The Houthis get battered but always fight on

For months now there has been a separate war going on between the Houthi rebel forces in southern Yemen and a coalition of Israel, the US, Britain and other European partners. The Houthis fire a lot of rockets and drones and missiles towards Israel and towards commercial shipping in the Red Sea and within minutes the retaliation comes from the skies. Today, the last day of 2024, it was the turn of the Americans to bomb Houthi targets in Sanaa, the capital of Yemen, and elsewhere. A month or so back, the Pentagon sent B-52s - the big beasts of the US Air Force - to batter Houthi targets in Yemen. The Israelis are retaliating on a regular basis. You might ask, what is left of the Houthi military infrastructure? Hasn't it all been destroyed by now? But no, it doesn't seem to take long before the Houthis launch a bunch of new missiles and drones. This war is never ending. As soon as the Houthis started seizing territory from the official government of Yemen, a Saudi-led coalition of Arab nations started bombing like crazy. But they achieved nothing exceot kill thousands of civilians, and in the end, gave up. Now it's left to Israel, the US and dear old Britain etc to take over the bombing role.It's one of those weird wars where no one wins or loses. The Houthis nmust have lost hundreds if not thousands of their fighters and a huge proportion of their rocket bases, air-defence sites and weapons stores. And yet they keep going, armed and rearmed by Iran. As a country, Yemen is a total mess, with hundreds of thousands of civilians displaced, many of them suffering from starvation or malnutrition, while the bombs keep falling. Someone should sort this out and let the people of Yemen lead a life devoid of terror and the threat of death. It's time the Houthis were stoppeed, once and for all.

The wars in Gaza and Ukraine end. Then what?

Is anyone thinking of what happens after the wars in Gaza and Ukraine end? And I should include Lebanon here too. Because in each case, the amount of destruction has been massive. Gaza has been obliterated, cities and towns and infrastructure in Ukraine have been mashed by bombs anbd missiles, and Beirut has destroyed buildings all over the city. Who is going to pay for the wholesale reconstruction? Who is going to look after the millions of people who have been displaced? Who is going to give these war-suffereing people their lives back? Is there a master plan? If there is, I haven't heard about it. Ending wars is one thing but returning a country devastated by conflict to normality is quite another thing. It will take decades of investment. Is the international community readying itself to provide the funds on a huge scale? Right now, I don't think so which is scary and desperate for Gaza, Ukraine and Lebanon. Syria, too, of course, has been massively damaged by more than a decade of war. Where is all the money going to come from to rebuild all these countries? There are so many questions and no answers.

A quarter century of Vladimir Putin

Putin is approaching 25 years in power. Few leaders can claim that. Stalin reigned supreme for 30 years but I suspect Putin will catch up with him. He dominates Russia. Russia is Putin. For a former lieutenant-colonel in the KGB he has hung onto the apparatus of autocratic power with relative ease. No one has succeeded in challenging him. Most opposition figures who got anywhere near embarrassing him have died, and not from old age. His special military operation in Ukraine was supposed to be over after a few months. Yet, after nearly three years of death and destruction, the people of Russia haven't risen up in rebellion. They appear to believe him when he says he is fighting for the integrity and independence of the Russian motherland. Whether they love him or not is impossible to tell but they seem to accept that Putin is going to be their leader for the foreseeable future. He is untouchable, an arch manipulator and one of the most recognisable figures on the world stage, even though there is an international warrant for his arrest on war crimes and he can't fly to most countries in the world. Now he is probably going to face his biggest challenge - Donald Trump in the White House. It's going to be a fascinating confrontation. But don't expect Putin to lose. He has 25 years of experience at the survival game.

Amidst the chaos in the world there are some positive signs for 2025

The single biggest political change for the US in 2025 will be the arrival for the second time of Donald Trump as president. However, the whole world is approaching major changes, with the increasingly threatening global climate, challenges to the world economy and expanding conflicts. President-elect Trump has indicated he remains sceptical about the dangers of climate-change, and he is likely to be unenthusiastic about switching all energy sources from fossil fuels to renewable sources, such as wind and solar. This might suggest that he will stick to his campaign pledge to “drill, drill, drill”, allowing oil and gas companies to expand their fossil fuel investments. If he does, then this will have a dramatic effect on the next international climate conference which is due to take place in Brazil in November. However, a change in political leadership in the White House is not going to reverse decisions which have already been made by multiple businesses and industry. For example, the car industry is investing in electric vehicles, and solar and wind power companies are setting up across the country. This is long-term investment which will keep going even if the 47th president backs coal, oil and gas. There are many signs around the world of major developments underway to meet the growing threat from climate change. The future, in terms of the changing world climate, is not all bleak. There are positive signs that the world, or at least some parts of the world, are getting to grips with the potential dangers of global warmth. But it’s slow progress which is why individual government leaders have to play an important role in bringing in new legislation to mee the climate risks. Trump might even be persuaded of the arguments that fossil fuels cannot be the answer for the world’s energy needs in the future. The two other major issues for 2025, the economy and conflicts, could also be less challenging than many are predicting. In the US, the economy is showing very positive growth signs and next year there is every likelihood that it will continue to improve, bringing more people into jobs which could help cut down the cost of living. Unlike Europe where economies are stagnating, the US which has the largest economy in the world, looks set to have a prosperous 2025. Whether the arrival of the new president next month will mean a world with fewer conflicts remains to be seen. However there has to be hope that the war in Ukraine can be brought to an end with some form of settlement that won’t only benefit Russia. Trump has asked his special envoy for the war in Ukraine, Lieutenant-General Keith Kellogg, to devise a formula which will end the war and bring stability to Ukraine after nearly three years of conflict. Although there is no reduction in Russian missile attacks against Ukraine, it may well be Trump’s personal relationship with President Putin which will be the decisive factor in persuading the Russian leader to stop the war and reach an agreement with President Zelensky of Ukraine. As for the Middle East, it’s in Trump’s interest to play a role in bringing the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza to a close. When Trump was president, he signed the Abraham Accords in 2020 which normalised relations between Israel and several Arab nations: the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. It was a significant diplomatic achievement. But there is an even bigger potential prize, the normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. But this will never happen while the war in Gaza continues. If Trump could help towards bringing a settlement in Gaza, then a wider agreement could then be reached which could have positive repercussions throughout the Middle East. That would be a coup for the new president. So 2025 could be a good year for tackling climate change, for improving the economy and for ending the terrible wars which raised threat levels for the whole planet in 2024.

