Do B-52s frighten Iran into submission?

The privilege of being a military superpower is that with one quick phone call you can send a couple of mighty B-52 Stratofortress bombers from their base in the US to pretty well anywhere you want on the globe, with a little help from appropriately located air-refuelling tankers. They don't have to land. They just do their stuff, turn round and go back home, the crew somewhat fatigued but well accustomed to the long hours of flying. This is what the Pentagon does on an increasingly regular basis to send a warning from the skies over the Middle East that the US is ever watchful. Two B-52H bombers were sent from their base at Minot in North Dakota this week to give yet another warning to Tehran which the US intelligence services believe is plotting to take revenge against American troops for the assassination of its nuclear weapons chief, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, on November 27 (allegedly by Israel's Mossad but Tel Aviv is not saying). The thing is, what will the B-52s do if Tehran does launch some revenge attack that leads to American deaths or injuries. The strategic bombers tend not to stick around. They do their 24-hour round trip and that's it. But if Iran does mount some strike that causes damage to US interests, fatal or otherwise, I would say there is every chance that Trump will order an instant strike back. With less than three weeks left as president he will take the opportunity to slam-dunk the ayatollahs with a parting gift they will not forget. Not only would it be Trump's last action as commander-in-chief but it would also have a huge impact on decision-making vis a vis Iran for the incoming 46th president Joe Biden. Take that, Ayatollahs. Take that, Biden. Tehran would be wise to watch those B-52s and get the message being delivered by the Pentagon.

How will Biden treat the UK now as a trading partner?

I have read a million times how the exit of the UK from the EU will place this country in a far less favourable light vis a vis the United States, and that Joe Biden will be very sniffy about rushing to any sort of trade deal with London. On the face of it, this might seem to be correct. The US has always looked on the UK as the point of reference for any dispute or arrangement between Washington and the EU. Nice to have a known and "special" friend inside the EU camp, in other words. Now that the UK has left and is outside the EU family, the UK will be seen as a lost soul, an island adrift. I am beginning to think this is nonsense. Commentators and analysts always seem to think of the worst-possible scenarios when a major change such as Brexit takes place. But the world is changing so fast that Brexit is just a dot in the world spectrum. Once the Brexit trade arrangements have been worked through over the next few months, things will settle down into a new reality and the world will carry on. The US, under a new president, would be foolish to view the UK as some naughty child who has escaped the clutches of its mother. The UK will develop a firm new-style trade relationship with the EU and will continue to have high-end deals with the US. Eventually there will be hugely beneficial separate trade arrangements with the US. As it is Washington spends much of its time whingeing about the EU because it rivals the US in so many areas, so turning to the UK could be quite a relief. Especially now that the EU is about to sign a massive trade deal with China after so many years of negotiations it makes the UK/EU negotiations look small beer. Seven years it took! So I think over the next year or so, the UK will be fine, standing on its own, and the US, under Biden and whoever follows him, will want to bind even tighter to dear old Blighty. As was pointed out the other day, Britain has the fifth largest economy in the world after jumping one above India. So that's not to be sniffed at.

Trump's last throw of the dice

First of all it's perhaps not a bad time to mention that the US Electoral College which rules on the winner of presidential elections confirmed recently that Joe Biden won by 306 votes to 232. That might seem to be indisputable. But on January 6, the day when Congress formally rubber-stamps the Electoral College declaration, Trump has called for a wild protest in Washington DC. The capital is likely to be filled with red-hat-wearing Trump supporters of all shapes and sizes demanding "four more years" for their beloved president. Congress will say otherwise. But that won't make any difference either for Trump himself or for his fans. This will be Trump's last throw of the dice. On January 6 he will have 13 days left as the 45th president, and however loud his fans shout for him to stay as president, constitutionally, legally and practically that's not going to happen. But it will be a last great hurrah for Trump, and maybe he will tell his adoring supporters that they will only have to wait another four years and he will be back. Could he chose January 6 to make the announcement, that he intends to stand again in 2024? I suspect he will keep them on tenterhooks, leaving it to them to demand he stand again, as I'm sure they will. He won 74 million votes in the 2020 election, more than any previous Republican president and for that reason he believes he has the right to be the Republican Party's standard bearer all the way to 2024. If he does declare his plan to stand in 2024, no one in the Republican party will dare to oppose him because of those 74 million fans. On January 6 Trump is going to go down fighting. Fighting for his future, fighting to be the 47th president. And his fans will be there to back him up.

A classic climbdown with nothing to show for it

Congress won. Trump lost. The president's climbdown on Sunday and his agreement to sign the $900 billion relief package despite angrily refusing to do so for days has done him no good but at least it has meant the much-needed financial support can now be dished out to everyone in the US. Let us hope that the $600 cheques are not sent to too many dead people, as they were the first time virus-aid cheques were sent through the post. The Revenue people seemed to have somewhat out-of-date names and addresses in their books. Trump backed down after he was bludgeoned over the weekend by friends and foes in Congress to do the right thing. One of whom pointed out that if he didn't he would be remembered for causing chaos and misery in his last weeks of being president. The president gave in but he still has it firmly in his head that he won the election and that at some point in the next three weeks the rest of the country, including and especially the Supreme Court, will come round to his way of thinking and ask him to stay in the White House. Be gone Joe Biden. Maybe that's the only reason he agreed to sign the bill because, as president AFTER January 20, he would be able to sort Congress out and get the changes he wanted. Does he really believe what he is sayng and tweeting every day, that HE WON the election and therefore has every right to stay put? Or does he laugh and joke to Melania in private and say "don't worry, darling, it's all a game, you better get packing". You don't hear anything these days from his daughter Ivanka. Is she still as supportive as ever or has she whispered into his ear that he only has three weeks left? Does anyone close to him even hint at his imminent departure from power? Of all the books that have been written about the Trump administration, the one I'm looking forward to is the fly-on-the-wall account of Trump's last days. What actually is going on right now? Is there some plot afoot? Relax, Mr President-Elect, there ain't nothing he can do to stop you from becoming the 46th president. Is there?

Trump's legacy is looking worse than terrible

With only 23 days before he is due to (last two words filled with trepidation) leave the White House and retire to his resort palace in Florida, Donald Trump seems hell-bent on destroying whatever legacy he thought he had built up after four years in the job. Refusing to sign the Covid-19 relief settlement approved by Congress and also refusing to sign the defence bill, he is going to make millions of people very very unhappy and short of money and desperate in the winter months. Ok, he won't sign the relief settlement because he wants to give every citizen $2,000 instead of $600. But politics and life are all about compromise. It was a miracle that the Republicans and Democrats actually agreed a settlement and Trump should take that and go with it and make a song and dance about the financial help he is spreading around the country just when they need it. Instead he went off to Florida to play golf as if he didn't care a fig for the rest of the country. This guy has no idea about good PR. He just thinks he knows best and until he gets what he wants he plays golf. Trump should take a leaf out of Boris Johnson's book. Boris fought hard for a Brexit trade deal and played tough, as all negotiators have to, but in the end he compromised. He didn't get everything he wanted but neither did the EU. What he did get was a deal which brought instant relief to every business in the country and the prospects of a better future. For Trump to refuse to sign the relief settlement bill was like Boris refusing to agree a Brexit trade deal because he didn't get what he wanted on the fisheries issue. What Boris and Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, did at the last moment was wonderful to hear about and summed up what negotiations are all about. Boris wanted the shortest possible transition period before the UK had total control over its territorial waters and total control over how many fish anyone else in the EU could snatch from our waters. In the final telephone call between Boris and Ursula, the EU president said six years. Boris said five. Then a long silence and Ursula said five and a half. Boris said yes ok. Deal done. Where are Trump's supposedly famous negotiating powers? Months ago when the latest Covid relief bill was being discussed he could have started with $2,000 cheques for all and then settled on, say, $1,200, the same as the first payment handed out. Both sides of Congress might have agreed on that. Now it's too late. Trump has gone off in a huff and millions of people who had been waiting for their government cheque are getting zero. Not to mention the impact it's having on the stock market and therefore the US economy. A lot of people in the US, including senior Republicans, are saying this is the legacy Trump will be remembered for. Get real, Mr President.

George Blake, traitor, dies

He will no doubt receive huge obituaries in all major newspapers. But George Blake, arch traitor to his country responsible for the capture and death of dozens of western agents working undercover in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, deserves an obituary that is as short as the headline on this blog. He had lived in a flat in Moscow since his escape from Wormwood Scrubs prison in 1966 after being sentenced to 42 years. Instead of being in a prison cell for the rest of hs life, he lived very comfortably in his KGB-provided apartment until his death at the age of 98. Espionage in the Cold War era was all about treachery. There were so many Blakes in the UK, not least the infamous Cambridge Five, Harold Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, Anthony Blunt and John Cairncross. All guilty of betraying their fellow men and women and their country because for a reason that can never be comprehended they believed the Soviet Communist system and ideology was fairer and more humane than anything the West could provide. Blake had less reason than any of them to stick to the Russian way of life. He lived much longer than the Cambridge Five. So for 20 years he had lived under the protection of Vladimir Putin, former KGB officer. Blake by all accounts had no regrets. No shame. For that reason he deserves no obituary. John Le Carre who died this month aged 89 might have agreed. His thriller spy novels were all about betrayal. He understood the psyche of traitors but as a former MI6 officer himself, despised them. Blake remained aloof from the rest of the world in his guarded life in Moscow. Putin and co honoured him for what he did for the Russian Motherland. For MI6 and for his country he was the man of dishonour. A traitor to the core. So no farewell.

The EU/UK trade deal is a reason to rejoice, not whinge!

