There will be no let-up for Palestinians in Gaza

The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanoan has been widely welcomed. But not in Gaza because there is no complementary ceasefire deal for them and now that israel Defence Forces troops can switch all their efforts back to Gaza, the tiny strip of territory is going to feel the full brunt of Israel's firepower against the Hamas remnants. Many more people are going to die in the crossfire and bombings. Already the figure, according to the Hamas-run health mnistry in Gaza, is 44,000, although at least 15,000 of those will have been Hamas fighters. Hamas has lost all of its key leaders but somehow is still posing a threat to IDF troops and to Israel itself. Of the 30,000 or so Hamas members, probably fewer than half that number are still alive. But with their mass of tunnels and underground bunkers, they are fighting on. The IDF, with Hezbollah shut down, at least for the moment, the order given by Benjamin Netanyahu to annihilate Hamas will be grimly pursued. Gaza over the next few months is going to see more destruction. And the poor hostages who have managed to stay alive face another terrible, desperate winter. It's time this war ended.

Can Biden do the double whammy, a ceasefire in Gaza as well as Lebanon?

For good longlasting legacy reasons, President Joe Biden is keen as mustard to get a ceasefire in both Gaza and Lebanon before he trots off into the retirement sunset. He and his envoys have managed a ceasefire with Hezbollah, although there will be huge room for trouble if Hezbollah fighters start crossing the line drawn beyond which they are supposedly banned from overstepping. The last time there was a line drawn, in 2006 after a stalemate war with Israel, it didn't take too long before they were back in southern Lebanon and firing rockets at Israel like before. So the current ceasefire will have to be monitored very very robustly. Not by UN peacekeepers of course who have a pretty poor record for monitoring anything, but by US spy satellite systems. But a ceasefire has been agreed and we'll see whether it holds. But whether it will lead to a deal in Gaza is another thing. I don't think Benjamin Netanyahu is ready yet for a deal with Hamas. Actually he doesn't want a deal at all if it means Hamas survives for another day of fighting. But there are remnaining hostages to consider and so some sort of deal will have to be done. But I suspect Netanyahu will bide his time. Which means Biden probably won't get his double whammy ceasefire victories. By January 20 when Donald Trump becomes president, there is almost bound to be fighting going on in the Middle East, possibly involving both Hezbollah and Hamas.

All charges against Donald Trump are effectively dropped

Donald Trump didn't just win the US 2024 election, he also, as a consequence, won every case against him for allegedly committing federal crimes.The charges have effectively been dropped, includinhg the most serious one in which he was accused of being involved in the attempted intervention to reverse the 2020 election result, as well as the removal of thousands of classified documents to his home in Florida, and the hush money he is accused of paying a porn star to keep her mouth shut during the 2016 election. Oh and the 34 business fraud charges being brought by the New York attorney general. All thrown into the waste basket, theoretically until Trump has completed his four-year term. But no one imagines that after four years, the new justice department will reinstate all the charges and put the second-time-round ex-president on trial at the age of 82. And anyway, if Trump is followed by his vice president, JP Vance, as the 48th president, there is no way he is going to do that to his political boss. So the huge saga of trying to get Trump convicted of nefarious crimes is over. Once and for all. What a masive victory that is for Trump. He must be saying to himsrelf, thank God I won the election, otherwise....The dropping of the charges of course is all about the constitution which stiupulates that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted, and Trump is very nearly the sitting president.

All of Biden's men and women just two months to go

It must be a strange feeling of relief and regret for the thousands of Biden-appointed officials who will be out of a job in two months' time. This is the way it has to be. It's something like 4,000 officials across government who have to go when a new president steps in. You get used to all the big names, such as Antony Blinken, secretary of state, Jake Sullivan, national security adviser, and Lloyd Austin, defence secretary. They will all vanish, along with their Biden-appointed advisers. I'm sure they will all be making arrangements for new jobs in the private sector or perhaps just taking a break after four years of hard grind and mass travelling around the world. That's the relief bit. But the first morning they wake up after January 20, 2025, they will have to come to terms with the fact that they no longer have the trappings of power, no chauffeur-driven cars available, no Secret Service protection, no desperate calls from foreign leaders seeking help, no huge decisions to make. That's the regret bit. As for Joe Biden, I suspect he will eventually feel huge relief but with a large splash of nostalgia as well. However, in his case, he will still have all the stuff that goes with being an -ex-president, including Secret Service bodyguards. But he won't have to make any more speeches with the whole world watching to see if he slips up, slips over, or just looks lost. His biggest regret is that he wasn't allowed to have another go at beating Trump. He had to hand over that job to Kamala Harris and she failed.

Putin threatening to hit the UK with hypersonic missile? Really?

If the world was lucky enough to have responsible political leaders who actually devote their waking hours to ensuring peace and prosperity on the planet, we would all be able to sleep at night and plan for the future without fearing the world might come to an end at any moment. But we don't. We have Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un and the warmongers in Tehran and Beijing who want to disrupt international order and go about threatening everyone. This time it's Putin threatening to fire hypersonic ballistic missiles at those who dared to give long-range weapons to Ukraine to launch into Russia. In other words, the US and UK. Well, he's not going to do that because that would lead to conflagration. But he still gives out the warning because he knows, as the owner and sole controller of thousands of nuclear warheads, he can scare the pants off everyone if and when he likes. But is this responsible leadership? No, it's not. It's all bluff (hopefully) but dangerous bluff. What he is really doing is upping the ante and raising the stakes and all the other cliches, in order to give himself maximum leverage when or if he agrees to chat to Donald Trump about bringing the war in Ukraine to an end. Russia does hold most of the leverage cards, so somehow President Zelensky and his exhausted army have to try and grab some territory back from the Russians in the next two or three months to give them a sporting chance of negotiating not too awful a peace settlement. As of now, Putin holds the trump cards (pun intended).