Every bombing of Ukraine by Russia is inhumane!

War is never nice. It's never friendly and it's certainly never humane. So it's always a little puzzling when a particular attack by one side or the other is noted particularly for its brutality and inhumanity. Putin's forces launched a blistering attack on Kyiv on Christmas Day which knocked out power for the families trying to enjoy a brief Christmas respite. Zelensky condemned the attack as inhumane, and soon after, Sir Keir Starmer, always ready to slip in a word to include his role as prime minister into the international arena, also condemned the Christmas Day attack as inhumane. Of course it was inhumane, every attack by Russia on Ukraine since February 24 2022 has been a sign of Moscow's inhumanity to the Ukrainian people. OK, people with knowledge of history, will know that on Christmas Day in 1914, during the First World War, the guns stopped firing, and British and German troops climbed out of their trenches to play football with a helmet. But that was never going to happen in Ukraine. Christmas Day for Putin was just another day of war. So, inhumanity? Yes, of course. But that's what war when a dictator is involved is about. It didn't really need either Zelensky or Starmer to tell us.

Cutting taxes, increasing taxes, nothing works in UK

We here in the UK have had two people with bright ideas for the country's economy and both have failed. First we had Liz Truss who as the briefest of prime ministers, instructed her chancellor to announce a staggering tax-cutting Budget which sent the stock market into a whirl going downwards to rock bottom; and now we have Rachel Reeves, new Labour chancellor who announced the opposite, raising taxes, especially for employers and the same thing has happened, a threatened recess and a bewildered stock market. Both ladies wanted growth in the economy and both got it wrong. The forecast for the Rachel Reeves economny is so bad that we are promised zero growth. ZERO GROWTH! This is either economic incompetence or just pure naivety. How is it possible that the head of the Treasury can believe that raising the tax burden on businesses - by increasing the national insurance contribution for employees - will persuade companies to go on a big recruiting drive and expand investment? Of course, higher taxes has meant that businesses have retracted, have stopped recruiting and stopped investment. Which means, among things, that tens of thousands of highly talented and qualified young people, bursting with expectation after graduating from university, cannot find jobs. Disaster all round. And there is no sign of any improvement in the wind. In fact, there is already talk of more taxes to come. Can we please have someone in charge who actually knows what he or she is doing?

Pentagon in turmoil

The Pentagon, one of the big spenders in the US government, is shell-shocked. It’s facing the most comprehensive overhaul in its history and under the leadership of a Fox News TV presenter. President-elect Donald Trump’s selection of Pete Hegseth, a 44-year-old military veteran who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, has given notice to the two and a half million military and civilian staff that radical changes are coming. Pentagon staff have been warned that their jobs are vulnerable., and insider sources reveal there is a growing atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Certain branches of the huge defence department complex are being targeted for cuts, and lists are being drawn up by the Trump transition team for the purging of three-star and four-star military officers who are considered inadequate for the command posts. Civilian staff are also being targeted. “A lot of career civil servants are getting telephone calls from the Trump team telling them their time in the job is going to be limited. But these are the people who keep everything going while the political appointees settle in,” an insider source said. “People are being identified for cuts and the whole atmosphere is intimidating. It’s causing a real morale slump, everyone is worrying about their jobs, their mortgages and their livelihoods,” the source said. “These are devoted civil servants who want to serve their nation but their jobs now seem to depend on their demonstrating loyalty to the incoming president and not to the constitution as it should be,” the insider said. Branches of the Pentagon being earmarked for cuts or closure, according to the source, include the section supporting the Ukraine contact group, the coalition of US-led nations which has been masterminding the flow of weapons to the Kyiv government. The announcement by Trump that he had chosen Hegseth as his defence secretary was greeted with astonishment. “Choosing someone who has never managed an organisation more complex than an infantry platoon[as a captain in the National Guard] is certainly a novel choice. But hey, he’s double Ivy Leagued [Princeton University and Harvard] and certainly meets Trump’s demand for men in his orbit to be from central casting,” one Pentagon source said. “But does any of that qualify him to manage the world’s largest, most complex bureaucracy? Absolutely not,” the source said. With a budget of $842 billion there will be rich pickings for Trump and his defence secretary. If Hegseth’s appointment is confirmed by the Senate, he is also expected to axe perceived “woke” policies. Included in the potential list of “woke” policies are: women in combat roles, travel payments for female military staff seeking reproductive treatment (abortions, terminations) who need to go across state lines to find clinics prepared to carry them out; and the presence of transgenders in the forces. One question being asked inside the Pentagon is whether Trump will try to remove General Charles Q Brown, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff who is an African-American, and Admiral Lisa Franchetti, chief of naval operations, the first woman to hold this position. “General Brown raised concerns [when he was Pacific Air Forces commander]. about the killing by a white police officer of George Floyd (an African American] in 2020.Will this be considered woke and be held against him?” a defence source asked. `Key to the Trump doctrine will be loyalty to him as commander-in-chief. In his first term as president, he once reportedly questioned why he couldn’t have generals like Adolf Hitler, claiming they were obedient, according to Bob Woodward in his latest book, War. This followed his challenging experience dealing with General Jim Mattis, his first defence secretary, and General John Kelly, his chief of staff. Will Trump expect obedience from the military chiefs if he orders active troops to take part in deporting illegal immigrants? “I expect civil-military relations to be a major source of tension as the Trump administration comes into office,” Eric Edelman, a former top defence policy official at the Pentagon, said. “It may be as early as the first week when he tries to tap DoD [department of defence] assets to help with mass deportations which will bring into its wake a number of legal issues,” he said. “Moreover, there is a move afoot to pluck out general officers [as reported in the Wall Street Journal] which will raise enormous concerns about the politicisation of the military. All in all, a very alarming prospect,” Edelman said. As a signal of the likely conflict of interest between loyalty to the president and loyalty to the constitution, Lloyd Austin, the outgoing defence secretary, reminded everyone in the military in a letter of their obligation to defend the constitution. “As it always has, the US military will stand ready to carry out the policy choices of its next commander-in-chief and to obey all lawful orders from its civilian chain of command,” Austin wrote. Underlining his message, Austin’s press secretary, Major-General Pat Ryder said:”The department will continue to stand apart from the political arena.” “A service member’s oath of allegiance is to the constitution and the constitution alone,” said Andrew Krepinevich, a former US Army officer and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. “An officer who believes he or she cannot execute a legal policy order to the best of their ability should resign,” he said. ends