I was a Remainer and will always be a Remainer, believing it to be in the best interests of the UK to be part of the European Union. Brexit ruined that. But now Boris has got us a trade deal at the last moment I am the first to say it's a huge relief and it's time to make the best of what we've got. Of course there will be major problems and challenges over the next few years, but so there would have been if we had stayed in the EU. There are always challenges in this manifestly competitive world. But now we have the deal let us hope that the whingeing will stop. A deal is so much better than the no-deal future being mapped out for us only a few days ago. So, the fisheries agreement is not ideal, there will be a five-and-a-half-year transition period but the fishing industry will survive and hopefully there will be no cod or hake or prawn wars. The senior French official who spoke to Reuters and boasted that the UK had backed down massively over fish and it was a victory for French fishermen should be ashamed of himself or herself. The message from both sides of the English Channel should be one of shared friendship and mutual respect. We have a deal, that's brilliant. Let's stop all the cross-channel claims and counter-claims and victory-boasting. Next year is going to be a good year with the vaccine programme getting into its stride. The trade deal makes it look even more hopeful.

Iran given a message from the Pentagon

A FULLER VERSION OF MY TIMES STORY YESTERDAY: An American submarine armed with 154 Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles was ordered to surface in the Gulf waterway to give Iran the strongest warning of intent as tensions with Tehran remained at a critical level. To emphasise the threat posed by the presence of USS Georgia, an Ohio-class submarine, the US Navy made available a photograph of the boat as it transited through the narrow Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf in the company of USS Port Royal, a guided-missile cruiser. It was the first time an Ohio-class guided-missile submarine had been seen in the strategic waterway for eight years, underlining the perceived raised threat posed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The 18,750-tonne nuclear-powered Ohio-class submarine, the biggest in the US Navy, was built to be part of the US nuclear triad deterrent, each carrying 24 Trident 11 ballistic missiles. However, four of the 18 deterrent submarines were converted into Tomahawk-armed boats to provide a potent conventional weapon platform. The visible arrival in the Gulf waterway of USS Georgia, one of the four converted submarines, was the clearest sign that Washington is concerned Tehran is plotting retaliatory strikes following the assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in Novembe. Iran blamed Israel for the hit and vowed revenge. Normally the Pentagon makes no public comment about the whereabouts of its submarine fleet. The last time one of the four Ohio-class guided-missile boats made an appearance was in 2017 when USS Michigan was spotted in South Korea’s port of Busan as tensions rose between the US and North Korea. Apart from carrying 154 1,000-mile range Tomahawks, the converted Ohio-class boats also have space for special operations forces equipped with mini-submarines. Each of the four submarines have additional intelligence-gathering and reconnaissance roles. The arrival of USS Georgia coincided with a rocket attack by Iranian-backed militias on the Green Zone in Baghdad where the US embassy is located. One person was killed. Recent satellite pictures have also shown that Iran has begun new construction at its underground Fordow uranium-enrichment plant, 20 miles north east of the city of Qom. The combination of factors persuaded the Pentagon to upgrade the deterrent firepower in the Gulf region. Last month the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz was sent to the North Arabian Sea as back-up while US troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan were carried out. The carrier is now off Somalia to support US troop withdrawals from there.

Trump's unreality show

The unreality show is what's going on in the White House right now. Normally during the transition period the staff of the White House start packing their goods, taking down the photos of their spouses, children and dogs, making urgent calls to potential new employers, arguing over whether that new coffee percolator was Fred's, Jim's or Sally's, or was government property, finishing doing expenses for December and generally preparing for the grand exit before the new lot turn up. Judging by a memo obtained by Politico, that was what was going on in the Trump White House until there was a sudden reversal memo. The contradicting memos neatly summed up the are-we-staying-are-we-going atmosphere stirred up by the president himself who is still fighting his cause that he, not Joe Biden, won the election and, therefore, has no reason to leave the big white building. According to Politico, the first memo arrived on Tuesday and informed staff in the Executive Office of the President that they should start to leave from January 4. They were advised about all kinds of important process requirements such as benefits, outstanding sick pay, sorting out an inventory of everything, handing over security clearance stuff and, most important, returning all White House-headed stationery. Then, they were told, everywhere was going to be defumigated. Charming! But ooops the very next day there was a second memo which told the staff to forget about the first memo and wait for new orders. Perhaps the president had seen a copy of the first memo and shouted at someone that if the staff were all packing up to go how on earth was he going to get people to serve him for the next four years. It's definitely unreality time for all in the White House. The Boss is supposed to be going but he doesn't want to go and if all the staff start walking out with their box of goodies it will look to the world as if the Trump era is over. I can't wait to see the third memo when it gets leaked.

Should Trump go back to Reality TV?

I love the idea of Donald Trump going back to what he's best at, which is fronting a TV reality show. A lot of people questioned about it in a poll in the US seemed in two minds, fearing that for a departed President of the United States, the holder of the highest office in the land, to perform in such a show might be a touch demeaning. But I think it would be perfect for him. Being president has been a reality show, so why not continue in the same mould? His supporters might think it's a good idea because it will keep his face on the TV screens every week, reminding the country that he is still around. But I can tell you the grandees of the Republican Party would be horrified if Trump went back to his old ways. So undignified? I doubt Trump would care a jot for what the GOP elders think. Reality TV means big money and I guess Trump will be in need of that over the next four years before he has another go at the White House job. I tell you with Biden in the White House it's going to be soooo boring.

The Wall is alive and well thanks to Congress

It has taken weeks and weeks of often angry negotiations for Congress finally to agree to a coronavirus stimulus package worth $900 billion. Just before Christmas. But there's a wonderful little item that is separate but inextricably linked to the package to make sure Trump in his final days agrees to sign it and not veto it. Congress has agreed to allow $1.375 billion on The Wall. So even after Trump has left office - assuming he will do so willingly - big money will be spent on the new construction dividing the US from Mexico. So at what point will Congress, under a Democratic president, decides that enough is enough and no more money will be allocated for The Wall. And when that point comes, will the new section of wall actually have a proper purpose or will the bad guys just move their operations elsewhere along the 1,594 mile border to continue their very fnancially-beneficial trade? And will it mean that then and only then Trump's Wall becomes a huge White Elephant. I'm afraid I haven't been to the border since the Trump wall began, so I don't know how impressive it is but it was always a political wall and it always will be a political wall. It's going to be a tricky issue for Biden when he takes over in 30 days. Yes, THIRTY days. The Democrats will be thinking that this $1.375 billion is the last, the very very last chunk of money for Trump's wall. But if Biden cancels The Wall, as it were, there's going to be a rumpus from the Republicans and that could skew other things which he wants to pass into legislation. Just one of the million things a new president has to take into account when he first steps into the Oval Office.

Airline charges rocket after Christmas was cancelled

To change a flight from UK to Spain to leave earlier to beat the flights ban is costing upwards of 1,500 Euros. A staggering increase to put even more misery on people who live in Spain and are trying to get back following the cancellation of Christmas in the UK. When this pandemic is all over the blatant exploitation by the airline industry will need to be thoroughly investigated. We are in a cruel period of history where every family has lost control of their own future. Everything now is dictated by government. There are no choices left. How is it possible that anyone is allowed to seek advantage of this situation by piling on the financial penalties for trying to sort out one's life? There are going to be tens of thousands of people stranded, either people who live in Europe but came here to spend Christmas with their friends or relatives or those who left for a Christmas with relatives in Europe and are now desperate to return home. They are all stuck. Who is going to sort out this messs? The terrible thing it's only going to get worse from January 1 when the UK finally leaves the EU. No one in Europe will care any longer about the poor Brits. Travel is going to get more and more complex. Especially if there's no trade deal sorted out before December 31. What an unholy political mess we have all been landed in.

US maritime chiefs see China as gravest threat

FULLER VERSION OF MY PIECE IN THE TIMES TODAY: China's naval and ballistic missile threat to the United States will define the balance of power for the rest of this century, a report by three American service chiefs has warned. Only decisive action this decade by US maritime forces – Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard – will stop China and, to a lesser extent, Russia from “undermining the existing world order”, the chiefs of the three services said. Their warning in a joint report ,headlined Advantage at Sea, underlines the unprecedented dangers that lie ahead in the 21st century. China is singled out as the greatest threat. “Optimism that China and Russia might become responsible leaders contributing to global security has given way to recognition that they are determined rivals. The People’s Republic of China represents the most pressing long-term strategic threat,” they said. The huge increase in China’s naval power, warship-building and proliferation of long-range precision missiles meant the US could no longer presume “unfettered access to the world’s oceans in times of conflict”. China’s behaviour and accelerated military growth now challenged the US Navy’s ability to preserve the freedom of the seas, as well as “deterring aggression and winning wars”, the service chiefs said. The warning comes only days after senior Chinese naval officials failed to attend a planned virtual meeting with the top US navy chief in the Indo-Pacific. Admiral Phil Davidson, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, had been due to speak to Chinese counterparts about maritime safety in the region. He accused China of failing to honour its agreements. Many steps have already been taken by the US to switch resources to counter the threat from China. They began under President Obama when he authorised the refocusing of US strategic interests towards the Indo-Pacific region. The build-up of US naval forces in the region has continued under President Trump. Today about 60 per cent of US Navy combat ships are in the region. The Marine Corps is being transformed into a greater expeditionary combat force, equipped with anti-ship missiles, and the Coast Guard is also increasing its presence in the region. However, the three service leaders, Admiral Michael Gilday, chief of naval operations, General David Berger, commandant of the Marine Corps, and Admiral Karl Schultz, commandant of the Coast Guard, warned: “The security of our nation depends on our ability to maintain advantage at sea.” Underlining the challenge in the Indo-Pacific, the report says China is developing “the world’s largest missile force, with nuclear capabilities, which is designed to strike US and allied forces in Guam and in the Far East with everything from ballistic missiles to manoeuvrable cruise and hypersonic missiles”. China’s naval battle force, the report said, had tripled in size in only two decades and was now larger than the American warship strength, 350 ships and submarines as against the US Navy’s 293. In August China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) demonstrated for the first time an ability to hit a moving vessel with a long-range anti-ship ballistic missile. Although the service chiefs’ report also highlights the increasing aggression shown by the Russian navy, it says “China is the only rival with the combined economic and military potential to present a long-term, comprehensive challenge to the United States”. To counter the threat, America’s maritime strategy envisages a hybrid fleet consisting of its existing nuclear-powered carriers and submarines alongside new, smaller ships and lighter amphibious assault vessels to provide a more flexible and rapidly deployable force. The US is also continuing to field small numbers of low-yield, submarine-launched ballistic missile nuclear warheads to increase deterrence; and the navy is developing a nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile.