Warnings of a global war from someone Trump trusts

The new emerging axis of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea has created “the most serious and most dangerous challenge” since the second world war, a former top US military chief has told The Times. “China, Russia Iran and North Korea are working effectively together. What has happened is that they have perceived us, the US, to be weak and that we have lost the political will to confront them,” General Jack Keane said. He warned that the danger will have to be rapidly addressed when President-elect Donald Trump takes power in January. It will mean a comprehensive reform of the Pentagon to rebuild the military, fix the ossified business practices and replenish the defence industrial base. The retired four-star general and former vice chief of the US Army, is one of the most influential military figures in Washington. Everyone seeks his advice, democrats and republicans, including the man who is to be the 47thpresident. They go way back. When Trump won the election in 2016, he wanted Keane to be his defence secretary. But tragically, the favoured general’s wife had just died. Keane reluctantly declined the job. Now with the same president about to return to the Oval Office, Keane has been laying out the challenges ahead for him and his national security team. The war in Ukraine is top of the list of dangers for Trump’s administration. The axis of China, Russia and North Korea is no more clearly defined than in the war in Ukraine, where thousands of troops from Pyongyang are now fighting alongside Russian soldiers against Ukrainian forces who seized 1,000 square kilometres of territory in western Russia’s Kursk region in August. “At the moment there are 10,000 North Korean troops who have joined the Russians. But is this a one time deal or do we have the beginnings of a pipeline of North Korean troops coming to support Russia? “ Keane questioned. “Another country fighting alongside Russia to try and overthrow Ukraine? This is the biggest escalation of the war .” This week’s launching by Ukraine of the US ATACMS long-range missile and Britain’s Storm Shadow cruise missile into Russia for the first time, and President Putin’s firing of an experimental intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile against Ukraine in retaliation have raised the danger levels of a potential global war. Could there be a peace settlement, promised by Trump, with such an inflammatory atmosphere increasing by the day? “Putin is accelerating things. I’m in favor of negotiating with Putin when it is in Ukraines best interest. But I don’t think he really wants to negotiate a deal. He still wants to take the whole country, “ Keane said. “However, he has significant challenges. He’s been trying to take the whole Donbass region in the east for eight months. But he has had only small but steady tactical successes., no major operational gains, and he’s suffering 30,000 casualties every month. In October it was 57,000. That’s staggering. “But he doesn’t want to go for another mobilisation because of the fear of stirring up protest. He won’t go to recruit in western Russia where the educated live, he goes to the rural areas and poor communities and gives them money to join up. He’s avoiding a national call-up because he knows it will be resisted. When the soldiers from these poor families are killed they received 150,000 dollars for every dead body. For people in impoverished communities, it’s a huge figure and it buys their silence. “He also has significant equipment problems. Russia has lost so many tanks and other armoured vehicles his industrial base can’t keep up. Thousands of vehicles have been destroyed. “ “Mechanised offensive operations as we know them have effectively ceased because of Ukraine’s drones. The technology of warfare has changed. It was always said that the best way to destroy a tank was with another tank. But that’s not the case anymore. Drones and anti-tank weapons and anti-tank mines have taken over. “The Ukrainians have also developed long-range drones that can go hundred of miles into Russian territory. So I don’t think they are in danger of losing their country to the Russians. “So If we can help [President] Zelensky by giving him everything he needs and fund their drone forces, they should be able to take back lost territory in 2025. But support for the war is eroding and the soldiers are exhausted. The new recruits replacing them are not so well trained. They can pick their skills up as they fight but then they become casualties.” Will Trump do as he pledged and start to end the war on his first day in office? “I think there’s a difference between what has been said in the campaign and what is now being discussed among the people with the responsibility for dealing with the war. These people are all getting classified briefings and they likely know that what is needed is a favourable outcome for Ukraine, at a minimum, when negotiations end. “The pressure on Zelensky is enormous. This is not only about giving up the 18 per cent of territory the Russians have seized, it’s about giving up Ukrainian lives. The Ukrainians living in these areas will be subjugated under Russian domination. This is what Zelensky cannot allow to happen. He needs leverage so that he gives up less territory. That’s why we have to give him everything he needs.” To meet the growing threat from the new anti-West axis, Keane envisages significant changes at the Pentagon under the Trump administration. As a member of a congressional commission which examined every facet of President Biden’s defence strategy, Keane gained unique insight into the way the Pentagon appears to have failed to adapt to meet the new security challenges. “Our assessment was that the DoD [department of defence] challenges were more formidable than at any time in eight decades. “In the last four years we haven’t increased our defence budget because of inflation. It has been flat under Biden. This was irresponsible and reckless. We have got to prioritise our capabilities to deter a major conventional war, ie with China. China is the most rapidly developing military in the world and it has been going on for 20 years. “The acceleration in their defence capabilities has been extraordinary and they outgun us and outman us in every platform except submarines. Meanwhile our army is the smallest it has been since prior to the second world war, the air force is the smallest in 40 years and our navy which needs 360 ships is something in the low 290s and there is no hope of getting even close to the number we need for ten to 15 years. “The Trump team has got decisions to make and they are going to have to be made pretty soon. We have war in Europe and war in the Middle East and President Xi [Zinping] threatening war. There is the potential for the first time since the second world war of another global war. “We were prepared to deal with a global war when we had the Soviet Union [as the West’s adversary] but are we prepared now to confront a global war? Our Commission concluded we are not prepared. “One of the problems is that our defence industrial base is depleted. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union we had 55 Tier 1 defence companies [biggest and best] . Today we have just five, such as General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. That gives you a sense of how the industry has collapsed. “The war in Ukraine has been a major learning lesson. We have raided our war stocks to send weapons and munitions to Ukraine and it forced us to come to grips with what the stockpiles should be for our use. When we conduct war games now with China in mind we find that some key weapon systems run out after two weeks and others in several weeks, which means we could lose. That needs to be fixed. “We have to reach out to the commercial non-defense sector to purchase items they can produce very rapidly. At the moment Congressional restrictions prevent us from purchasing tens of thousands of drones. Compare this with Ukraine. By the end of this year they will have developed in Ukraine 1.4 million drones with some the help from US and Eoropean companies operating in Ukraine. Next year they aim to have five million. We build at best a few hundred drones a year. The Pentagon is trying now to turn this around. “We need to persuade Congress to give us more agile funding so that we can buy drones off the shelf and get them into operation. We have to change the Pentagon’s business practices. We have thousands of civilians involved with these weapons programs but it’s all about the emphasis on cost, performance and schedule which drives a risk averse process . We test, test, test everything and it drags on. It takes too long and it costs too much. If we don’t change the business practices in the Pentagon a portion of any increase in the defence budget in the next administration will just be squandered. “Again, look at Ukraine. They have managed to do serious damage to the Russian navy without having a navy just by developing and deploying aerial and underwater drones. We can’t wait years to get them through Congress. Congress writes the cheques and nothing gets done without their authorisation. In the DoD we need competent people who have the right experience. The status quo is no longer viable. The Trump team are coming up with names. the sort of people who will turn things round. “

Does Putin really want a peace plan for Ukraine?