Drones, drones and more drones

Something bizarre has been going on across the country and the Biden administration has no answer for it. It’s all about drones. They are everywhere, but more recently, some of them have been involved in what appears to be spying activities over some sensitive military sites, especially in New Jersey. Cold it be a hostile state engaged in espionage? Could it be the Russians or Chinese or some terrorist organisation? Washington – and that means all the administration agencies from the FBI and Homeland Security to the various intelligence services – conclude that the drone sightings have not been threatening and in many cases are not drones at all, but aircraft. And yet, drones or what appear to be drones, have been spotted in groupings, moving very fast, and hovering over sites where they should be forbidden from flying. The Pentagon was receiving so many reports that finally it decided to make a full statement to try and reassure people that the country was not being invaded by either hostile or alien unmanned aerial vehicles. After decades of attempting to convince conspiracy enthusiasts that alien UFOs (unidentified flying objects) were not speeding across our skies, the Pentagon has had quite a challenge in persuading everyone that the drones in our midst are not being operated by some foreign state. The drone sightings started more than a month ago in New Jersey over a number of sensitive locations. The reports emerged of more drones in Pennsylvania, New York State, Connecticut and Maryland. The suspicious drone sightings coincided with similar reports of sophisticated drones appearing over four US Air Forces bases in the United Kingdom. Those sightings caused such concern the UK government sent specialist troops to investigate. No firm evidence was found to accuse the Russians of being behind the drone flights. But the involvement of Russia was not ruled out. In the US, however, no one in the administration suggested that a Russian intelligence agency was operating the drones. In fact, John, Kirby, spokesman for the National Security Council, told a media conference that most of the reported drones were manned aircraft operating lawfully. One statistic produced by the Pentagon underlined the challenge facing the authorities in trying to keep control of the huge rise in drone activity. It turns out there are more than one million drones legally registered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). So, at any one point in the day all over the country, there will be drones flying above people’s heads. The FBI and other agencies concluded after reviewing all the technical data linked to drone sightings in the last few weeks that many of them involved lawful commercial or law enforcement drones as well as manned aircraft ,helicopters “and stars mistakenly reported as drones”. So much for the theories that spy drones operated by hostile states were among the 5,000 or so sightings received by the FBI. But who knows?

Damascus is going to be the key to 2025 diplomacy

The most extraordinary thing is going on in Damascus. American diplomats chatting away with poeple considered feared terrorists not that long ago. And the most amazing thing is it's going to work. The new Syrian rulers seriously want help and it looks like they are going to get it from the US. Quite extraordinary and strangely uplifting. First of all, the big dollar bounty on the head of Muhammad al-Jolani whose real name is Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, is going to be lifted. Next will come a lifting of sanctions and finally, the US will agree to recognise the new government as legitimate. It might take a few months but it's going to happen. If it does happen, then Syria, for the first time in more than two decades, will get a chance to revive itself and be an accepted and welcomed member of the international community. The aid money will flow in. This is awesome news for the Syrian people.

So Donald Trump isn't invincible

Donald Trump has always given the impression that he thinks he is invincible. What he wants he gets and what he orders he is obeyed. But now with less than a month left before he takes over in the White House there is chaos in Congress. He and his acolyte Elon Musk ordered all Republicans to scupper the government spending plan at the last minute but more than 30 Republicans rebelled. Unheard of! Could this become a regular habit? If so, Trump's entry into the White House might not be as easygoing as he imagined. Then, what if Putin tells him he is not interested in ending the war in Ukraine. And Europe rebels over his demands for them to spend mnore money on defence? I'm not predicting any of this, but even for MAGA Trump, governing is not going to be a simple business. Things go wrong. Events happen. But at least Trump must have thought he had all Republicans in his pocket. But it seems not.

Will Guantanamo detention centre ever close?