Speeding up the vaccine distribution is now crucial

All the warning sgns are looking very bad. Even as the coronavirus vaccine injections are being carried out, the pandemic is getting worse by the way. In the UK more than 130,000 injections were done in the first week which sounds excellent. But it has created an incredible sense of complacency. All the golden rules about keeping safe with social distancing and masks have been cast aside. The virus cases are rising, hospital Covid patient numbers are shooting up, deaths are increasing. And it's going to get even worse over Christmas and through to January 1. The answer, apart from locking everyone up in their homes, is to launch the fastest vaccination programme ever. A tally of 130,000 a week is just not going to get the job done quickly enough. The longer this pandemic goes on the more frightening it's going to become, and the more rebellious the unvaccinated people - not just the younger generation - will be. If it wasn't for the wretched Brexit trade negotiations, Boris and his government could spend more time getting the policy right and saving tens of thousands of businesses from going into liquidation.

Top US military chief meets the Taliban!

What an extraordinary development: General Mark Milley, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, meets with Taliban "peace" negotiators in Doha, Qatar, to appeal to them to stop the continuing violence in Afghanistan. General Milley served several tours in Afghanistan and must have spent the two hour-hour meeting biting his lips and tongue. And would the Taliban lot have been impressed by having the most senior American military chap coming all that way to plead his cause? Well, probably impressed but not I fear persuaded to stop the violence. There have been masses of attacks against Afghan forces in recent weeks because the Taliban believe that in order to get the best political deal with the Afghan government the most effective way is to step up the killings and maimings. It's a sick equation but in Afghanistan it's the reality. How wonderful it would be if the Taliban announced a cessation of violence over the Christmas period and then stop altogether for the sake of peace and stability and love of humankind. I expect General Milley made such a suggestion in so many words. But the Taliban have suffered from severe deafness for so long that it's unlikely they took his entreaties on board. But good for General Milley for trying. Let's see what happens but I gave up expecting peace and stability in Afghanistan a long time ago. Twenty years of appalling slaughter and we're almost back to square one, with the Taliban plotting to take/share power in a strict Islamic state. It makes you want to weep.

Mitch McConnell falls into line

When I wrote yesterday that Putin was the last but one person on the planet to acknowledge that Joe Biden had won the 2020 presidential election I had forgotten about Senator Mitch McConnell. Dear old Mitch, Senate Majority Leader and stalwart Obstacle Man - putting things in the way of deals, any deals, with the Democrats - took until yesterday - after Putin - to congratulate Biden and to say categorically that the former vice president had beaten Trump. For Mitch, sombre Mitch, to admit this fact, following the adjudication of the Electoral College, it must have taken some doing. But when the truth is hitting you in the face, there really isn't any point in trying to prolong the agony. But of course for Mitch to come out and say it, Mitch of all people, it was almost like Trump conceding. But not quite of course. Trump sent off a furious tweet to condemn Mitch's betrayal. "I won 75 million votes, how could you say I lost?" What I liked about Mitch's announcement was his recognition of Biden's long public service record and Kamala Harris's, too. So maybe Mitch won't be locking horns with Biden from Day One of the new administration. Just maybe there might be an element of mutual respect. Mitch's concession is the first piece of optimistic news for some time. More and more people, especially in the Republican party, will ignore what Trump says and tweets because if Mitch says it's over, it's over. Period.

Putin declares Biden the winner!!

Vladimir Putin as we all know is a very cautious man. He wanted to be the last person on this Earth to admit that Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. Well he very nearly made it. Having waited until today to send his congratulations to Biden, Putin is the last but one person to acknowledge the victory of the president-elect. That just leaves Donald Trump of course who I guess will never actually admit in public that he lost and Biden won. But Putin had to make a decision eventually. He waited until the US Electoral College had formally announced that Biden was the winner and then he sent his congratulations. It must have been hard for him. He stayed loyal to Trump for as long as he could but even he had to realise that the incumbent president had no chance of staying in the White House for a second term. And he has got to start thinking about how he is going to interact with Biden for the next four years. He can't just exclude him. There's an extension to the New Start nuclear reduction treaty for example. That's coming up in the New Year and it will be Biden's signature on the deal, not Trump's. I doubt Biden is Putin's sort of bloke. Far too sensible and diplomatic. But needs must. It will be interesting to see whether Putin changes his spots a little to take the Biden administration into account or whether he will just plough on with his ambitious plans for a revived Soviet Union. Knowing how Putin and Trump remained mates despite all the sanctions and anger and rhetoric and warnings of war in the future. Hopefully Biden will draw on his experience as vice president for eight years to calm Putin down and persuade him to stop looking at the US as an adversary. More importantly, let us hope that the less belligerent Biden will also bring a bit of peace and quiet in relations between Washington and Moscow.

Does Trump really want to stand in 2024?

Trump is putting it about that he is considering standing for president in 2024. Nothing's official, it's all whispers and leaked conversations and hints from the man himself. But once he leaves the White House next month and departs to Florida for an extended break, I wonder if he will really think it's a good idea to have another go. He desperately wanted two terms, but he got stuffed by Joe Biden which, by the way, I assume the Electoral College will officially confirm later today. Unless a mass of Electoral College voting officials decide arbitrarily to switch from Biden to Trump which they can't actually do by law, then it's a given that Biden will be handed the victory. If Trump accepts to himself that the college has got to be right it means that any continuing battle to wrest the presidency from Biden ain't going to work. So, it's defeat. Now one defeat is bad enough but two defeats in a row would be even worse, especially for a chap like Trump. He has to consider the possibility that if he does stand in 2024 he might be defeated again. Not just by Biden if he goes for a second term but by Republican presidential rivals who will be pushing their case. If he were to win, it would be an amazing political achievement. But the chances are surely pretty slim. And to be defeated again in 2024 would be such a blow to Trump that even his most supportive supporters will realise that he bungled. Better to hold on to whatever he thinks he achieved in his one four-year term than risk being annihilated by all the would-be 2024 candidates. It's for that reason I believe Trump will just play with the idea of standing in 2024 to keep his fans happy but at the end of the day he won't do it. I doubt Melania would stand for it. Perhaps he can build a replica of the White House in Florida and pretend that he is still president.

Boris and Ursula go the extra mile

I wonder if Boris and Ursula actually like each other. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, and Boris Johnson have had yet another chat on the phone about the Brexit trade talks and have decided surprise surprise that it might possibly be worth extending them a little longer and not closing down the whole shop by midnight tonight. Well, that's something. Decisions are easy when they are easy. "Shall we go the extra mile, Ursula?" asks Boris. "Hmmm, oh well ok, Boris, just to show willing," Ursula replies. So a few more days of interminable dualogue between David Frost and Michel Barnier as they go over the same old same old. Fisheries, competition, implementation. I can't believe there is anything new that can be said. But if Boris and Ursula think there's wriggle room somewhere, it will be up to Frost and Barnier to prise it out of the logjam. But if neither can be seen to be "going the extra mile" over the next few days it might as well be wrapped up. We have got used to the endless cliches that have been deployed every day since the trade negotiations began. They include "go the extra mile", "light at the end of the tunnel", "no stone unturned" etc but another one comes to mind."No point in flogging a dead horse". But if Boris and Ursula like and respect each other, I have a tiny tiny piece of optimism in my head that allows me to think/pray that "at the last moment" (another cliche), "on the brink of midnight December 31" (another one), a deal of sorts could be done. I have no idea what it will look like and whether it will be enough to keep, say, 65 per cent of people on both sides of the Channel happy. But, and here comes one of the earliest cliches, "a deal is better than a no deal but a bad deal is worse than a no deal." But all this tough talk about sovereignty, the big word that has stood in the way of a Boris/Ursula love-in, is a pile of hokum really. No country these days can be so sovereignty-obsessed that it refuses to compromise on import-export deals or whatever. That's the way life works. If we want to enjoy the EU single market and all that that implies, then we have to accept that a bit of sovereignty has to be thrown to one side. If we do a deal with the US for example, you can bet your life Washington will have all kinds of quid pro quos. For the good of the long-term success of the country, that's the reality. Just because we're an island we can't be so damn precious. Can we?