Donald Trump is still two months away from becoming the 47th president of the United States, and yet his return to the Oval Office in January has already provoked a flurry of policy U-turns by the White House and rising expectation, even in Moscow, of a deal to end the war in Ukraine. Elements of a potential settlement reportedly agreeable to President Putin have emerged on Reuters today based on kite-flying suggestions by Russian officials. While there is nothing particularly new in the broad outline of Moscow thinking, the fact that Russian officials are pushing it out in some detail reflects an awareness in the Kremlin that with Trump in power, the potential for a deal that will satisfy Putin after 1,000 days of war, might be on the cards. Anything that pleases Putin will be rigorously opposed by the European members of the 50-nation US-led coalition backing and arming the Kyiv government who still believe, or at least claim they do, that Ukraine can win the war. However, Trump has boasted on so many occasions that he will fix things on his first day in office that Putin, as well as President Zelensky, are preparing themselves for the man who promotes himself as the master dealmaker. President Biden, too, has responded in his own way to the imminent arrival of Trump in his place. His decision, after months and months of reluctance, to authorise Kyiv to fire American ATACMS long-range missiles into Russia and to send anti-personnel land mines to Ukraine, was claimed to be in retaliation for the presence of 10,000 North Korean troops alongside Russian forces. But for Biden, it was much more than that. He wanted to remind Trump that under his administration, Russia was never going to win the war. So, are there real prospects for a settlement or is the latest reporting from Moscow all part of another Putin-inspired game plan to reset in concrete his personal red lines for a deal which haven’t really changed ever since the first attempts were made to end the war as far back as 28 February, 2022, four days after the Russian invasion. According to the Reuters report, Putin is making it clear he is ready to discuss a ceasefire deal with Trump, but not on the basis of any handover of Russian-occupied territory. Nato membership for Ukraine must also be abandoned but Putin is open to some form of security arrangement being put in place., provided Ukraine is declared a neutral state. The Moscow deal would effectively freeze the conflict along the current frontlines although there could be negotiations over the precise carving up of the four eastern regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, location of the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, and Kherson. The Russian officials said there might be some leeway over small patches of ground Moscow holds in the Kharkiv and Mykolaiv regions in the north and south of Ukraine. Crimea, annexed by Russia without a fight in 2014, would never be given up. There is no official Kremlin confirmation of the latest Moscow thinking. Indeed, Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, has said that Putin would not countenance freezing the conflict, presumably because in recent months Russian troops have been making small but steady gains in eastern Ukraine, forcing Ukrainian troops back. Putin has in the past admitted he would consider the deal first outlined at a “peace” conference in Istanbul in April, 2022, in which Ukraine would have to accept permanent neutrality in return for international security guarantees underwritten by the five permanent members of the UN security council, the US, Russia, China, Britain and France. But no Nato troops on Ukrainian territory. This appears to be his thinking today. But while Russia is winning mini victories in the war, the next two months are likely to be among the toughest for Ukraine, as Putin piles on the leverage he wants to force Kyiv into a humiliating peace settlement. Nato leaders are still voicing their hopes that somehow Ukraine can reverse the setbacks on the battlefield and build its own heavyweight leverage to make Putin agree on territorial concessions. This is why Zelensky sent combat-proven troops into Kursk in western Russia in August. But while it seemed to be a bold move and a clever strategy, it could ultimately fail, as Russian and North Korean troops have begun to seize back some of the 1,000 square kilometres of occupied territory in Kursk. A ceasefire deal, if it happens, will be a tussle between Putin who is determined to present his “special military operation” to the Russian people as a victory for the motherland as well as two fingers to the US and Nato, which spent multi-billions of dollars to arm Ukraine, and Zelensky who called upon his people to make unbelievable sacrifices in order to preserve and protect the whole of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Giving in to Putin in a Trump-brokered deal would not just be devastating for him personally but might also bring to an end his political career as the warrior leader.

Storm Shadow attacks Russia

The first launching of the Anglo-French Storm Shadow cruise missile against targets inside Russia has brought Britain into a more direct confrontation with Moscow. The reports of Storm Shadow missiles being fired against hardened military sites in the Kursk region of western Russia follow the attacks yesterday by Ukraine, using the American ATACMS ballistic missile to hit a Russian weapons depot in the Bryansk province, 70 miles from the border and 235 miles southwest of Moscow. The Kyiv government wasted no time in launching the long-range ATACMS missiles over the border into Russia once President Biden had given his approval, reversing his policy after months of pleading by President Zelensky. Sir Keir Starmer has been careful to avoid confirming whether he, too, had given Zelensky permission to use Storm Shadow in attacks in Russia. But the evidence of long-range strikes by Ukrainian aircraft indicates that the UK government has followed the switch in policy adopted by Washington. ATACMS (army tactical missile system) and Storm Shadow (the French version is called Scalp) are two of the most deadly and effective weapons supplied by the US-led 50-nation coalition which has been arming and supporting the Kyiv government since the Russian invasion on February 24, 2022. However, it has taken 1,000 days for the US and UK to giver Zelensky authority to use the weapons in attacks inside Russia. *Will Storm Shadow make a difference? The 155-mile-range cruise missile has been used by Ukraine in numerous attacks against Russian targets in Crimea and in eastern provinces since the weapon was first delivered in 2023, but always on short-range missions. Storm Shadow packs a powerful explosive punch, with a 990lb warhead, designed specifically to hit and penetrate hardened military sites, such as ammunition depots, airbase storage facilities, radar installations and naval ports. In Ukraine, the cruise missile has been carried by the Soviet aircraft, Sukhoi Su-24. but prior to its operational use by the Ukrainian air force, it was supplied to the RAF for Tornado GR4s and Eurofighter Typhoons . It was first launched from a Typhoon on operations against the Islamic state (Isis) in Syria in March, 2021. But it was fired from a Tornado GR4 as far back as 2003 in Operation Telic in the Iraq war. Storm Shadow is equipped with “fire-and-forget” technology, with autonomous guidance. It was designed to hit targets with enhanced accuracy, with all the details of the target fed into a computer. As it’s a cruise missile, as opposed to a ballistic missile, it is subsonic but can creep up on the target at low level, only rising to a higher altitude in the final part of the journey to give maximum penetration power as it plunges downwards close to the speed of sound. It also has stealth technology built in, making it difficult for enemy radars to detect its approach. Storm Shadow has the potential to make a difference on the battlefield because of its accuracy and penetration capabilities. However, the missile is in demand among allies, and Ukraine has been given only limited supplies. This could hamper Kyiv’s hopes of causing significant and long-lasting damage to key military facilities inside Russia. Because the missile is air-launched, it also means that the Ukrainian pilots will have to adopt skilled manoeuvre tactics to evade Russian air-defence systems. *How will Russia react to ATACMS and now Storm Shadow? The most important development is that both the US and the UK have given authority for Kyiv to use these two weapon systems to their maximum range. This poses a challenge to Russian air defence systems. Previously, Russia’s main concern within its s own borders was to look out for and try to shoot down Ukraine’s long-range drones which have become increasingly more capable but without ever causing significant damage. Now Russia is facing two advanced western weapons which can fly over the border and reach targets spread out over a huge area. It has been estimated there could be around 245 potential military targets within reach of ATACMS and Storm Shadow. Russia has advanced and effective air-defence systems but they can’t be everywhere. Storm Shadow, with its ability to fly along a low-terrain path, is regarded as a highly survivable weapon system. But on July 9 last year, a Storm Shadow missile was shot down by Russian air defences. However, the inaugural use of both ATACMS and Storm Shadow inside Russia has demonstrated to Moscow that Ukraine’s western allies remain determined to supply Kyiv with the systems necessary to defend the country even if it meant lifting the longstanding ban on their use against Russia itself. The Kyiv government knows that it has two months in which to make maximum use of these long-range weapons before the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House in January when the whole issue of continued backing of Ukraine will come under the microscope. Russia, of course, is also fully aware of the Washington timetable and will no doubt retaliate with strikes against Ukraine which will ensure the grimmest of winters for the Ukrainian people.