There are now just 27 detainees left at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the strip of land on the island leased to the US Navy. That's down from around 780 at the peak period of sending suspected terrorists to the most notorious prison on the planet. No president has managed to shut it down simply because there is no obvious, let alone easy, way to transfer all the detainees to other places of detention without someone in the intelligence business in the US kicking up a fuss or Congress going mad at the thought of any of them being shifted to a prison in the US. But it's down to 27. There are some who will never be released, let alone transferred to another country. These are the five so-called alleged 9/11 conspirators accused of planning, financing and orchestrating the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on the US on September 11, 2001. Of the 27 remaining Gitmo detainees, 15 are "eligible" for transfer if some other country or countries will agree to take them, three are waiting for a periodic review board to assess their case for transfer or release, seven are involved in the US Military Commissions (like war tribunals) process, including the 9/11 chargees (one of whom has been designated as unfit mentally to stand trial) and just two have been convicted and sentenced. So, potentially, 18 of the detainees could, eventually, be transferred to jails in other countries. That would leave nine in this huge detention camp with hundreds of US troops guarding them at phenominal cost. Will Donald Trump get it sorted and close Gitmo down after 22 years? It seems highly unlikely. I don't think he is interested in or cares about Gitmo. Obama failed to shut it down despite promising to do so. Biden failed as well although the number of detainees continued to come down. So I predict Guantanamo will stay open for business for at least another four yers and probably a whole lot longer.

Thirty-three days to Donald Trump 47th president

Expectation, fear, anxiety, alarm, curiosity, depression, resignation, hope. All the emotions present among Americans and the rest of us as the inauguration of Donald Trump as the next president of the US approaches fast. It's, I think, an unprecedented moment in history. The first timne Trump won the presidenial election in 2016, no one quite bvelieved it had happened, so the same emotions didn't apply. This is different, the US and the world has had two years to consider and plan for the possibility of a second Trump term and it became inevitable that he would win, even when Joe Biden stepped down and the new nominee, Kamala Harris, burst onto the scene with her engaging smile and laugh. But she never really looked like she was going to beat Trump. And sure enough, she was pushed to one side by the big man. But that's why, now, there is so much anticipation and worry about what Trump is going to do. He has told us a million times what he plans to do, to be fair, but will he do it all and will any of it be successful? The first thing he has to do is sort out the growing threat from Vladimir Putin. People here in the UK are talking openly about the urgent need to prepare for war with Russia in the next few years. If Trump thinks he can end the war in Ukraine as soon as he takes office, then he must go one step further and stop Putin from contemplating a war with Europe. Kamala Harris woulnd't have been strong enbough to stop Putin in his tracks, but it's just possible Trump could and will. Let us all hope his bold words are followed up by real action.

Assad claims he was ordered to leave Damascus for Moscow

No one believes Bashar al-Assad when he says he had no choice but to leave Syria and seek safety in Moscow. He says he was told to leave by his Russian protectors. It makes it sound like he was extremely reluctant to leave and preferred to stay behind to "save" his country from the approaching Islamic militia. The mere fact that he was, at the time of the overrrun of Damascus by the HTS rebel forces, sitting safely at the Russian base at Khmeimim in Latakia province in the south, with his family and bags packed (and millions of dollars switched to his account in Moscow) tells you that he went there, presumably by helicopter, to be ready to depart at a moment's notice. He was never going to do his duty,as he called it, and stay to fight another day. His troops had faded away, unwilling to defend Damascus from Mohammed al-Jolani's assault on the capital. So as soon as Assad got word that his previously trusted security forces had had enough of saving his skin, he hopped on a plane and left for exile in Russia where, presumably, he will live for the rest of his days. No heroic last stand for him. He already has property in Moscow and his friend, Putin, will I am sure protect him with armed bodygvuards while he settles into luxurious living in Moscow. He will never, one hopes, return to Syria.

Who will Syrian rebel leader Jolani turn to for help?

If Mohammed al-Jolani, the Syrian rebel leader, really wants to bring peace and stability for the Syrian people (and he seems to), then who is he going to turn to for help, strategic, military, economic and everything else? He and the transitional government can't do it alone, not after decades of repression and civil war and infrastructure destruction and interference from every quarter. Will he turn to Arab nations, or Russia, or Iran or the US or the United Nations or the European Union, or Turkey? Putin is desperate to hang on to the two bases granted to him on a leasehold arrangement by Bashar al-Assad. So, Moscow is no doubt offering Jolani and co all the help it needs. The US is offering help, tentatively because Washington wants more reassurance that Jolani's soothing words will be followed by action. The UK has already offered £50 million for humanitarian aid. But it will be Turkey that wins out more than any other country. Turkey's leader, President Erdogan, backed the HTS rebel force to seize Damascus and will reap the rewards. While, on the surface, this is good news, Turkey is after all a member of Nato and a serious player, Erdogan has his own ambitions, notably to drive all Kurds away from the Turkish border and to suppress what he regards as a terrorist force trying to set up an independent state inside Turkey. So there will be some quid pro quos. Erdogan will help Jolani but in return he will want carte blanche to sort out the Kurdish issue in Turkey's favour. Erdogan will do it anyway, but getting full support from the new government in Damascus will make it look more legitimate. The Syrian people want peace more than anything but for the moment Jolani and co are at the mercy of far bigger powers rushing to take advantage of the fall of Assad.

Is Israel right to destroy Syria's military capabilities?

The fall of Bashar al-Assad and the arrival in Damascus of an Islamic militia force to take control provided one country with a unique opportunity to intervene on a huge scale. I'm not talking about Turkey which was fully behind the ousting of Assad or the US which sent B-52 bombers to hit Isis targets in the biggest air raid since the Isis caliphate was running the show in northern and northeastern Syria. I'm referring to Israel. As soon as news broke that Assad and his henchmen had all fled and the Syrian military had flung off their combat clothes and vanished into the crowds pf celebrating citizens, Israel struck mightily, hammering more than 300 targets and then kept going again today, seeking out Syrian air defence sites, munitions factories and storage sites and weapons that could threaten Israel. Israel effectively went to war with Syria to eliminate the military infrastructure built up by the Assad regime with the help of Russia over decades. How many people died in the process is not known. But the destruction was massive. In ordering such a huge series of airstrikes on Syrian military sites, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, must have assumed that the opportunity to carry out such devastation was a one-off special moment. And despite condemnation from Arab countries, he will get away with it. Whether it was morally the right thing to do, when the hated Assad regime had been kicked out and the new rulers had begun trying to bring a more hopeful future for the Syrian people after decades of repression and civil war, is another matter. But, seeing it from Israel's point of view it was just too tempting. While there was a political vacuum in Damascus, Israel had the chance to destroy the military capability which could threaten Israel in the future. Nevertheless, what Israel has done will make it less likely that the new Syrian leaders will have anything to do with Netanyahu's government. While no one expects the new Syrian government to forge warm relations with Israel, the wholesale bombings by their neighbour could make regional peace even more unreachable.

