep him back into the White House. Judging by the Republican support he has got today it will certainly get him the impeachment acquittal he is counting on in the Senate later this month. As for the Iranian regime, the killing of Soleimani, right-hand man to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,the Supreme Leader, is inevitably going to lead to some form of revenge attack. Like Mafia gang bosses, the tit-for-tat killings will then continue until it turns to real war or a very tense stand-off. That is the calculation Tehran has to make although the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps will be shouting in the ayatollahs' ears that revenge is compulsory or lose face. So it's likely we are in for some bloody action in the Middle East. The US has 5,000 troops in Iraq with 750 more about to arrive and 4,000 ready to move. But we're not talking about a ground war. The troops are just a deterrent. If there is to be further bloodshed on both sides we're talking about rockets and suicide bombs on the one hand and airstrikes on the other. The US will win but at what cost. Trump is desperate to leave the Middle East but, as his predecessors discovered, the US HAS to be in the region. The vacuum left by an absence of American firepower would be seen as a victory for Tehran which would capitalise on what would be perceived as Washington weakness. So Trump is stuck with the reality of Middle East politics. The assassination of Soleimani by two Hellfire missiles will mean that the US and Iran will still be at dangerous loggerheads, if not at war, by the time of the November election date. Good luck to the Democratic challengers. Anything they say to condemn Trump's action will be seen as weakness. They will lose votes in a country that likes to be viewed by the rest of the world as super-tough. Trump, enjoying holiday time at his resort in Florida, will be feeling good right now. His tweet depicting the American flag after the killing of Soleimani should be a warning not just to the ayatollahs but also to other potential enemies. Trump has got the taste for it and will be itching to do it again if provoked.

America not yet ready for President Castro. What a shame!

To be honest Julian Castro, likeable and brilliant politician though he is, never stood much chance of winnng the Democratic presidential nomination against his big-gun rivals, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg. But it's a day to be mourned that the United States will not have its very own President Castro. The other Castro, Fidel, would have turned in his grave which is no bad thing. Young Julian was the only Latino to be running for the top job and his decision to end his campaign, announced today, means the diversity spread has now been cut back. Castro, who served as housing and urban development secretary under Barack Obama, could still have a role to play in the 2020 election. He was once touted as a possible vice-presidential running mate to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and I guess could be picked by one of the surviving candidates when the nomination day gets closer. Vice President Castro would still sound pretty good! His decision to stop his campaign was wise. He had never attracted huge popular support or sufficient financial backing. But he always sounded pretty articulate and leaning towards the liberal side. But when you have Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren espousing the liberal causes he was always going to be an also ran. Now his supporters and financial backers have to decide who to turn to? Do they switch to Sanders or Warren or opt for a young same-generation candidate as Castro, such as Andrew Yang, 44, or Pete Buttigieg, 37, the now former mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Buttigieg is still raking in the donations and, despite his youth, he could well surge forward as the most popular candidate, taking Castro's supporters with him. Perhaps a Buttigieg/Castro ticket for 2020? That would be pretty dynamic and would make Donald Trump, 73, and Mike Pence, 60, look like two old-age pensioners. Would Trump fear a Buttigieg/Castro challenge more than, say, a Joe Biden/?? ticket? Biden cunningly has not rejected the idea of asking a Republican to be his running mate although he claims he can't think of anyone at this stage. But if he does it will have to be someone young and thrusting and popular, and maybe Latino to bring in the votes. Someone like Marco Rubio perhaps. He's 48, senator for Miami and highly ambitious. There you are Joe Biden. Marco Rubio as your running mate, if he would agree, would stir up your campaign nicely.

How the hell was the US embassy compound in Baghdad breached?

The attack on the US embassy compound in Baghdad is a dangerous warning sign of hostilities to come. American embassies are, in the mind of angry anti-US protestors, a symbol of the Great Satan. They are more vulnerable to attack in foreign parts than any other foreign embassy. The brutal attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 2012, ended with the death of the ambassador Christoher Stevens and three other American officials. A truly shocking event which should have served as a forever reminder that in potentially hostile environments, the US embassy has to be protected with a formidable presence of Marines to be a deterrent to anyone attempting to breach the perimeter walls. And yet that is exactly what happened in Baghdad. Hordes of angry Shia militia supporters managed to break down a door and gain access to the reception area. Only now after the violence of yesterday has the Pentagon sent another 100 Marines to guard the embassy. Surely when the airstrikes were approved to target five Kataib Hezbollah bases in Iraq and Syria, Pentagon and State Department officials must have considered beefing up the embassy Marine presence prior to the air raids by F-15E Strike Eagles. But apparently not. The extra 100 Marines had to be rushed in as an afterthought. It seems extraordinary to me that no one predicted there would be a violent reaction to Sunday's airstrikes which killed 25 Shia militia fighters. How bad did it look for America's prestige around the world for Shia militia supporters to break into the US embassy compound, supposedly designed to keep hostiles out? Within hours, Mark Esper, the US defence secretary, was forced to send not only 100 more Marines to the embassy but ordered 750 troops to leave immediately for the region, and warned off another 4,000 to be prepared to move. All too late. All deployments looking like the Pentagon panicking to fill in the gaps when it should have been pre-planned before the airstrikes were launched on Sunday. As has happened in the past, Iran is calling the tune and Trump is being forced to send yet more troops to the Middle East when what he really wanted to do was bring them all home. Sorry, Mr President, but you're never going to be able to do that because Iran will always be plotting the next outrage. Iran's proxy militia in Iraq will be under new orders to step up attacks on the US presence in the region. It's inevitable. That wily General Qasem Soleimani, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force in charge of stirring up trouble for the Americans throughout the Middle East, is a master strategist and determined enemy of the US. He will see the breach of the US embassy in Baghdad as a great victory. Those US airstrikes on Sunday have opened up a can of dangerous worms.