Joe Biden's last throw of the presidential dice

President Biden’s decision to approve Ukraine’s “limited” use of the US Army’s long-range ATACMS missile system to attack targets deep inside Russia has transformed the battlefield dynamics in the near three-year war. It will also effectively give the green light to the UK and France to authorise Ukraine to fire the Franco-British air-launched cruise missile, known as Storm Shadow and Scalp, respectively, to hit Russian military sites across the border. Both the UK and France have been ready to give this permission for months but have been waiting for Biden to make up his mind about ATACMS. *Will Sir Keir Starmer and President Macron give Kyiv the authority? On the face of it, it should be a straightforward decision. Storm Shadow/Scalp has a range of up to 155 miles and would be a highly effective weapon to target key Russian bases and munitions storage sites, all vital for President Putin’s war against Ukraine. The Labour government has given every indication that it wants Storm Shadow to be available for Ukraine over the border in Russia. The weapon system has been effective against Russian targets inside Ukraine, especially in Moscow-annexed Crimea. While there is little doubt that Starmer will want to join Biden in offering to let Kyiv use these longer-range weapons to hit Russia where it will really hurt, there is one new factor which will have to be taken into account. Biden has just two months left of his presidency. From January 20, Donald Trump will be in the White House, and the Starmer government has to make a careful strategic decision. Does the prime minister go along with Biden’s sudden reversal in policy vis a vis the use of ATACMS inside Russia, or hedge his bets and find a half-way measure so as not to upset the man with whom he will need to nurture a good working relationship over the next four years? Trump has made it abundantly clear he wants to wrap up the war in Ukraine as soon as he gets into power in order to call a halt to the billions of dollars of American weapons flowing for ever into Ukraine. He plans to end the war with a negotiated settlement between Putin and President Zelensky. Would Trump consider a UK decision to end restrictions on Ukraine’s use of Storm Shadow as likely to persuade Putin to come to the negotiating table or just ramp up the war to a more dangerous level? *Is the answer to give Zelensky partial permission to use Storm Shadow against targets inside Russia? According to today’s media reports, Biden has already done this by emphasising the “limited” use of ATACMS inside Russia. Biden has in mind Kyiv using the 190-mile-range ATACMS to help Ukraine defend against the imminently-expected counter-offensive by Russian troops, backed by 10,000 North Korea soldiers, to drive Ukrainian forces out of the Kursk region of western Russia. Ukrainian troops crossed the Russian border into the Kursk province in August and seized 1,000 square kilometres of territory. The aim was to give Kyiv extra leverage in the event of a negotiated settlement with Moscow to end the war. In a move, seen in Washington and in London as a dangerous and escalatory decision by Putin, the North Korean troops have been under training for weeks in Russia in order to play a role in the planned counter-offensive in Kursk. Thousands more North Koreans are said to be ready and waiting to join the Russian side. Starmer could follow Biden’s lead and restrict the use of Storm Shadow to Russian targets in and around Kursk, or he could give free reign to Zelensky to deploy Storm Shadow as and where he sees fit. This would be more risky but would be welcomed by the Ukrainian leader who has been pleading to use western-supplied longer-range weapons inside Russia for more than a year. *Would attacks by ATACMS and Storm Shadow inside Russia make a huge difference, in Kyiv’s favour? The war has been going on since February 24, 2022 and during that time there have been a number of significant moments in terms of the West’s upgrading of weapon systems. They have included the decision to send tanks to Ukraine, M1A1 Abrams tanks from the US, Challenger 2s from the UK, Leopard 2s from Germany, among others, as well as F-16 fighter aircraft from Europe, and ATACMS. Zelensky has welcomed every decision but has admitted his disappointment over the delay in sending the equipment which he felt would make a difference against Russian forces. ATACMS has been used already inside Russia but Biden stipulated that they could only be fired on Russian airbases just over the border from where Moscow was launching bombers with cruise missiles against Ukrainian towns and cities. All the upgraded weapon systems sent to Ukraine have helped Kyiv to carry out decisive strikes against Russian positions in eastern Ukraine and ammunition sites. But none of them have so far made such a difference that Ukraine can be said to be heading towards victory against Russia. In fact, the opposite is the case. Russian troops have been making advances in eastern provinces, and Putin has increased the level of missile strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure, particularly power plants. Permission to deploy ATACMS, and Storm Shadow if the Starmer government agrees, against targets in Russia would not in itself change the battlefield landscape. This is partly because Russia has already taken steps to move back its bombers and other aircraft from the border with Ukraine to keep them out of harm’s way. This has not weakened Putin’s ability to attack Ukraine because Russian air-launched cruise missiles have ranges from 340 miles up to 2,800 miles. However, Kyiv has now been engaged in attacks inside Russia with long-range drones for more than a year, reaching as far as the outskirts of Moscow. While many have been shot down, some have got through, and drone debris has added to the damage to buildings which have caused anger and fear among the Russian communities affected. With ATACMS and Storm Shadow added to his inventory for attacks inside Russia, Zelensky and his military commanders would have the firepower to cause much greater damage, and, symbolically, to drive home to the Russian people that their leader’s war in Ukraine is putting their own lives and livelihoods at grave risk. *How might Putin respond to the Biden and expected UK/French decision giving permission to Zelensky to attack Russia? Putin has in the past warned that any such move by the West would effectively mean Russia was at war with Nato. However, for Putin, too, the political circumstances have now changed. With Trump back in the White House in two months, he has every reason to hope that the new US president will pull out the stops to get a negotiated settlement which would tend to favour his own strategy. In other words, he would get to keep all the territory seized and occupied by Russian troops which amounts to about 20 per cent of Ukrainian sovereignty. According to reported Trump ideas to end the war, Putin would also receive reassurance that Nato membership for Ukraine would be off the table, at least for 20 years. So, it wouldn’t necessarily be in Putin’s interest to counter the ATACMS decision with massive retaliation, possibly hitting targets close to or linked to any Nato countries in the region. As for turning to tactical nuclear weapons to hit Ukraine, that would surely be a gamble too far. He might get support from Kim Jong un, the North Korean leader who is now firmly allied militarily and strategically to Putin, the rest of the world’s leaders, notably China’s President Xi Zinping, and the whole of Nato, would unite in condemnation. Putin’s hopes of a favourable settlement brokered by the new Trump administration would be scuppered.