Blinken says the US wants Syria to succeed

Six days since the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad government and already things are moving fast. Anbtony Blinken, the US secretary of state for just one more month, has been busy meeting everyone of influence in the Middle East ans has come up with some golden principles in return for Washington giving hlep to the rebel force that took over Damascus on December 8. Remember, the rebels belong to an organisation that used to be aligned with al-Qaeda, so it's a big step for the US to even think of being nice to the new rulers. But this is Realpolitik. You deal with whoever is in charge in the hope of having some positive influence. Blinken revealed in a press conference that the US had now had direct talks with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), led by Abu Mohammed al-Jolani. That can only mean one thing. A CIA envoy will have been sent to Damascus to meet Jolani and the transitional prime minister he has appointed. It might even be Bill Burns, the CIA director, because he has huge experience of the Middle East and is widely respected in the region. What a great photo that would be, the 42-year-old rebel leader next to the top CIA spy. Whether it was Burns or some other CIA figure, this is all highly encouraging. It means Jolani is prepared to do business with or at least to listen to Washington. He will now know Blinken's principles which include respecting all minorities and faiths and preventing Syria from becoming a platform for terrorists. There is every reason to hope that Syria will not disintegrate into another civil war, but it's early days. Blinken says the US wants Syria to succeed for the sake of the people. That's a good start.

Could the US have overthrown Bashar al-Assad in 2013?

In hindsight, did the US, UK and France fail to seize the chance to topple President Bashar al-Assad in 2013? This is the question that convinced Wes Streeting, health secretary, to attack his colleague, Ed Miliband, energy secretary and former Labour leader, for orchestrating the vote that threw out the proposal by the then government of David Cameron to join the US and France in airstrikes against Damascus in retaliation for chemical atrocities on the Syrian people. Streeting concluded that if Labour in opposition had supported the vote for airstrikes, Assad’s regime would have fallen, thus bringing relief and liberation for the Syrian population. Speaking on BBC’s Question Time on Thursday, Streeting said:”With insight, I think we can say, looking back on the events of 2013, that the hesitation of this country and the United States created a vacuum that Russia moved into and kept Assad in power for much longer.” The conclusion might have some merit were it not for the fact that Russia, with military and political muscle, had created such a long-lasting footprint in Damascus that even a series of US-led airstrikes to destroy the regime’s chemical weapons sites would not have persuaded, let alone forced, Assad to seek refuge in Moscow, as he has now done 11 years later. Moreover, when President Obama drew up his “red line”, declaring that proof of chemical attacks by Assad would lead to comprehensive airstrikes on Syrian weapons facilities, he did not have regime--change in mind. Airstrikes have played a crucial role in many wars in the last two decades. But no one, apart from a few dreaming air chiefs, believe that dictators can be toppled by bombing raids, without troops on the ground to follow through. Miliband, conscious of these arguments at the time, has rejected his cabinet colleague’s suggestion that a golden opportunity was lost to get rid of Assad. Sadly, Miliband is right. It’s too simplistic to believe that Assad would have run at the first fall of bombs. Nevertheless, history shows that it was Russia, not the United States, which seized the golden opportunity in 2013. Sergey Lavrov, the wiliest of Russian foreign ministers, stepped in and declared in an almost off-the-cuff manner, that Moscow would ensure that Syria gave up all of its chemical weapons. So, no need for bombing. It was a masterly stroke. Obama had made a firm commitment to launch airstrikes after clear evidence of Syrian regime sarin nerve agent strikes on rebels and civilians in Ghouta, a suburb to the east of Damascus in August, 2013, killing 1,400 people. The US military objective was not to strike at the regime as such but to destroy as much of the chemical stocks as possible and to deter Damascus from turning to these weapons in the future. The failure of the Cameron government to persuade the Miliband-led Opposition and 30 Tory MPs to back Britain’s involvement in the planned air raids was a big setback for Obama. But it wasn’t terminal. His red line still stood and the US could have gone ahead with France. However, the Lavrov intervention which took place while he was standing next to John Kerry, US secretary of state, at a press conference in London, miraculously removed the Obama red line at a stroke. Kerry grabbed the Russian offer and within a remarkably short time (less than 12 months), 97 per cent of Assad’s 1,300 tonnes of chemicals and poisons had been destroyed. Assad survived and Moscow congratulated itself on a diplomatic coup. The US played a vital role in the destruction programme, but Obama had blinked and looked weak. The outcome was, on the surface, a triumph. But it wasn’t to last long. Assad had kept back enough hidden chemical stocks and started using feared helicopter-launched barrel bombs filled with chemicals as the civil war spread. In April, 2018, with Donald Trump in the White House, the US, UK and France carried out airstrikes on suspected Syrian chemical facilities. Again, Assad survived. The lesson learned is not, as Streeting is suggesting, that an opportunity was missed to overthrow Assad in 2013, but that any sign of weakness when dealing with regimes such as Assad’s will be ruthlessly exploited. Moscow seized its chance when it detected a wavering Obama and as a result outplayed Washington. Moscow was helped by the decision of the UK parliament to opt out of joining the US in airstrikes. For that decision, Miliband has to accept some responsibility.