The era of the super soldier approaches

FULLER VERSION OF MY TIMES STORY TODAY: China’s race to produce the super soldier, a genetically-perfected warrior aided by advanced bionic technologies has raised new alarms in the West over Beijing’s plans for future warfare. The concept of man and machine working more intimately together has been around for some time. The US army research laboratory envisages robots being capable of recognising human emotions. However, according to America’s top intelligence chief this week , the Chinese are going several steps further with their ambitions for the People’s Liberation Army. “US intelligence shows that China has even conducted human testing on members of the People’s Liberation Army in hope of developing soldiers with biologically enhanced capabilities,” John Ratcliffe, director of US national intelligence, wrote in the Wall Street Journal. The US spy chief was thought to be referring to advanced medical technology which can manipulate genes to enhance human performance. While the process, called CRISPR, has huge potential for correcting genetic defects, using genome-editing to create a super soldier veers more towards science fiction. Mr Ratcliffe did not spell out exactly what he thought the Chinese experiments involved. However, China is known to be engaged in multiple experiments to boost the efficiency of soldiers in battle. The same yearning for the perfect warrior is evident in the US. There is no programme for genetic engineering but the search for an army of Captain America super heroes, along the lines of the Marvel comic books , is no longer just fiction. In China trials have been carried out with PLA soldiers wearing a special carbon fibre outer casing like an armoured suit called an exoskeleton which reduces the physical strain endured by the body in high-exertion environments, such as warfare. The first exoskeleton systems were delivered last month by the state-owned China aerospace science and industry corporation, a key defence enterprise. China’s exoskeleton covering, weighing about four kilograms, can save 5-10 per cent of a soldier’s energy spent walking, climbing and carrying heavy equipment. It suggests it will be used by Chinese border troops operating in the Himalayas, Iane’s Defence Weekly said. The Pentagon is also researching commercial exoskeleton technologies for military use, and developing ways of improving the interface between human and robot. US army research is underway into creating helmets that stimulate the brain to learn skills more rapidly and to relay the thoughts of a soldier via brain signals. More than $6 million has been allocated for this mind-reading technology. This week it was announced that the French army has been given permission to develop bionic soldiers, using microchip implants to boost brain power and pills to reduce stress and pain. Attempts by countries to boost performance in warfare have had a chequered and controversial history. Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s became known as the pharmaceutical war because of the huge over-use of amphetamines, steroids and other drugs to keep combat troops and bomber pilots awake and alert. In the UK the Ministry of Defence stockpiled thousands of Modafinil pills before the Iraq war in 2003 in case it was needed to enhance the physical and mental performance of the troops. But the pills were never distributed.

Macron wants his share of the gateau

Emmanuel Macron is clearly a cod lover because he wants French fishing vessels to have access to all the cod-rich waters around the UK. So do a deal, Monsieur President. Ring up that haughty Barnier and tell him to get the fishy stuff sorted. You've got three days before La Guillotine comes down on trade prospects. Not that the fish problem is the only thing to resolve before the Boris-imposed deadline of Sunday December 31 arrives. But can't Macron and Merkel sort this all out. What have they been doing all this time? For Macron to make this remark now, as he is about to lose access to UK waters to do his fishing (theoretically), why didn't he step forward before? A whole year they have had, us and them, to get a sensible trade deal agreed but I think it's fair to say that on the three big topics, fishing, competition rules and how any deal would be enforced, there is simply no agreement whatsoever and nothing is going to change that in the next three days, whatever Macron comes up with next. If the French president is not going to get his fish then he will just have to eat cake instead. Just like Queen Marie-Antoinette said during the French revolution.

A UK/EU trade deal is beyond hope

Every time Boris or an EU leader speak they have to admit that the chasm is just too great to fill. It was always like that but the politicians continued to raise hopes because it was so clearly in the interest of both sides to reach a compromise agreement. The no-deal alternative was too awful to contemplate. But now it's going to happen. Boris had a fancy dinner with the president of the European Commission, Germany's former defence secretary - and not a very good one - and apart from filling their bellies with scallops and turbot they achieved nothing. Because what has to be achieved is no longer achievable. There never was going to be a compromise because the EU could not allow a former member of the EU to enjoy total sovereignty AND trade with the EU as if we had never left. So the new deadline for a deal is Sunday. If an agreement is reached between now and then it will be one that brings Boris's downfall. So Boris will not yield. Boris cannot yield. From January 1 this country will be on its own, unloved by Europe, and judging by the headlines in the papers this afternoon, unable to fly or drive to the European continent. I expect that's nonsense but that's what they are all saying. A grim future indeed. There are many lovely people who voted to leave the EU in the June 23 2016 referendum but I can't imagine they thought it would end up like this.

Why did Michele Flournoy not get the job?

MY FULL STORY NOT ALL USED IN THE TIMES TODAY Joe Biden’s decision to select a retired four-star African-American general to be his defence secretary would please critics in the Democratic party who have complained of the lack of diversity in the president-elect’s cabinet, a former senior Pentagon official told The Times yesterday. General Lloyd Austin who retired in 2016 after being the first black officer to command US Central Command, demonstrated his skills as a military leader when he commanded US and coalition forces in Iraq at a critical time. He masterminded the drawdown of US troops as the combat phase was replaced by a train-and-assist programme. However, he is not viewed in the Pentagon as a warrior with a Washington establishment reputation, capable of fighting the defence department’s interests against often rival demands of the White House and state department. While he has a long acquaintanceship with Mr Biden, when he was vice-president, and a reputation as a sound commander within Congress, he will face overwhelming challenges as defence secretary. Not least of which is that both he and the current chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Mark Milley, are both four-star army generals which could lead to friction among the other services. The former Pentagon official expressed disappointment that Mr Biden had passed up the chance to nominate a woman known to have been on his shortlist who is viewed as having impeccable qualifications for the job, both within the defence department and in Congress. Michele Flournoy who has been touted as a potential defence secretary in previous administrations, filled many of the top posts in the Pentagon, notably as head of defence policy, the third most senior civilian job. “It’s hard to see how Austin would be a better choice than Flournoy,” the former senior Pentagon official said. “She has extensive experience in the Pentagon going back to the Clinton administration and has served in senior positions across several administrations,” the former official said. “She has great credibility with both political parties. She also has extensive knowledge and experience dealing with the Chinese. Austin lacks these attributes,” the former official said. “

Which vaccine to choose!

Will there come a point when while queueing up for a coronavirus vaccine one can say: "I think I'll have that one please. Not that one, but that one." Any day now there is going to be a rush of different vaccines available on the market and it's going to be difficult to know which one is the most effective. They are all claiming pretty much similar effectiveness. I suppose it doesn't matter and anyway no government is going to have different queues for different vaccines. You get what you're given. But on the other hand, if the Oxford one does turn out to be just as good as the other ones, shouldn't we go for that one and not Pfizer. For two reasons. It's much much cheaper and can be stored in a fridge like a takeaway curry. It doesn't need to be kept at a ridiculous 70 degrees below as required for the Pfizer vaccine which means only large hospitals with huge freezers can store it. Lancet, the bible for medical-breakthrough articles, seems to be saying today that the Oxford vaccine is fine and effective and ready to go, although I notice the Daily Mail has read the Lancet article differently and has come to the opposite conclusion which will be somewhat confusing for the paper's readers. The only thing that still slightly mars the Oxford vaccine is the strange error over the testing when only half a dose was used. But the weird thing is the half dose was more than 90 per cent effective whereas the full dose was only 62 per cent. That I simply don't understand but wiser people than I will no doubt have an explanation. Meanwhile a 90-year-old woman in Northern Ireland has become the first person on the planet to receive a vaccine - the Pfizer one. Bless her. I wish her many more healthy and happy years. .

Spare a thought for Venezuela

Here in the UK it seems to be all doomy and gloomy with only a tiny prospect of a decent trade deal with the EU, putting renewed pressure on the economy, creating a nightmare scenario for any business that needs to send goods over the Channel, and years of tangled-up tarrifs and taxes and general stroppiness between this island and the rest of Europe. But in all the gloom over Brexit and the pandemic (despite the imminent vaccine distribution) perhaps one should spare a thought for the people of Venezuela who have woken up to a future with Nicolas Maduro in power for years to come. He held an election to add reinforced concrete to his presidential throne and won comprehensively. Not because the people of Venezuela wanted him in power but because the election was a rubber-stamping farce and the opposition who should have stood for Congress boycotted the process. So there was no one else for the people to vote for but Maduro. The country is now doomed to continuing failure and government corruption and a collapsed economy. Maduro is probably one of the worst-ever managers of a national economy in the history of the universe. His predecessor Hugo Chavez brought in a great revolution for the people and the people loved him for it even though it turned out that he was rubbish at sorting out the economy and money just vanished. Chavez was bad enough but when he died and Maduro took over it got progressively worse. It wasn't a revolution for anyone but himself and his family. Now after another farcical election Maduro will reign supreme. The country of Venezuela has a very dark future and I fear for the people who desperately want to see true democracy back in their lives and freedom to earn a proper living and lead a decent life. Under Maduro that isn't going to happen.

Will America really go all masked-up?

Will the American people do as their upcoming president says and wear a mask every time they go outside? Well, first of all, there's nothing in the constutution which says that by law whatever the president asks has to be obeyed. The US is a democracy after all. I don't think Joe Biden has it in mind to make mask-wearing a legal requirement, making it criminal not to wear one and instant fines for those who disobey. But he has definitely made mask-wearing his thing and he hopes the American people will abide by the suggestion. Will they do it? Well, millions will because they will want to support their new president, but millions won't because they will want to support their old president Donald Trump who never was a fan of masks from the very beginning. But I guess even if half the population wear a mask outside at all times for the 100 days Biden has suggested, it could make a big difference and slow down the infection rate. But it will also show up the divisions in the US. The anti-mask-wearing people will stride out into the open in defiance of the Biden edict and it could lead to all sorts of confrontations. I blame the World Health Organisation which has been supine and almost negligent in its mixed messages about what to do and not to do in this pandemic. I remember so well the WHO experts saying months ago that there was no medical evidence that wearing a mask made the slightest difference to passing or receiving the virus. Now it's all the rage.Now it seems pretty clear that wearing a mask in public places DOES make a big difference. There IS medical evidence that masks are a good preventive means of stopping the virus spreading. If only the WHO had said that right from the beginning national leaders around the globe would have taken note. Not Trump perhaps. But others would have done. Biden is right to make his plea for all Amricans to wear a mask for his first 100 days. And if it does make a substantial dfference then he could ask for mask-wearing to continue for longer. By then everyone will be so used to wearing a mask that it won't be a big deal. Here in the UK mask-wearing is pretty standard. Not in the parks or open spaces but in all shops and on public transport. It's rare to see anyone disobeying the rule. From what I can see, in the US it's more sketchy and in some states where Trump rules the roost there are far too many mask rebels. Surely everyone has got the message by now. Wearing or not wearing a mask is nothing to do with manliness, macho-ness and whatever the equivalent is with women. It's about health and the right to be alive.