Biden's late late missile decision

Talk about leaving it to nearly the last possible moment. Poor old Zelensky in Kyiv has been bashing Joe Biden's ears for months, if not years, to let him have and use long-range weapons to hit Russian targets deep inside Russia only to have the US president shaking his head wearily from side to side and telling him, "You can have the weapons but you can't use them over the border in Russia". Now after no no no, Biden has decided to say yes yes yes to launching the 190-mile-range ATACMS rockets at targets inside Russia. Biden has eight weeks left of his presidency and it seems like a parting shot at Putin, take that, Vlad. Biden and his officials have tried to suggest that what drove the decision at last was the presence of 10,000 North Korean soldiers fighting alongside their Russian comrades to force the Ukrainian troops currently occupying the western Russian province of Kursk back over the border. But, to be honest, I really don't see why this bizarre move by Putin and Kim Jong un is reason to announce a major change of mind and policy in Washington which, until now, was based on Biden's obsession with not escalating the war between Russia and Ukraine into a war between Russia and the whole of Nato. The North Koreans have no combat experience and can be finished off without too much trouble with directly-targeting artillery and tank shells. What will ATACMS rockets do to the North Koreans which a bit of good infantry and armour manoeuvring could do? But it's Biden's last throw before exiting the White House and he obviously wanted to show Zelensky that he would back him all the way to his last minute in the White House. Was it a sensible move? We will see how Putin responds. One person who is not happy about it is Donald Trump who wants to end the war altogether on Day One in the Oval Office. The ATACMS decision by Biden could complicate that.

Trouble for Britain's Eurofighter Typhoon combat fighter

Britain’s fighter jets are running missions into Syria, dropping bombs on the Houthis in Yemen, patrolling over Estonia, Lithuania and Romania, close to Ukraine, and guarding our shores from interloping Russian bombers. And yet, the Typhoon final-assembly production line at Warton in Preston has effectively come to a halt. There are no new orders from the Ministry of Defence, and there is a battle going on between Typhoon supporters and those who want Britain’s military to have more American Lockheed Martin F-35 aircraft instead. The government is saying nothing because there is a strategic defence review underway. It’s an old, old story, rehearsed so many times in the past. Do you buy British/European military aircraft to save jobs, maintain technical skills and boost the economy, or give in to the salesmen from the giant US defence companies and opt for the American alternative? For the Labour government, desperate to prove it can generate growth in the economy (no sign of that yet) the answer should be straightforward: go British and save jobs. But defence procurement has never been simple, especially when embroiled in politics. The question mark over the future production of Typhoons at Warton arose this week when Steve McGuinness, a member of the Unite trade union executive council, reported in a letter to MPs on the Defence Committee: ‘As it stands, there are currently no Typhoons being final-assembled at the Warton site and no orders for future aircraft.’ ‘Essentially, production has stopped for British-built Typhoon aircraft,’ he wrote. He added: ‘We are becoming increasingly concerned with reports that the Typhoons being retired from active RAF service are to be replaced with American-built F-35 aircraft. This would be a hammer blow to the British aircraft industry and potentially could end the design, manufacture and assembly of fast jets in this country, seriously damaging our sovereign capability.’ The warning couldn’t have come at a worst time. On 3 and 4 December, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar which already has one squadron of Typhoons, will be in the UK for a state visit, with every expectation, or at least hope, that he will arrive with a new order for the jet aircraft. If the UK government fails to order more Typhoons for the RAF, how will that impact on the Emir’s strategic thinking about developing his nation’s air force? The Typhoon, which first came into service in 2003, was developed by a European consortium consisting of the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain. Production arrangements are a mix-and-match process, with each nation partner contributing. Airbus Germany supplies the centre fuselage section, Airbus Spain the right wing, BAE Systems the front fuselage, the fin and, together with Leonardo from Italy, the rear fuselage. Leonardo also produces the left wing. The twin engines are built by a consortium of European companies which includes Rolls-Royce. There are four final assembly lines. BAE and Leonardo produce the aircraft at Warton in Lancashire. It’s a huge and complex production extravaganza, securing 100,000 jobs in Europe, with 25,000 of them in the UK. It involves 400 companies. With a predicted service life into the 2060s, new orders are crucial to keep the production lines moving. So far, the Typhoon has been a success story. Apart from purchases by the members of the consortium (680 aircraft), orders have also come from Austria (15), Qatar (24), Saudi Arabia (72), Kuwait (28) and Oman (12). Part of the reason for the high order numbers is that any breakthroughs in avionics and other technical advances have been incorporated as upgrades to the base model, ensuring over and over the Typhoon’s capability against potential adversarial air forces. The RAF ordered three tranches of Typhoons, a total of 160, the initial ones only air-defence versions, but later also ground-attack models. But the last order by the RAF was placed in 2009. There is a fourth tranche available which Germany has already ordered. At present the UK is the only member of the consortium with no new order for Typhoon jets. The Typhoon consortium faces hot competition, principally with the US F-35 and the French Rafale. Saudi Arabia, for example, which spent billions of dollars on the Tornado fighter jet and then on Typhoons, as well as US aircraft, is now considering buying 54 Rafales. However, this is not necessarily bad news for Typhoon. As Paul Beaver, veteran defence analyst and aviation historian, pointed out: ‘Saudi Arabia always hedges its bets. They’ll buy more Typhoons.’ Beaver is a strong Typhoon advocate and unfavourably compares the European jet with the F-35. ‘The F-35 only has a short range. Its time to target in air defence operations is five minutes less than a Spitfire in the 1940s [in other words, it runs out of fuel rapidly],’ he said. ‘It doesn’t have a lot of legs, so it needs tanking [air refuelling] and yet half of the RAF want more F-35s as opposed to buying additional Typhoons,’ he said. The future of the Typhoon for the RAF is all tied in with the next generation of combat aircraft, now being studied in a project with Japan and Italy called the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP). The programme is focusing on a sixth generation stealth fighter known as Tempest (which will replace Typhoon), an unmanned combat air vehicle called Loyal Wingman and some other autonomous platforms. The Eurofighter Typhoon is not a stealth fighter, although special materials were incorporated which make it hard to identify. Only 15 per cent of the aircraft is metal; the rest is made up of carbon fibre and other non-metal materials. The government has yet to make a long-term commitment to the GCAP programme, which leaves Tempest somewhat in the air, unless the defence review recommends the go ahead. Steve McGuiness was adamant in his letter to the defence committee in saying that the government should urgently commit to ordering a squadron of 24 more Typhoons while the review is underway. ‘A domestic order will not only fulfil a military requirement for the RAF in these unstable times but will also ensure that vital skills required to build the next generation aircraft [Tempest] are retained at Warton,’ he wrote. ‘Without a domestic order for Typhoon there will be no GCAP due to the loss of the skills necessary to build and fly aircraft.’ Staying in the business of building domestically-produced fighter aircraft is an immense investment, one that George Robertson, former Labour defence secretary and Nato secretary-general, and his team producing the defence review will be pondering over for the next few months. They’ll know the importance of Britain maintaining an industry capable of producing the most advanced fighter aircraft – particularly when two potential adversaries, Russia and China, are continuing to research and develop weapons platforms aimed at overcoming the West’s perceived superiority in military technology. China recently unveiled its own Shenyang J-35A fighter. It has striking similarities to the US F-35 joint strike fighter, although it could never be described as a direct copy. It was shown this week at the Zhuhai airshow in the southern province of Guangdong. This means China now has two fifth-generation stealth fighters – the J-35A and J-20 – making it only the second country in the world to have two such technologically advanced aircraft. The US has the F-35 and F-22. Russia has only one stealth fighter, the Sukhoi Su-57, but is developing a second called the Su-75 Checkmate.