The New Year must be better for the people of Gaza, Ukraine and Syria

This has been a terrible year for war. 2024 will go down in history as the year of death and desctruction and inhumamity and rage. But there is now more hope that 2025 could be a year of wars coming to an end, at least in Gaza, Syria and Ukraine. Syria remains a big question mark for now because there are so many different factions with different ambitions in the country. Whoever is in control in Damascus is not in control of the whole country, and that may not change in 2025. But at least, with any luck, there will be a less autocratic, more people-conscious and even election-interested government which will make the lives of the Syrian people easier, more hopeful and less fearful. Much will depend on what other extremist militia groups do to try and take advantage of the transitioning government in Damascus, notably Isis which has a history of grabbinbg territory when it sees an opportunity. If the 900 US special forces troops are allowed by Donald Trump to stay in their bases in northern and eastern Syria, they will continue to play a part in stemming any new Isis ambitions. As for Gaza, I think there is a good chance that by the turn of the year, there will be a deal of some sort to stop the fighting and get the remaining hostages released. But it could all go wrong. If there is a deal, then poor Gaza is going to need a massive reconstruction programme. Israel should be one of the countries obliged to contribute towards the cost. Ukraine is probably the most complex war to resolve because if Vladimir Putin is not prepared to negotiate - and that is a possibility - the war will go on whatver Trump says or tries to do. But the signs are reasonably positive. And again, a huge reconstruction programme will be required. Russia will not pay a rouble towards it.

Syrian rebel leader learns lessons of history

The victorious Syrian rebel leader now in control of Damascus has already learned a key lesson in history. After his forces swept into the capital, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, head of the Islamic militant group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), might have been expected to lay waste to all the institutions which had helped to keep the repressive Assad dynasty in power for 53 years. Instead, he chose pragmatism. He announced he would do business with the Syrian government and wanted civil service staff to stay in their jobs to keep the country functioning. This doesn’t make al-Jolani or Ahmed al-Sharaa as he now wants to be called (his real name rather than his nom de guerre), a Kissinger-style diplomat whom the world can embrace as a long-awaited saviour. However, he only had to look back 21 years to see what the Americans did when the US-led coalition toppled Saddam Hussein from power in 2003, to know what to avoid at all costs. Against the advice of the CIA and the US military who warned of dire consequences, the so-called “viceroy” of Iraq, Paul Bremer, a Pentagon official delegated by President George W Bush to administer Iraq during a transitional period, announced a wholesale de-Baathification programme. Anyone associated with Saddam’s regime as a senior member of the ruling Baath party was fired. That effectively meant the entire civil service was dismantled. The officials were sent home without jobs. The Iraqi army was also scrapped. Saddam soldiers with their guns went AWOL, by order. As a result, there was a gigantic vacuum. Bremer had no experience of Iraq, but he had the impossible task of building a new civil service and army from scratch. It was a grave error which led to an embittered Iraqi army, thousands of disillusioned government employees, and, worst of all, to an anti-West insurgency that lasted for eight years out of which rose the Islamic State and its self-styled caliphate across great swathes of Iraq and Syria. Eight days before the US led a coalition of forces across the Kuwaiti border into Iraq on March 20, 2003, the general in charge of 26,000 troops of the 1st UK Armoured Division, envisaged a very different scenario. Speaking at his desert divisional headquarters north of the Mutla Ridge mountain range close to the border with Iraq, Major-General Robin Brims, told me he hoped that Iraqi soldiers unwilling to fight should join the coalition against Saddam. “I wouldn’t expect them to march north with us (to Baghdad) but they could just go to their barracks and wait there,” he said. “After the war, Iraq will still need armed forces and they will have a role to play in securing their country’s future,” he said. It was a visionary moment in the lead-up to what was to be a swift victory for the coalition, but followed by political decisions which condemned Iraq to years of torment and destruction and tens of thousands of civilian deaths. Today in Damascus, there will be many civil servants who served in President Bashar al-Assad’s regime who will be afraid to return to their posts. Al-Jolani, the 42-year-old HTS leader, has declared he will issue a list of military and security officials who will be charged with war crimes. But this is actually in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254, adopted on 18 December, 2015, which laid down a roadmap for Syria’s political transition. It included accountability for atrocities committed by the Assad regime. While the search for Assad’s henchmen continues (similar to the US hunt for Saddam’s main acolytes), It seems the hope of those now in charge in Damascus is for all civil servants to return to duty to help keep the administration of government running smoothly while the potentially dangerous and unpredictable transition period is orchestrated. It will also be a period in which other nations in the Arab and Western world, as well as Israel, will rapidly have to grasp what could be a pivotal opportunity to influence the way forward in Syria and also to take advantage of the impact the dramatic change in Damascus could have on the whole of the Middle East and on Russia and Iran, Assad’s principle backers. If al-Jolani sticks to his promise and encourages the Syrian institutions to return to normal working routines, the new government in Damascus will have at least a chance of bringing some stability to the parts of the country where Assad formerly had control. Provided pragmatism wins and ideology is kept contained, the lessons of the past, notably in Iraq and Libya, will guide the new Syrian leaders, as the rest of the world comes to terms with the downfall of what David Lammy, the foreign secretary, called “a monster”. ends