Does the EU actually want a trade deal with Brexit UK?

Basically the EU which not that long ago included the UK as an esteemed member just doesn't want to do a trade deal with us Brits because if the 27 nations of the European Union are seen to have been outsmarted by Boris and co, the union as such will be for ever damaged, if not eternally emasculated. The union has to be seen to have won a great victory by punishing anyone who dares to leave. And the best way to punish the UK and thus deter other countries from following the UK example is to tie us Brits into so many concessions that after December 31 we will be view not just by Brussels but by the rest of the world as EU-lite members. In other words that precious total sovereignty which slightly more than half the country wanted to revive after 50 years in the EU would be seen as an illusion. Once in the EU, always in even if out, technically. That's the message the EU bureaucrats and political leaders want to get across. Don't get me wrong I have been anti-Brexit from the start. I never believed Britain could or should survive as a separate entity from Europe. And now that we are just over three weeks away from the deadline of December 31 - set by Boris - the EU has determined that it will not let Britain have any trade deal unless it can keep its tentacles wrapped around the island nation. Fisheries is a key point. They want access to all the lovely cod and hake and haddock to put on their restaurant tables and into their supermarkets and insist it's their right to take pretty well what they want. And they, or the French actually, want a guarantee that they can take their fish from our waters for ten years. Poor Boris. He can't possibly agree to that because the one big stipulation is that the EU has to recognise Britain's right to full sovereignty. And that won't be the case if Macron and co demand that they can fish whenever they want in UK territorial waters. Boris wants to be able to say, "they can fish when the UK tells them they can fish". But that goes against everything the EU has come to take for granted. So there can only be a deal on fish if the EU or the UK surrenders. Ergo, it won't happen. If it does and it's Boris who concedes, his premiership will go up in smoke. Smoked fish!

Vaccine row all a storm in a teacup

So Dr Anthony Fauci, the American virus disease chief, has now apologised about his comments which seemed to, no, did, accuse the UK of rushing through approval of the coronavirus vaccine in order to be first in the world. Of course he didn't mean to say what he said. In fact, he says, what he said just sounded like he was saying what he was saying but actually that's not what he meant to say at all. Phew! So that's clear now. Dr Fauci didn't do himself any favours by saying what he said on two different US TV stations. Certainly Trump believed what he said and was furious with the US regulator for failing to approve the Pfizer vaccine. The great climbdown may have had something to do with the announcement that Joe Biden has asked Fauci to stay on as chief adviser on Covid-19. I should imagine Biden told Fauci to say sorry to the Brits and then he could keep his job. Anyway it was all a storm in a British teacup and now we can get on with the massive nationwide vaccination programme that is going to take months. The irony is that the US regulatory body will now be under such pressure to declare approval by next week that just maybe it will "rush" its decision to make sure America is not last in the approval stakes. Then what will Fauci say if some UK tabloid dares to make such a suggestion? It will all blow over. The key thing now is to vaccinate the world and the world has never had to do such a thing on such a vast scale ever in history. As the programme gets underway, starting with the most vulnerable and elderly and works its way downwards to the under-50s there may well come a time when the younger generation cries out: "Why are we last?" It's a perfectly legitimate question.

Former UK defence secretary says we are the best

The announcement that the UK is the first to approve the coronavirus vaccine for public use has set off a blaze of criticism, pomposity, national flag-waving and general ya boo sucks. It's incredible how angry other nations are about us getting to the approval stage before anyone else. Donald Trump has berated the US regulatory body for undermining his own hopes to be first. He wanted to declare: "America First." He ca'nt understand why the American equivalent for the UK regulatory body still hasn't got its act together. But Dr Anthony Fauci, the public face of infectious disease experts in America, has blithely claimed that the UK was too quick and should have waited like responsible bodies who are still examining the data in a measured and professional manner. OUCH! Fauci is definitely off Boris Johnson's Christmas card list. Europe has been just as bad, if not sniffy about Britain being first and getting very hot under the collar over the suggestion that we got to be first thanks to Brexit because we didn't have to face all that EU bureaucracy and just went ahead and approved the vaccine all on our own. It's all hogwash really, because in this globalised world nothing is done without everyone being involved one way or the other. For a start it's not a UK vaccine. It's a German/Turkish one with US distribution and cash. BUT our regulatory body examined and crunched the figures and made its assessment and approved it before any other body anywhere else in the world. Does that make us better and more competent? Again, not really. It's only going to be a matter of days before another country, US probaby, announces the go ahead. It wasn't supposed to be a competition but of course that is exactly what it seems like and the UK breasted the tape before the US did. And Trump hates coming second. He has now come second twice in the last month. No wonder he is steaming with rage! If Trump reads the UK newspapers or listens to the BBC he will have had to put up with the remarks made by Gavin Williamson, former UK defence secretary and now education secretary. He burbled on on radio this morning that the UK is the best country in the world, far better than other country and that's why we approved the vaccine first. You couldn't see on radio but what's the betting he was wearing Union Jack socks when he made the remarks and probably waved a flag. I'm as patriotic as the next man or woman but Williamson is awful. Cringingly awful.

The race to start vaccine programme won by UK

The announcement that the UK vaccines regulatory body has approved the Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus vaccine for use in Great Britain starting next week is amazing news. But how come the UK has got in first when the same vaccine is available in the US, in Europe and the whole world? It's the same vaccine so why not the same-day regulatory approval? Is it because the UK has rushed the approval to make sure it has enough on the stocks or is the regulatory body just better and more efficient and has worked longer hours? I notice the New York Times is questioning why the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine isn't now available in the US. There doesn't seem to be an answer. But the UK government has made much of the fact that the vaccine will now start to roll out next week, initially for care homes, the most vulnerable and NHS frontline staff. A good political boost for the Boris Johnson government which has been under attack from all sides because of the Covid-19 lockdown and tier system for keeping the virus at bay, as well as for the long drawn-out last-chance negotiations over a Brexit trade deal with the EU before the Boris-imposed deadline of December 31. The arrival of the approved vaccine will take peoples' minds off the looming disaster of a no-trade-deal deal. Running any sort of business that requires lorries to cross the Channel into France must be a nightmare. The government is advertising like mad telling businesses to be prepared but judging by the myriad of comments from small business owners, they don't seem to have clue what they are supposed to be preparing for. There will be a deal. There has to be a deal. But it won't satisfy everyone. In fact it will probably satisfy no one. There's a huge rumpus over fishing rights, with the UK wanting full territorial control without having French and Spanish fishing vessels grabbing everything but I can't believe there isn't a compromise that would meet most of the problems. Perhaps the French and Spanish could only be allowed to fish in our waters on, say, Tuesdays and Thursdays. How about that? Has anyone suggested that? Will I get the Nobel prize for fisheries? Meanwhile the vaccine will be available next week but no other country has made similar announcements. Perhaps they are all waiting to see how the UK programme goes before stepping into the same water. And I'm not talking sea/fishing water.

Trump will have to attend Biden's inauguration

By still not officially conceding defeat in the election, Donald Trump has given every indication that he might bypass the Joe Biden inauguration ceremony on Capitol Hill on January 20. That would be a mistake and would look like a seriously discourteous and unconstitutional decision on Trump's part. It's not just about the next president, it's about the presidency as an institution. The outgoing president, as it were, gives his blessing to the incoming president. Giving any sort of blessing to Biden I can see would be difficult for Trump when he has tweeted pretty well every day since November that he not "Sleepy Joe" won the election. But he should turn up in his long overcoat and red tie and sit next to all the other past presidents and not look too miserable. The only worry is that Trump might decide to say something too loudly during or after Biden has made his inaugural presidential speech. Famously, after Trump had finished his extraordinary inaugural speech on January 20 2017 in which he effectivey said the whole country was in decline and falling apart after eight years of Barack Obama, George W Bush turned to Hillary Clinton and muttered, "Well that was some weird shit". I can well imagine what Trump might want to say after listening to Biden promising the earth and it won't be kind. But on the other hand who would he whisper it to? Certainly not Obama or George W or Bill Clinton. They are not exactly mates of his. So perhaps he would just sit there with his glum expression that we have seen a lot of in these last few weeks. Lindsey Graham, his senator buddy, thinks Trump should attend the ceremony. So there is every chance he will. As for Biden, he will have to stand there speaking to the world and try not to be put off by the thought that his predecessor is probably grimacing behind him.

Biden's fractured transition period

Throughout Joe Biden's presidential election campaign there were a lot of unkind people who were literally waiting for him each day to fluff his lines or say Guatemala was in Africa or say his wife was called Peggy or to fall over his dog. But his campaign was pretty well gaffe-free. Not totally. There were a few excrutiating moments like when he said George as he was talking about Trump. But he never fell over or fell up a step or kissed someone he shouldn't have kissed. Compared to the gesticulating Trump, Biden was calmness itself. But oh dear now he HAS fallen over his dog or his dog tripped him up or the lead got tangled or whatever and the poor president-elect has fractured a foot. All that time as good as gold and then whoops, just 52 days away from entering the White House in triumph he is hobbling around with a concrete foot or a special boot. I wish him well of course and by Inauguration Day he should be zippedy-doo-da bouncing on both feet. But for heaven's sake, Secret Service chaps, keep that dog away from him. One fall over is unfortunate, two would be extremely careless and three would be seen as a general trend and therefore highly alarming for the millions who chose him to be the 46th president of the United States.