Zelensky confident the war will come to an end next year

I don't know wnat Donald Trump told Zelensky over the phone after he had won the election. But it seems to have given the Ukrainian leader the confidence to say that under Trump the war with Russia will end sooner. He must mean by that that he has come round to the view that a negotiated end to the war is the only way forward and that he may have to make some significant concessions to Moscow. But if Moscow is allowed to keep every square foot of Ukrainian territory it has seized what on earth was this defence against Russia about? What was the US-led coalition for Kyiv all abou if Moscow is to get what it wanted? OK, Putin really wanted to crush the whole of Ukraine and set up a puppet leader in Kyiv and he failed in that endeavour. But basically, he failed BEFORE the US-led coaliton started pouring weapons into the country. Putin's abject failure to seize Kyiv at the beginning meant it was always going to be a slow, slow war with mass casualties. And that is exactly what has happened in the last near-three years. So will Zelensky now welcome Trump's intervention and go for whatever Moscow agrees to? It looks like it. Then what will the hundreds of thousands of family members of those Ukrainians killed and injured in the war say to their leader. Was this mighty sacrifice worth it? What have we gained? And might it happen all over again?

Will the Senate confirm Matt Gaetz or Robert F Kennedy?

Of all the cabinet selections announced by Donald Trump, president-elect, that of Matt Gaetz as attorney general and Robert F Kennedy as health secretary are the most controversial and most quixotic. They could both have a really tough time when their confirmation hearings take place in the Senate, even though the Republicans have the majority. Gaetz who was a congressman representing Florida before he resigned this week following Trump's nomination for the attorney general job, was under investigation by the House of Representatives for sexual misconduct, illicit drug use and misuse of campaign funds. But as House ethics investigations can only deal with members, it has effectively come to an end. A very neat coincidence. Kevin McCarthy, the former Republican Speaker of the House, has predicted the Senate won’t confirm Gaetz. It was Gaetz who led the successful move to oust McCarthy as Speaker in October last year. However, Trump chose the controversial figure because he wanted an attorney general who would overhaul the justice department and root out what he believed to be corruption in the justice system. The president-elect will not take kindly to any attempt by Republican members of the Senate who join Democrats to oppose the Gaetz appointment. Likewise, there could be trouble for Trump with his nomination of Robert Kennedy, an avowed opponent of Covid vaccinations. But, as with Gaetz at the justice department, Trump expects Kennedy to bring big changes at the health department. The Senate hearings for both these gentlemen are going to be fiery.

The Trump-Biden show

One of the more bizarre events of the week was Donald Trump and Joe Biden sitting together in the White House and being nice to each other. It's called tradition and protocol but these two guys have, until now, been going hammer and tongs at each other. Biden said Trump was not worthy of becoming president and Trump said old Joe was a walking disaster, unable to match his mental faculties with the rest of his body. All good stuff in the nasty political world that Trump alluded to while reporters and photographers were allowed in the room before the two men got down to a serious chat. But what did they chat about? How to solve the wars in the Middle East? How to help Ukraine beat Russia? How to keep China in check? What the hell to do about Kim Jong-un? How to stifle the ayatollahs in Iran? I suspect that whatever thoughts Biden may have had, Trump didn't bother to listen. He has his own ideas and doesn't think Biden achieved much, if anything, during his four years. Certainly, the quotes the reporters got from the brief seconds they were in the room were pretty banal. Trump was cordial and Biden said all the stuff he was supposed to say according to the script he was given. Like how he promised a smooth transition etc. Trump who didn't want anything smooth when he lost to Biden in 2020, bit his tongue and said how grateful he was. It was all wonderful Alice in Wonderland stuff. Just wait for Trump's inauguration speech when he tears into the Biden administration and declares MAGA for ever.

Trump's extraordinary choice for Defence Secretary

Well, the polls were all wrong about Kamala Harris winning the election. Now all the experts predicting who might become Donald Trump's defence secretary have also been proved hopelessly wrong. Instead of going for a so-called defence heavyweight or at least someone with a huge management experience, Trump has picked out a handsome Fox News host and presenter who certainly looks the part - a younger version of that other glamour boy defence secretary, the late Donald Rumsfeld - but has no knowledge of or experience in masterminding any sort of business, let alone one of the largest organisations in the universe. Pete Hegseth did his stuff for America as a soldier, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, so he knows about military matters but he ain't no general. It's going to be a huge learning curve for him and perhaps an even bigger learning curve for the huge manpower machine, otherwise known as the Pentagon. Good luck to him and good luck to everyone who works in the second largest office building in the world.

Trump picks loyalists to be in his administration

Only those super-loyal to President-elect Donald Trump are getting jobs in his cabinet. There will be no place for irritating generals who think they know better about national security issues. Not this time around. Trump regretted his choice of generals the last time, so he won't be making that mistake again. Now it's people he knows he can trust to do what he wants them to do. Marco Rubio is actually not a bad choice for secretary of state. He has long experience in international affairs and intelligence issues. After a brief spasm of disloyalty to Trump when he was standing for president himself he has come round to being a devoted follower, and Trump shouldn't have any trouble with him,. Likewise, his nomination of Representative Mike Waltz as his national security adviser, goes along the same lines. Total loyalty to Trumpism, fully signed up to Trump's foreign policy style. Trump's selection of defence secretary isn't clear yet but I'd bet a thousand dollars it won't be a retired four-star general.