Blow after blow for Iran

Iran is a big loser following the toppling of Bashar al-Assad. And it followed two other big whammy blows in its tit-for-tat missile battle with Israel and the devastating Israeli assaults on Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran is losing, losing, losing. What are they going to do about it? Well, first of all, so far Tehran has failed to retaliate for the last missile attack by Israel. They vowed to respond and they haven't. So, theoretically that is still to come. But now, with the fall of Assad, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has been deprived of the easy land route for supplying weapons to Hezbollah. The sea route is too vulnerable because the Israeli navy and US navy are on constant look-out for dodgy freighters. So Hezbollah has been mangled for the foreseeable future. Israel will get full blessing from Donald Trump to do whatever it takes to destroy its enemies and, with the loss of Syria as a friendly state in the Middle East, Iran has been sideswiped, stamped on and put in its place. That definitely won't please the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Quds Force overseas bunch of malign operators. They will want revenge and they will want the Supreme Leader to give them carte blanche to get on with it. Could this include rushing, if rushing is technically feasible, to develop a nuclear bomb? Uranium-enrichment in Iran has already progressed to beyond 70 per cent, just 20 per cent away from reaching bomb-grade fissile material and they could probably get to the required level in a matter of months, although it would take another year or more to fashion the enriched uranium into a usable bomb. But if they did that, to try and frighten the world, the likelihood is that the US, under Trump, with Israel alongside, would smash up their nuclear facilities with air attacks. Could Iran dare risk another blow like that? I doubt it. So the IRGC and Quds Force have, for the moment, been immasculated. But it would be unwise to underestimate Tehran and the ayatollahs. The fall of Assad will make them even more angry and desperate.

Syria's future - terrorist state or democratic state?

Three things that never happen after a longstanding dictator and his regime fall after a violent uprising is peace, stability and tranquillity. First there is chaos, then there there is violence as different groupings rival for power or power-sharing, then there's retribution, and finally, all the hopes of freedom and security in the eyes and voices of the people gradually fade and it's back to terror and anguish and anarchy. See what happened in Libya for example. It's going to take a long time for Syria to settle down to some form of normality after the end of the Assad regime. For a start there are too many different factions with all their individual objectives and ideologies. The Kurds in the north struglling for autonomny, Isis battling to make a comeback, and a myriad other groups who won't necessarily be happy with whatever the coup leader does in Damascus. The leader of Hayat Tahrir-al Shams (HTS), Abu Mohammad al-Jowlani whose real name is Ahmed al-Sharaa, seems highly respected by his followers and fighters judging by his triumphant entry into Damascus. But governing the whole country is going to be a huge, if not imoossible, challenge. What experience does he have in running a country? None. So he will have to rely on the large Syrian civil service, including the encumbent prime minister, to run the show for him while he tries to sort out his priorities and who he is going to listen to most from the outside world - the US, Russia or China, or no one.

Damascus has fallen. What now?

Crucially, what will Putin do about the dramatic developments in Syria? He has lost his stooge in Bashar al-Assad and will probably also lose the two most important parts of Syria which he needs for maintaining influence in the region, the naval base at Tartus and the airbase at Khmeimim, south east of the southern city of Latakia. Putin will want to hang on to these bases which are vital for his meddling in the region. The anti-Assad rebels who have ousted Assad and taken control of Damascus are no friends of the Russians. But they aren't friends of the US and the West either. So Putin will no doubt be pulling out all the stops to get friendly with the new lot, especially as President-elect Donald Trump has announced that the US should not get involved but to leave Syria to whomever. This is a slightly carefree and careless approach to take. For a start, there are still 900 US troops in northern and eastern Syria and if he wants them to continue to play a role in fighting Isis in the area, he will need to keep them there. But I suspect Trump will tell them to leave, just like he tried to do when he was in power before and met strong disapproval from his then defence secretary, General Jim Mattis. This time round he will have a more compliant defence secretary who will do what he is told. Putin might take advantage of this by cementing a new deal with the Islamic militant rebels who are now taking over in Syria. Putin will do a deal with whomever it takes to do a deal with. Trump, by the looks of it, is washing his hands of Syria. This could be a bad move.

Let's hope the miracle of the renewed Notre Dame inspires peace and love and humanity. We need it

Nostradamus, the 16th century French astrologer, made some grim predictions about three world wars. We've had two, when is the third? Now we have Notre Dame, not Nostradamus, and the only prediction anyone wants is a future of peace and no wars and decent leaders who get on with each other. Donald Trump is at the reopening of Notre-Dame. Perhaps he will be filled by the glory of the wonderfully restored cathedral to seek peace everywhere. The restoration of Notre Dame is one of the most spectacular architectural and engineering acheievements of modern times. The dedication and skills of the thousands of people who played their part in making this cathedral great again after the terrible fire of 2019 have been truly awesome. President Macron said he wanted the restoration to be completed in five years and no one believed it would be possible. Yet, here we are on Saturday December 7th and it's being reopened with leaders from around the world attending. Brilliant. Vive La France.

Assad or al-Qaeda associates to control Damascus?

While the world was focusing on Ukraine and Gaza and Lebanon and Georgia and Romania and France and all the other places currently facing mayhem, a very large and well-trained bunch of armed fanatics, associated, among others, with the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation (which still exists!), has been plotting and planning to take over Syria. They have done so well that they are now within rocket-firing distance of Damascus. It's an extraordinary development which has taken the world by surprise and certainly taken Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad by surprise. He ran off to Moscow for help. Now we're in a situation, in the West, of wondering whether it's better to have this new lot in Damascus, with all their unfavourable links to the worst ideological groups around, or to have Assad, backed by Moscow and Iran, ruling the roost in the Syrian capital. There are still about 900 American troops in Syria, doing what they do with the remnants of Isis, so they haven't got involved. But what happens if the al-Qaeda look-alikes succeed in toppling Assad's regime? Will the US troops stay or will Washington pull them out? That'll probably be a question for the 47th president, Donald Trump.