Everyone is waiting for Biden except for Trump

In this intervening time between Trump and Biden I think it's safe to say that everyone, and I mean everyone except Trump, is waiting fingers-crossed for when the new president takes over. But in the meantime there are crises that will have to stay in the hands of Donald Trump: the coronavirus pandemic which is getting worse and worse in the US, Iran, hot for revenge against the state responsible for killing their chief nuclear scientist (Israel is on their mind), China, ever watchful for an edge, North Korea, maybe plotting some sort of spectacular test to prove Kim Jong-un is still around and feeling powerful, Isis which is supposed to be defeated but still seems to be increasing in menace once again, and Afghanistan where the Taliban are feeling happier than ever with the planned withdrawal of US troops down to just 2,500 in January. With just over seven weeks to go before Trump exits and Biden takes over that'a a helluva lot of issues to get right and sorted. The world is waiting for Biden, sure, but the world doesn't stop for Biden. In fact, as the killers of Iran's nuclear chief demonstrated, this so-called lame-duck period between US presidents is ripe for exploiting. Between now and January 20 I fear there are going to be a lot of unexpected and worrying developments. Not just because of the changeover of presidents but because the one leaving the White House is Donald Trump.

Did the US know beforehand about the targeting of Iran's nuclear chief?

The killing of Iran's nuclear programme director has all the hallmarks of one organisation. An organisation which has carried out extra-judicial hits aganst its country's enemies for decades. Mossad. Iran is seen by Israel as an existential threat to its existence. And the recent acceleration of the uranium-enrichment programme, under the supervision of Mohsen Fakhrizadah, the Iranian scientist heading the whole project, will have been viewed by Tel Aviv as a sign of progressive danger. Preemptive action to meet a threat and remove it before it becomes undefeatable is a military concept that has been justified on numerous occasions in the past. The US-lead invasion of Iraq in 2003 was justified on the basis that Saddam Hussein had nuclear, chemical and biological weapons which threatened the region and the world. It turned out to be preemptive action based on false intelligence but the initial argument for action was reasonable, had the intelligence been accurate. The bombing of Serb forces in Kosovo was justified by the West to prevent a humanitarian crisis. The US killing by armed drone in January of Iran's Major-General Qasem Soleimani, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force, was justified because there was intelligence that he planned further attacks on American forces in the region. Fakhrizadah was not the first Iranian nuclear scientist to be killed, but he was the top man, the founder and father of Iran's nuclear programme. If it was Mossad then I have no doubt that the argument in Tel Aviv would have involved similar language to the argument presented by the US and UK and others for ridding Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction before they could be used in anger. But the timing of this hit has more to do with US/Israel politics than it does about the state of Iran's nuclear programme. In 53 days Joe Biden will be president of the United States and it is difficult to believe that he would sanction such an operation were the Israelis to ask before striking. Israel has always said it will take the necessary action against its enemies - whether the US approves or not. But Tel Aviv will always take Washington and the US president into account when planning an overseas operation like this whether it asks for approval/support or not. So, on the basis that Biden might have disapproved very strongly, the best time to carry out this mission was while Donald Trump was in power. Ergo, that's why it has happened now. So if it was Mossad, did Binyamin Netanyahu tell Trump beforehand? Well, it cannot be a coincidence that on Sunday, six days ago, Bibi Netanyahu (reportedly), Yossi Cohen, the director of Mossad, Mike Pompeo, US secretary of state, and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia, met up in a Saudi city on the Red Sea coast. Was that when Israel informed the US that an assassination was imminent? Would Pompeo have raised any objections? It seems doubtful.

Trump has seen the future and it's golf

FIFTY-THREE DAYS TO GO: It's more than three weeks after the US presidential election and still there is no clear-cut acceptance of the result from the encunbent in the White House. But bit by bit the message is getting through. Now, in the latest development, Trump has reluctantly acknowledged that he might be leaving the White House. It must be very very hard for him to realise that he actually lost the election despite getting more votes than any previous Republican president. But now he has accepted that IF the electoral college announces that Biden won, and he lost, he will be out of the big white building. Of course earlier he allowed the transition procedures to go ahead and that was a true breakthrough. But still he fights on in the courts. Hoping for that miracle which he feels he deserves. But even the conservative-biased Supreme Court is not going to go against the grain and declare him the winner. So the future is golf. He should look forward to it. There are a lot of people in America who want legal proceedings to begin against Trump as soon as he has left office. They want the Biden Justice Department to institute investigations into his business dealings, taxes, etc etc. Do I think this is the right way forward? Bring Trump down with court appearances? No I don't. It would be terrible and unnecessarily vengeful for the new administration to go after Trump. He should be left alone and allowed to get on with his life. But if he is allowed to get away with whatever he may or may not have done wrong in his business world, won't he come back in 2024 and start all over again to be the 47th president? I seriously doubt it whatever he and his supporters are saying at the moment. There are too many others who want to stand for the Republican nomination in 2024. Life is going to move on. Trump is not going to remain a potent force for the next four years. By 2022, there will be a new Republican momentum and it won't be led by Trump.

Total confusion over Covid restrictions

Having just got used to the idea that for Christmas three households can get together inside to celebrate, the UK Government announces that London and many other cities will be categorised as Tier 2 locations once lockdown is lifted on December 2. And under Tier 2, two, let alone, three households are barred from meeting inside a house. So, for example, if friends or family are planning to join together for more than the stipulated four days over Christmas period, are they allowed to stay or what if they arrive, say, on December 20 and want to stay till the New Year? Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, announced separately that if people coming from abroad have a test five days after arriving from overseas they won't need to be in self-isolation. But if they arrive in a Tier 2, or worse still Tier 3 area, they won't be allowed to join up with other households anyway, so the relief from self-isolation is meaningless. I don't know whether every other country is announcing contradictory and confusing restrictions or restriction-liftings for this Christmas period. But as far as I can see, I don't know whether to lock my house and stay put like a hermit for the whole of December or have open house!

Strange omissions in Joe Biden's appointments and nominations

The ommissions in Biden's cabinet are more interesting than the names he has already made public. The two obvious ones are defence secretary and CIA director. It's extraordinary that when Biden introduced his chosen national security team for the first time this week there was no mention of who will be his choice for defence secretary, surely one of the most important appointments of all. It had been assumed that Michele Flournoy, a veteran Pentagon official who then set up one of the prestigious think-tanks in Washington, would be a shoe-in for the job but in the Democratic party, especially among the more progressive members of the House and Senate, there is opposition to anyone who at any time worked for one of the giant defence companies because of the fear of being influenced. When she left government, she was a board member of Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting company which has extensive ties to the US defence industry. That time embedded with the defence industry could spoil her chances of being selected for a job which she has always wanted. She would of course be the first woman to be Pentagon chief. She knows the Pentagon, how it works and what needs to be done with it. But will Biden pick her? The fact that he left the job vacant and unmentioned when he showed off the rest of his national security team suggests there's a problem. Flournoy might not get it after all. Or if she does she could have a roasting during the confirmation period when she appears before the Senate, from the Democrat members. As or the CIA job, there's talk of Mike Morrell, formerly acting director and deputy director. While Morrell was a good man, it would seem strange for Biden to turn to him, a veteran who has in many ways done his time at the CIA and moved on. Perhaps Biden might consider hanging on to Gina Haspell, Trump's appointee. This might be controversial. But she is CIA through and through and she risked the sack by declining to put her weight behind Trump's desire for a thorough investigation into what the intelligence services were up to when he was standing for president in 2016. That could be seen as a plus point for her if Biden were to consider her. I think it might be an inspired move by the president-elect to keep Haspel in post.

Joe Biden's man for the Iran conundrum

THE TIMES PIECE I WROTE FOR TODAY: Jake Sullivan who is to be appointed national security adviser when Joe Biden becomes president in January must have winced when he read that President Trump had sought military options for attacking Iran’s nuclear plants before leaving the White House. For at the top of Mr Sullivan’s list of priorities as soon as he moves into the West Wing of the White House will be to reengage with Tehran with a view to the US returning to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal from which Mr Trump had unilaterally extracted American participation in 2018. Mr Sullivan, 43 and with a curriculum vitae that makes him the ideal choice for a diplomatic rather than military response to the Iran conundrum , will face a huge challenge not just in Tehran where the anti-US mood has increased under the severe sanctions regime imposed by the Trump administration but also in Congress if the Republicans retain majority control of the Senate. “Assuming the Republicans hold the Senate, the new president will likely run into some strong headwinds on this issue,” a former senior US official said. The Republicans and many Democrats opposed the deal. There is little doubt which direction the president-elect wishes to take on Iran. Mr Sullivan was a behind-the-scenes leading architect of the early stages of the 2015 nuclear deal. A brilliant Yale-educated lawyer and one of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides when she was secretary of state, he lay the groundwork, in secret, for the breakthrough telephone call between President Obama and President Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian leader, in September 2013. The 15-minute call led two years later to the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA) signed by Tehran along with the US, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany, under which phased relief from economic sanctions imposed in 2006 were agreed in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme. Has Mr Trump improved the president-elect’s negotiating position by his decision to impose even tougher sanctions on Tehran? “I think Jake is mindful that the Trump people will have bequeathed the future Biden administration a lot of leverage,” another senior former US official said. However, a simple re-entry into the deal would be tricky, he said, “particularly because the Iranians are so far out of compliance and then you have the Iranian election coming up in June where the hardliners are likely to come back”. “Iran’s behaviour in the region has been so bad that Jake and his colleagues understand that things are not the same as when they left office,” the former official said. “How they traverse this obstacle course will be interesting to watch,” he said.