Russian death toll in Ukraine could be Zelensky's strongest leverage

It is always claimed that Vladimir Putin cares not a fig for the deaths and injuries among his troops in Ukraine provided he gets the land he wants and provided he causes maximum economic angst for the US and Europe. That has generally seemed to be the case because as the death toll rose, he just mobilised more troops or sent in barely-trained recruits to fill the gaps. But Britain's top military chief has now claimed that Russia is close to suffering 700,000 casualties - dead and wounded - and that last month, on average, 1,500 Russian soldiers were killed or injured every single day. That is a staggering statistic. And what's more, in return, the Russian occupying troops managed only the most limited of geographical gains on the battlefield. Will there come a point when Putin realises this level of casualties cannot continue for much longer? And will that then be the moment when Zelensky can use the casualty leverage to put pressure on Putin to stop the fighting and reach a deal which is reasonably favourable to Kyiv? The answer is that it will only force Putin to offer concessions if there is a domestic outcry about the rising deaths. So far, there has been no sign of it because Putin has cleverly told the Russian people that the invasion of Ukraine was all about protecting Russia from its enemies in the West and that it has to be a fight to the death to preserve Russia's own sovereignty. The Russian people may believe this right now but with all the talk of a possible deal when Donald Trump comes to power, will that belief in Putin remain as strong as ever? I suspect that that moment won't be reached until it is reported or claimed that Russia has lost one million men. At the current rate of 1,500 a day dead and wounded, that figure could be reached by the middle of next year.

Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley are out

Underlining how he intends to appoint only super-loyal individuals to his cabinet, Donald Trump has announced that he is not going to give a job to either Mike Pompeo, his former secretary of state and CIA director, or Nikki Haley who was ambassador to the United Nations in the first Trump administration. Pompeo wanted to be defence secretary and Haley would probably have been eager to serve in the Trump cabinet. But Trump doesn't trust them. Haley, of course, campaigned against him to be the Republican nominee and lasted longer than any of his other rivals. She has also, in the past, been critical of Trump's perceived involvement in the attempt to prevent Joe Biden from taking over as president in January 2021. She took a long time to endorse Trump for the nomination. Pompeo, likewise, although he decided not to stand against Trump, didn't exactly rush to endorse his former boss. That would have been seen as disloyal by Trump who has neatly taken his revenge by declaring in a message on his social media platform that he doesn't want them in his cabinet. Ouch! But the message is clear. He wants not just loyalty but subservience. So, this time, there will be no hawking around for a decent retired general to take over the Pentagon. He will want a devoted, adoring man or possibly woman at the Defence Department who will take his orders and get the military to do as they are told. I thought it would be the very right wing Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton but he has already said he doesn't want the job. So there! Keep looking, Trump.

Trump's change in focus on Ukraine

All of a sudden, no one is interested in what Joe Biden might be able to do in his last two months in office, it's all and only about Donald Trump and what he might do in his first few weeks of taking over the White House. This is hardly surprising but it must be galling for Biden and for his vice president Kamala Harris. One of Trump's advisers has made it clear how the 47th president intends to focus his mind on Ukraine. No longer helping Ukraine to win a victory against Russia which was never realistic, but on achieving peace. Peace, not war. After nearly three years of devastation, that surely must be the right way forward, even if it means Russia gaining. But before negotiations start, Ukraine will have to fight harder than they have ever done to try and retrieve what they can in eastern Ukraine. Realistically there is probably very little they can do but, if nothing else, they will have to stop Russia from gaining any further territory, in particular strategic towns that will help Moscow carve out an even more advantageous slice of the country. One thing that will remain always in Russian hands will be Crimea which was seized in 2014 without so much as a whimper from the US and Europe. The same Trump aide, speaking to Reuters, said Crimea was gone. That will be grim news for Zelensky who has always said he won't contemplate any deal with Putin unless he gets Crimea back. But the aide, presumably speaking for Trump, has ruled this out. The way forward for Zelensky and for the thousands of Ukrainian soldiers who have lost their lives trying to defend their country is looking pretty bleak. Nevertheless, peace is the right focus.

The bones of a Trump package for Ukraine are emerging

The first inkling of Donald Trump's plan to end the war in Ukraine makes it clear it will be a thunderous defeat for Kyiv, a victory for Moscow and a future long-term burden for Europe. Under the proposal leaked to The Wall Street Journal, all the territory seized and occupied by Russia, including Crimea, grabbed in 2014, would be granted to Moscow for ever, with an 800-mile-wide demilitarised zone dividing Russian occupied ground from Ukraine's reduced sovereignty, to be manned and paid for by the UK, Germany, France and other European nations. So very Trump. The US would continue to give Ukraine enough weapons to deter Russia from any further advances but would not allow Ukraine to join Nato, possibly ever, but certainly for 20 years. I think Putin will go for it, and Zelensky will have no choice but to agree. As for Europe, the various governments will also have little choice. They have always said they would back Ukraine for as long as it took, echoing Joe Biden's pledge. So they will have to stand up and be counted. The only thing that's not clear in this leaked plan is who pays for the reconstruction of Ukraine's towns and cities and energy infrastructure. Europe again? The bills are going to be huge and will seriously undermine the new Labour government's economic strategy in the UK. I doubt Keir Starmer and his foreign secretary, David Lammy, will be able to say no to Trump. The best thing about the Trump plan, if it comes to pass as rapidly as he wants, will be an end to the appalling death and destruction in Ukraine. That, at least, whatever the pain for Zelensky, will be welcome.

US Democrats could be out of power for 12 years

The chances are America will be governed by a Republican president for the next 12 years. Donald Trump will do his four years and no more according to the constitution and then be succeeded by his vice president, James David Vance who will serve for eight years. Unless Trump and Vance screw up hugely. This means that the defeat of Kamala Harris and the poor legacy this will give Joe Biden who is being blamed for the election disaster, will scupper the Democrats' hopes of reviving their election hopes over the next few years. First of all, they will have to drop Kamala and find someone else to lead the party, but a new leader will face the impossible task of trying to undermine or control the radical aspirations of the man elected on November 5 by a huge majority. Trump will be reigning supreme and as soon as he takes over on January 20 he will launch into his programme of major changes that will have an impact not just in America but around the globe. For the Democrats there are going to be months of recriminations and inquests and since they have already lost majority control of the Senate and will probably fail to win back a majority in the House of Representatives, they will have no power to restrain Trump. The party will be in the wilderness for years and years.

Trump avoids the threat of jail for four years

Donald Trump's overwhelming triumph at the polls guarantees him his freedom for four years. All the trials waiting in the wings will disappear, all the threats of imprisonment will vanish, all the fines and accusations and charges will be put back in the cupboard gathering dust while he reigns supreme as the president of the United States and commander-in-chief. In fact, it's pretty likely his Justice Secretary and Attorney General will get rid of all the charges, including the ones where he has already been convicted, so that when/if he leaves office in 2029, he will be a free man. Winning the election was his best and only way of relieving himself of all the charges he faced. It's a thunderous victory for him, especially since millions of good-thinking Americans with decent values thought it could never happen. They were all proved wrong because many more voters decided it was perfectly all right to elect a man facing multiple federal charges, most of them probably believing that it was all a put-up job by the Democrats to stop him becoming president. Today, Trump has got his own back. So beware all of his opponents. It's going to be a rough ride for them. Trump's inaugural speech when he takes over from Joe Biden on January 20 will tell us all what he has in mind. It won't be pleasant.