Trump and his defence secretary problem

Trump doesn't always get his way. He has already lost one cabinet nomination, that of Michael Gaetz as attorney general. Now he is in danger of losing a second, his nomination for the Pentagon job, Pete Hegseth, until recently a top TV presenter at Fox News. Hegseth is having a helluva time trying to convince doubting Republican senators that he is the man for the Pentagon job, attempting to downplay his reputation for hard drinking and the alleged sexual harrassment issue for which he was never charged, let alone convicted. A handful of Republicans are showing a willingness to vote against his nomination, joining the Democrats in rejecting him. It would be hugely irritating for Trump to lose two nominees but reports suggest he already has another person in mind, Ron DeSantis, Florida governor. Poltics is a wonderul thing. During the election campaign when Ron DeSantis was number two in the line-up for the Republican nomination, Trump pretty remorselessly attacked him and demeaned him and insulted him. But now, it seems, he thinks the Florida governor might make a good replacement if Hegseth falls. DeSantis is a Big Cheese in the political world but does Trump really want a man with his ambitions to be in charge of the Pentagon which will give him almost daily news coverage with the way the world is going. In four years' time, DeSantis might have raised his game to such an extent he could be the one chosen by the Republican party to become the 48th president, rather than Trump's vice president, JD Vance. That wouldn't do. Mind you, Trump can always sack DeSantis if he gets too big for his boots.

Can Trump really end the war in Ukraine?

I wonder what Donald Trump thinks is his absolutely top priority for Day One of his presidency. Could it be the war in Ukraine? Even though it seems beyond realistic belief that he can literally stop the fighting on his first day in office. There are just too many other players who will insist on being involved, such as Zelensky and Putin for starters. Zelensky is fast running out of options, so he will want something, anything, from Trump which will save his country from Moscow-domination and give his countrymen and women a future without bombs and missiles. But he can't and won't give in if Trump tells him to hand over all of the Russian-occupied territory without something in return, like Nato membership or at the very least an international security guarantee of some sort. Putin will only listen to Trump if he gets what he wants which is 20 per cent of Ukraine and no Nato membership for Kyiv. Ever! Have Trump and his special envoy to the war, Lt-Gen Keith Kellogg, come up with a formula to please both Zelensky and Putin? It seems highly unlikely. Yet Trump still sounds optimistic that he can broker a deal. If he fails, it will be a huge setback for the new president and a blow to his super-confidence.

Will Trump pardon all those convicted for January 6 assault?

Following Joe Biden's dramatic change of mind and his declaration of a full, unconditional pardon for his son Hunter, will Donald Trumo do likewise for the people charged and convicted for crimes associated with the assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021? He will feel that he has the right to pardon the lot and cite Biden as an example of how the Justice Department should be ignored. Nearly 1,000 people have been convicted for crimes related to January 6, many with prison sentences. Trump will be tempted to let them all out of jail. He has in the past described them as patriots because they were trying to reinstate the 2020 election result in his favour which was right and proper and constitutional because, in his view, he won and Biden lost. Trump, when he is president, might go ahead and do this anyway, but Biden's pardoning of his son Hunter has just made it easier for him to justify such action. Forty-eight days left before Trump takes over from Biden and it seems the whole of Washington and every nation around the planet are waiting and holding their breath for the first of Trump's executive decisions. Pardons, I suspect, will be one of then, followed closely by an edict on illegal immigration, a plan to end the war in Ukraine and a massive boost to Israel to destroy the last remnants of Hamas in Gaza.

Biden pardons his son. Right or wrong?

On the face of it, Joe Biden's dramatic change of mind about pardoning his son, Hunter, sends all the wrong signals, politically, both for him and his legacy and for the Democratic party. It also opens Biden up for some revenge-type action by Donald Trump and co next year. So, all in all, the sudden about-turn after promising not to pardon his son, facing a possible three years in prison for tax evasion and possessing a gun while using drugs (forbidden under federal law), looks like a false and disastrous move by the outgoing president. But hang about! Hunter is his son! Ok, Biden is in a unique position, unique in the sense that no other American citizen has such a privilege, he has the right as the departing president to pardon whom he pleases. Sitting round the table with his family over the weekend, every member, no doubt including his son, would have pleaded with him to save Hunter from prison where he would have had a grim time as the son of a president. How could Biden have said, "no I'm going to stick to my principles, my son has to take his punishment." Had it been a Trump son, Trump would surely have pardoned him. Biden claims he decided to change his mind because the charges against Hunter were politically motivated and unreasonable and too punitively-weighted for the offences committed. The plea deal which was initially negotiated and then thrown out by a judge, would have sorted it all out without having to get to this point. So, poor Joe had to make this high-risk decision to save his son and his family. As I say, Trump would have done it. The wording of the pardon is so all-embracing that Hunter can never be charged again by a vengeful Trump but that surely makes sense. The lawyers involved wold have drawn up the pardon document very very carefully to ensure there were no gaps or loopholes. I say, give Joe a break. He has sacrificed his presidential reputation for the sake of his son. That's honourable and courageous.

BRICS countries can go hang, says Trump

You've got to give Donald Trump his due. Sometimes he just says it how it is and never mind the consequences. Often it's the wrong thing to say, certainly the most undiplomatic thing to say. But he gets his message out loud and clear. In one of his Truth Social media pronoucements he has issued a direct threat to the so-called BRICS countries which was initially formed by Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa as a stand-alone alternative to any US-dominated trade and currency groupings. The axis of China and Russia has always got to be bad news for the West, especially the US. Then other countries were persuaded to join BRICS: Iran (of course), Egypt, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates. Basically, the BRICS plot is to get the world to break away from the dominance of the US dollar and to switch to a new currency. Trump's message is, if anyone in the BRICS family pursues such a policy, they can go hang. He would impose 100 per cent tariffs on everything being imported into the US from their countries. In other words, trading with the US will be finished for good. Have a bit of that, BRICS. It may sound like another splurge of Trump rhetoric but deep down he probabvly means it. His view is, how dare these whippersnapper nations dare to undermine the US dollar. They should take the threat seriously, although I guess China, Russia and probably India, will pursue their currency plot whatever Trump says. But I suspect, despite the BRICS vision of a world less dominated by the dollar, it's going to be a long time, if ever, before this happens. And certainly not while Trump is in the White House.