Trump still rules the Republican party

It's quite extraordinary the hold Donald Trump has over the Republican party despite losing the election. He remains a dominating force. So much so that Republican governors and the grandees of the party - most of them - haven't dared to speak out about Trump refusing to concede to Joe Biden. Every day that passes it gets more and more embarrassing as the man in the White House hunkers down and continues to claim that he won the election and that Biden's victory was false, rigged or just not fair. Some Republicans have spoken out. Chris Christie, former governor of New Jersey, was the latest. Others have talked about the importance of a peaceful and smooth transition without actually saying it was high time the president stopped acting like he deserved to be president for ever. Why is this? Simple. Most of them are scared stiff of him and his huge - more than 70 million - supporters who wanted him to have a second term. If they voted, as they did, for Trump, and their Republican governors and senators go around saying Trump should get on with conceding defeat, these voters are going to think twice about voting them back in when their election comes up. So to avoid voters' revenge, they are keeping hush hush quiet which means that Trump will just carry on denying reality and relying on his millions of supporters to back him up. This is going to go on until January 19 2021. Do none of these Republican voters realise how unconstitutional and undemocratic this all is? At some point Republican governors, senators, House representatives, mayors, sheriffs and all must come out into the open and shout, "Thank you Mr President but kindly give it a rest. Biden won." So far, very few of them have had the guts to say it.

It's official, Trump will no longer be @POTUS

It's the acronym which every president of the United States enjoys and exclusively possesses. POTUS is coming down the corridor. POTUS is walking to Marine One. POTUS wants a double hamburger with cheese. POTUS, FLOTUS are en route. The Secret Service spend every day muttering the acronymns into their hidden sleeve mics. It's one of the many things Donald Trump is going to miss. And now just to remind him that he will not be POTUS on January 20 2021, Twitter has officially said that on January 20 @POTUS will be handed over to Joe Biden for his Twitter account. If Twitter says preparations are underway for the transfer of the @POTUS handle from Trump to Biden, Trump must have lost the election. He will still get Secret Service protection of course but they will be muttering something else into their mics. It won't be @EX-POTUS because that would be an acknowledgment by the current president that from January 20 he will be a former president, and he's still fighting against that description in the courts.

Trump is losing support

FIFTY-NINE DAYS TO GO: More Republicans by the day are removing their support for Donald Trump's lone battle against the election result, the election organisers, anyone who says he didn't win. Georgia and Michigan are now definitely Biden's, so where else to turn. He can't seriously believe a bunch of states will suddenly reverse the results and announce Trump as the winner. But every time someone high profile says the election went fine thank you, he gets mad. Like when he sacked Chris Krebs, head of the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency for daring to say in public that the election was trouble-free. Under normal circumstances he would have been praised from the rooftops by the whole of Congress and the nation for saving the election from outside foreign interference. He kept the Russians at bay. That was a helluva success, especially after all the warnings of hostile cyber attacks. But for announcing that he had the done the job he was paid to to do, he gets fired. What Krebs did fail to do, however, was to stop the president of the United States from trying to interfere in the election process. Because that's exactly what he's doing, trying to overturn a democratic vote because he didn't win. His Republican and Democratic predecessors must be weeping into their pillows at night to see the standard bearer of the Republican Party refusing to do business with the president-elect. Barack Obama has been going around saying how gracious and helpful George W Bush was when he was president-elect in 2008. That's the way it's supposed to be done. But it doesn't look like the 45th president is going to be either gracious or helpful towards Joe Biden.

How much longer will Trump wait before conceding?

When the recount results came through from Georgia today you would have thought someone in the White House would have got their abacus out and made a quick arithmetical calculation before paying a visit to the Oval Office. Not that anyone in the white House wants to be the one to say to the president, sorry it's all over. But the Georgia recount was pretty definitive. Biden won, Trump lost. You can't go on recounting, the counters will get sore fingers. There are few options left for the president. None of the judges so far have shown any interest in reversing the count in any of the disputed states, and even if one did, it wouldn't make any difference now. Biden has won 306 electoral college votes as opposed to Trump's 232. And he has won 51.1 per cent of the popular vote against Trump's 47.2 per cent. That's a relatively significant gap I would have thought, big enough to make it impossible for the president to continue to insist that he won the election. There is no evidence that some dark force stole the election and handed it to Biden. So how much longer can Trump wait before he finally concedes that he lost and Biden won? The intriguing thing is that even while Trump refuses to acknowledge the reality of the election result, he is rushing ahead with policy decisions to make sure his favourite administration issues are wrapped up before Januay 20. Like for example his order to the acting defence secretary Chris Miller to cut the US troop presence in Afghanistan from 4,500 to 2,500 by January 15. That smacks of a president doing stuff in his final days because he knows they are his final days. He will have other last-minute actions up his sleeve I have no doubt. Let's hope they are not too drastic, like his calling for options to bomb Iran's nuclear installations. Fortunately his advisers, including Chris Miller, opposed such an idea. Well that was a relief. Meanwhile, without an official concession from Trump, Biden and his team are planning ahead in the dark, refused access to intelligence and any form of mutual discussion about the pandemic, the economy or anything ese. At least Kamala Harris is able to help out a little on the intelligence side. She is on the Senate intelligence committee which gets secret briefings. But who knows whether the real secret stuff is being withheld for the moment?

Australian report on their SAS shame

MY STORY IN THE TIMES THIS AFTERNOON: The Australian report into evidence of unlawful killings by special forces in Afghanistan will cast a dark shadow over the heroism and courage of tens of thousands of men and women who have served in the frontline of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two decades.The stark details of the accusations against Australian SAS soldiers will provoke widespread condemnation. But they will also raise questions about why such highly trained soldiers, elite in every sense, could have resorted to such brutality, violating, beyond any reasonable understanding of risk and danger, the accepted code of conduct in war. Soldiers with long experience of special forces combat do have an explanation but without offering any excuse for it. War is brutal and dehumanising, particularly for those who serve in tight military units involved in covert operations where maximum violence and aggression against the enemy are vital ingredients both for the success of their mission and for their own survival. “Recognising the incredible burden placed on each individual deployed to just survive through to another day isn’t well understood,” one former special forces commander said. No excuses were good enough, he said, but merely to see brutality devoid of context was to ignore the life soldiers in such units endured: “solitary, brutish and for many, short”. Small, very close military groups operating within a special forces bubble can sometimes reinforce a course of action which would seem to others outside the unit to be outrageous and beyond comprehension. In Iraq and Afghanistan over the years, atrocities and war crimes have been committed that have led to doubts about the moral, ethical and legal state of mind of individual soldiers and units within the US-led coalition. Among the most notorious was the Abu Ghraib prison abuses in Iraq in 2003 when Iraqi captives were subjected to physical, sexual and humiliating treatment by US soldiers, much of it caught on video camera. In November 2005 a squad of US Marines in Haditha took revenge after a roadside bomb killed one of their group. Twenty-four Iraqi civilians were killed including women and children. In Afghanistan on March 11 2012, Staff Sergeant Robert Bales, a US soldier, went on a rampage killing 16 Afghan villagers in Kandahar province. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The spotlight put on the Australian SAS has shown that war can turn even the most disciplined soldier into a reckless and out-of-control human being. What is disturbing in the Australian SAS case is that this was not a one-off single deployment problem but rather a culture that became deeply embedded. However, the former special forces commander pleaded: “That one group of soldiers acted improperly, probably illegally and absolutely immorally shouldn’t paint all others in the same light.” Military leaders also have to share the blame. They are supposed to set the tone and moral compass for the units under their command. If they turn a blind eye to unlawful actions and decisions when they become apparent they are as guilty as the soldiers accused.

Queen Nancy Pelosi wins reelection

SIXTY-TWO DAYS TO GO. Donald Trump doesn't like Nancy Pelosi. They have had words in the past. Now he must be staeming with rage to hear that she has won reelection as Speaker of the House. If she can do it, why couldn't he? Well, of course, he still doesn't accept that he failed to win reelection but eventually he will implicitly accept defeat when he leaves the White House for the last time in January and he will have to put up with seeing Nancy ruling the roost in the House of Representatives in her 80s and remaining third in line to the presidency. Very galling for him. Nancy meanwhile is unbelievable. She had originally said she would only stand for one term this time, partly because of her age I assume but also partly because of the firebrand younger generation Congresswomen who feel her time is up and that she needs to be replaced by a progressive Democrat. But she won some of them round and has sailed into another two years as Speaker. Good for her. She managed to sweet-talk her opponents who were angry at the relatively poor showing the Democrats made in the Congressional elections. But the anti-Pelosi brigade feel a lot more cheerful now of course because Joe Biden has become president-elect and Kamala Harris is vice president-elect. That has dramatically changed the atmosphere, even though a number of House Democrats lost their seats. Queen Nancy will continue to reign.

Joe Biden pushes on regardless as Trump thinks of 2024

SIXTY-THREE DAYS TO GO. Every day there is something new from Joe Biden. As president-elect and only nine weeks before he is inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States - 46th POTUS - he has a helluva lot of things to do and sort out, notably fix his cabinet and all the key officials he wants around him in the White House, in between taking calls from around the world from leaders desperate to get their spoke in before anyone else. It must be a non-stop time for Biden, giving him only an inkling of what he will face each day when he takes over. But while the Biden planning is getting to fever pitch, the incumbent president is carrying on as if nothing dramatic happened two weeks ago. It really is bizarre. Donald Trump will not, absolutely will not concede that he lost, let alone that Biden won. What is going to happen when we get really close to Inauguration Day? Will Trump refuse to participate? Will he demand a helicopter to take him to Florida? Will he go golfing? Or will he lock the door of his private bedroom in the White House and decline to come out? I think in the end Trump will do what's right but with huge reluctance. I believe he will be there at the January 20 inauguration and will try and look disinterested. He will probably never officially concede but he might use slighty concessionary language in a tweet or in a statement that vaguely embraces the idea that he will leave the White House and allow Biden in as caretaker president before he, Donald Trump, comes back in 2024 for his second four-year term. If he goes ahead and announces he is going to stand in 2024, there is no question that he will expect not only to be chosen as the Republican nominated candidate but that he will defeat Biden and Kamala Harris. So any concession he makes between now and January 20 will be marginalised as he promises to his millions of supporters: "I'll be back."

Trump's plans to pull out all US troops from Afghanistan by January 20

SIXTY-FOUR DAYS TO GO: A fuller version of the story I wrote for The Times today: President Trump is expected to order the withdrawal of all US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq before he leaves office in January. In a move to honour his longstanding pledge to bring all troops home and to stop American involvement in “endless wars”, his dramatic shake-up at the top echelons of the Pentagon is believed to be part of the plan to bring forward the military pull-out timetable. Christopher Miller, parachuted in a week ago by the president as the acting US defence secretary, was a special forces officer in the first phase of the toppling of the Taliban in 2001. He has given the strongest indication that total troop withdrawals are his top priority. “Now it’s time to come home,” he wrote in a memo to all Pentagon staff over the weekend. “This fight has been long, our sacrifices have been enormous and many are weary of war. I’m one of them,” he wrote. Former US national security and defence officials are expressing concern that, with a new team in the Pentagon, Mr Miller will be under pressure to wrap up Afghanistan and Iraq before Joe Biden becomes president on January 20. There are currently 4,500 US troops in Afghanistan and 3,000 in Iraq. Under White House plans revealed last month by Robert O’Brien, the national security adviser, the 4,500 troops in Afghanistan were set to be reduced to 2,500 by early 2021. The February 29 peace deal between the US and the Taliban in Qatar stipulated that all American and coalition troops would be withdrawn “within fourteen months following announcement of this agreement “, a timetable that underwrote a May 1, 2021 deadline. However, General Mark Milley, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, has pushed against the 2,500 figure even though it was thought to be one of the options offered by the Pentagon earlier this year. He said that the timing of further cuts in the American troop presence between now and May 1 had to be based on conditions on the ground in Afghanistan. Mark Esper who was sacked by Mr Trump as defence secretary a week ago, supported the cautious approach towards further cuts in Afghanistan. He believed that Afghanistan was the prime cause of his firing. Before he was sacked, Mr Esper wrote a memo outlining half a dozen reasons why a precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan was a bad idea. He included the importance of coordinating with allies, a former senior US defence official told The Times. Mr Trump had made clear to Mr Esper, through his national security adviser, that he intended to move ahead with withdrawal before January 20. But Mr Esper resisted saying that he and General Milley and the department of defence were "institutionally not on board" because the Taliban had failed to meet the conditions that US officials had agreed would be necessary to enable American troops to be withdrawn, the former official said. Acting defence secretary Christopher Miller has been warned by Senator Mitch McConnel, Republican majority leader of the Senate, and by Senator Jim Inhofe, chairman of the Senate armed services committee, that there would be considerable opposition to "an ill-considered" withdrawal among Congressional Rebublicans. "But Miller appears to be on board with merely doing Trump's bidding and is surrounded by a praetorian guard of Trumpists (Anthony Tata, Kash Patel, Douglas McGregor - all swept into influential Pentagon positions in the last week), who undoubtedly will be trying to pull this off", the former official said. There will be significant push back from General Milley and General Frank McKenzie, commander of Central Command. There would also be serious logistical obstacles to being able to accomplish a withdrawal in the timeframe the White House is talking about. There has been similar caution over Iraq. The 5,200 American troops in Iraq were reduced to 3,000 in September, reflecting growing US military confidence in the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces. However, there are concerns that the military presence in Iraq could also be up for grabs in the remaining nine weeks of Mr Trump’s presidency as a way of ensuring his foreign policy legacy. ReplyReply to allForward More metroops1 Sun, 15 Nov, 18:47 (22 hours ago) Before he was fired, Mr Esper wrote a memo to the White House outlining half a dozen reasons why a precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan was a bad idea. He included the importance of coordinating with allies, a former senior US defence official told The Times. Mr Trump had made clear to Mr Esper that he intended to move ahead with withdrawal before January 20. But the Pentagon was "institutionally not on board", the former official said. Acting defence secretary Christopher Miller has been warned by Senator Mitch McConnell. Republican majority leader of the Senate, and by Senator Jim Inhofe, chairman of the Senate armed services committee, that there would be opposition to "an ill-considered" withdrawal. "But Miller appears to be on board with merely doing Trump's bidding," the former official said. to me

Trump says Biden won but refuses to concede

It looked like Donald Trump had finally given in when he tweeted that Joe Biden had won the election, although it was rigged. But the whole media world leapt on his words and pronounced that the president had at last accepted that his Democrat rival had beaten him. I can just hear Trump's reaction to the headlines. "No, I didn't accept anything of the sort. I never said that. How could they say I said that?" Because in very short order he had tweeted again, this time saying the election was totally rigged and it was fake media who had declared Biden the winner and that he would never concede. Not ever. So totally back to square one. That must have been a huge relief to his supporters who have been gathering in their thousands in Washington to demonstrate their faith in him. It just shows how risky it can be to tweet at all. Once you have thrown a few words together and pressed send, it can't be reversed. It's done, the damage is there for all to see. I'm sure Trump will be more cautious from now on. He knows that every word he utters whether verbally or by Tweet is read, interpreted, reinterpreted, analysed and retweeted by millions. He definitely said what he said and then definitely rowed back furiously. The next time he dares to mention the election we will all be watching and waiting and reading and wondering.

Trump will hang on until the very end

SIXTY-SIX DAYS TO GO. I have never seen such a sombre Donald Trump. No fire left, just an unstated acknowledgement that he might not be forming the next administration. His Rose Garden statement to the press was so unlike the Trump we have known for the last four years. Head down, no arm-waving. No pointing at members of the media, no slogans. He made his statement and then swivelled round and walked off in a very heavy sort of way, shoulders down. No Q and A. Not for the media who, he believes, campaigned against him from the moment he stepped into the White House in January 2017. But despite all that there is no question that he will fight to the end. He still believes that, for example, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia will be awarded to him eventually. And of course he won North Carolina, quite substantially. Everyone else in America knows that Joe Biden has won and will be president on January 20 2021. But Trump just will not accept the reality facing him. He looked a sorrowful figure. It was his first public appearance for about eight days. His closest aides had advised him to keep a low profile and he actually did as they suggested. Amazing. As it stands Biden is set to get 306 electoral college votes and so Trump has absolutely no chance of catching up let alone overtaking. His sombre look said everything but he still won't concede. Never, not in the proper traditional way.

Ageing Biden versus new feisty Democrat generation

SIXTY-SEVEN DAYS TO GO. Joe Biden still has more than nine weeks before he takes over the White House (Trump willing) but already he is facing up to the feisty set of young new-breed Democrats who are hoping for, no demanding, a radical and progressive programme which older Democrats, including Biden himself, are afraid the nation will view as socialism with a big S. Biden is by instinct and record a centrist who will seek the middle way with everything, probably even on climate-change although his ideas at the moment look to be pretty far-reaching. But the new generation of Congress members on the Democrat side are not going to put up with soft, soggy politics. They want radicalism to take over the country. I'm thinking here mainly about the Famous Four Congresswomen, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York), Rashida Tlaib (Michigan), Ilhan Omar (Minnesota) and Ayanna Pressley (Massachusetts) - the so-called AOC Squad. Ocasio-Cortez is the youngest of the four at 31. Omar is 38, Tlaib, 44, and Pressley, 46. Joe Biden will be 78 on November 20. These four and others who support their progressive views will cause endless trouble for Biden when he takes over from Trump. But from the moment they launched themselves on the political scene they have added a breath of fresh invigorating air into the Democratic party. They are radical, sure, but they are firebrands of visionary ambition for their country. They will not just keep Biden on his toes, they will force him to be radical himself, to think the impossible even if Congress, especially a Republican-driven Senate, treads heavily on any truly transformative policies. The Democratic party needs the AOC Squad to inject new ideas and inspirational dreams into future policy-making. Nancy Pelosi, an institution who dared to stand up to Trump, is 80 and will be more wary of these four than anyone in the party. But it will be up to Biden and Pelosi - combined age nearly 160 years - to gather in the freshness and enthusiasm of the AOC Squad and make it work for the good of the whole nation over the next four years. I refuse to believe that Biden's first term is going to be destroyed by divisions both within the country and within the Democratic party.

Trump wants all troops out of Afghanistan before he leaves

SIXTY-EIGHT DAYS TO GO: From the way the Pentagon is being reshaped with Trumpite loyalists being appointed, it's pretty clear what the president is up to. He wants to get all American troops out of Afghanistan before he leaves office on January 20. If he does leave by January 20 of course. It's one of the legacy achievements I am convinced he is determined to have placed in concrete and he's running out of time. So out goes Mark Esper, the defence secretary he had begun to dislike quite a lot, in goes an outsider to do as his master orders, and most of the top civilian jobs are suddenly filled by other Trumpites. And to add spice to the Afghanistan all-out theory, Chris Miller, the new acting defence secretary, has bizarrely appointed someone as his main adviser who I assume was Trump's choice: Colonel Douglas Macgregor, retired but a very opinionated commentator for Fox News, especially on Afghanistan. He agrees with Trump that America's involvement should be brought swiftly to an end with not a single US soldier left. Although this is part of the deal signed with the Taliban, the withdrawal of the remaining 4,500 or so troops is supposed to be, as the military love saying, conditions-based. That means that if violence is still at a high level and the Taliban are still attacking Afghan security forces by the time the deal is supposed to be fully implemented next year then the US reserves the right to keep some forces in Afghanistan until stability is firm and settled. For the military that would mean keeping at least 2,500 special operations troops in situ to remind the Taliban of their commitment to the peace deal. I think Trump is more interested in honouring his pledge to get all US troops out than play a quid pro quo brinkmanship game with the Taliban. He probably thinks that if he gets all the troops out by Christmas, the Taliban might offer in return a total ceasefire. But if all US troops are pulled out it's far more likely that the Taliban will push on hard militarily to get maximum advantage before agreeing a political sharing deal with the Kabul government. So, this is what it's all about. The Pentagon changes are about Afghanistan, and if General Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, tries to stop him from getting every soldier out by Christmas, Trump will just get him replaced. Watch this space.