In the end it will be down to women voters in the US election

In this US election, more than in any other election in American history, it will be women who make the difference. How many women voters who normally vote Republican will turn against their leader because of his abortion views and his past sexist comments about women? That's the key. If a whole bunch of Republican women decide to vote for Kamala Harris because of her constantly repeated statements that women should be allowed to own their bodies without interference from the State, Donald Trump could be swept aside. It just might happen. Much will depend on what women voters do in the key battleground states. That's where it will truly count. For the first time I am beginning to think that this switch in loyalty WILL happen which means that Kamala Harris will win, possibly by a larger margin than all the polls are predicting. But if Republican women stay loyal to Trump, despite all the reasons not to, then Trump will probably win. So it's down to women, Which way will they go? The other key ingredient, of course, is that these women will be voting for a woman, voting for the first female president in the history of the United States. They turned against Hillary Clinton when she tried to be the first. But that now seems a long time ago. We are in 2024, and maybe these women voters will decide, yes it's time for the glass ceiling to be broken. Time for a female president. Fingers crossed.

The US election race is so close it could be dangerous

There is almost nothing in it. The polls, very rarely the most reliable of sources, think Kamala Harris is edging it but only by a point here and there, whereas Trump has probably got Pennsylvania under wraps, an absolutely key state. With a volatile election like this, the closeness of the race means there will be angry disputes up and down the country whoever wins. Nothing is going to be cut and dried. The only saving grace is that Trump is not the incumbent president, so if he starts knocking on the White House door if he has lost, no one will let him in. When he lost as the incumbent president in 2020, he just refused to accept defeat. There was even talk of the top military chiefs having to go and get him out of the White House. Trump believes beyond doubt that the nation's voters will put him back in the White House, and if Kamala wins, he will no doubt refuse to accept the result. He is a very very bad loser. But the chances are he will win by a tiny margin and he will then claim that actually he won by a very large margin. He loves playing with numbers. The only person celebrating in the UK will be Nigel Farage who genuinely believes that he should be appointed ambassador to the US if Trump wins. Tomorrow is a HUGE day. Good luck all American citizens praying for a Kamala miracle.

If Kamala Harris wins will the US celebrate?

It's an extraordinary question to have to ask. For intelligent, sensible people outside America looking in, there must a large element of astonishment that Donald Trump, convicted felon, accused manipulator of the January 6 attack on the Capitol, alleged violator of women and advocate of undemocratic politics, should even be considered as a potential president for the next four years. But the fact is, Trump attracts immense support. There are millions of Americans who want him and no one else but him to take charge of the United States. There is also a worrying scepticism and concern among Democrats that their candidate for the White House job is not up to it and is too liberal and wishy-washy to be the country's commander-in-chief. Kamala Harris is the non-Trump candidate, she is not the glowing standard bearer and super heroine of the Democratic party. She seems a really good person but this world today is so challenging and potentially dangerous, heading for God knows what, and even Trump haters are not convinced she is the right individual to lead the nation. So this is why, if Kamala wins, the nation won't necessarily go celebrating in the streets. In fact, there could be violent protests around the country by Trump supporters believing their man has been robbed for the second time. Kamala had only three months to convince her country that she has the right stuff to be president and I really don't think she has succeeded in that endeavour. If she wins on Tuesday she will seriously have to appoint the toughest and best-possible cabinet to advise her through the initial period of her presidency to persuade the American people and the rest of the world that she can do a lot better as president than she did as vice president and as the Democratic nominee.

More Iranian retaliation against Israel expected

Iran appears to have changed its mind. Instead of continuing to play down the Israeli airstrikes on October 26, Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader, has upped the rhetoric and threatened to strike back big time. In preparation for another onslaught of ballistic missiles from Iran, the Pentagon has ordered a bunch of extra warships and bombers to the Middle East, including B-52s. The warships are all armed with anti-missile defence systems which could help to shoot down what Iran throws at Israel. I'm not sure why the US has sent B-52s other than the fact they are terrific weapons platforms and will act as a deterrent, although I can't see Joe Biden approving a US attack on targets in Iran. The extra warships have been sent because the only aircraft carrier in the area, USS Abraham Lincoln, is now on its way home after a long deployment. So the tit-for-tat retaliatory strikes by Iran and Israel are going to continue, each time getting heavier and more dangerous. At some point this is going to end only one way. The Israelis will start attacking Iran's nuclear (weapons) facilities, and then it really will be all-out war, with the US involved.

Keep Joe Biden away from microphones

It may be too late, the damage is done. But in the last few days before the US election, it should surely be the priority for the Kamala Harris campaign to keep Joe Biden well away from any microphones or Video calls, or Zoom calls, or the phone. Best to lock him up surrounded by Secret Service agents and send in food and water. Because the chances of him saying something else that will screw Kamala's hopes of winning the election must be very very high. No disrespect to the president. But he is now more gaffe-prone than ever and if he wants his vice president to succeed him he should keep well away from everything for the next four days. That's all it is, just four days left. The trouble is, when you put a microphone in front of him and reporters gather round, ever eager to pick up anything of newsy interest, he more often than not will oblige. He said on several occasions he would go to Taiwan's aid if China invaded, even though the protocol is that the US recognises the one state of China and is not supposed to support Taiwan staying independent, although of course it does. Every time he said the US military would rush to Taiwan's aid, there was a diplomatic earthquake in China. No harm in that, but each time Biden said it, the White House and State Department had to clarify and say, no he didn't really say that. The garbage remark re Trump supporters (supporter's) will be remembered for ever. Especially by Kamala Harris if she loses on Tuesday.

Could Putin and Zelensky ever make a deal?

Warring parties often strike deals. Exchanges of prisoners of war, brief cessations of operations to allow for the delivery of humanitarian aid, covert talks between respective intelligence services to map out possible ways forward, and tentative peace feelers. Since President Putin ordered thousands of troops across the border into Ukraine on February 24, 2022, there have been no peace negotiations and no sign of meaningful compromise from either Moscow or Kyiv. And yet, after nearly three years of horrendous casualties and infrastructure destruction in Ukraine, preliminary talks are underway, according to the Financial Times, for a deal in which both sides would agree to stop or reduce attacks on energy installations. While it might seem a bizarre development, it’s now in Moscow’s interest as much as in Kyiv’s to end the continuous targeting of power plants. Ukraine has developed long-range attack drones which have effectively struck targets deep inside Russia, including oil refineries. From the beginning, Russian airstrikes have hit Ukraine’s power networks, knocking out about nine gigawatts of the country’s energy infrastructure. During the summer months, Russia bombed and destroyed half of Ukraine’s power generation capacity. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said it was “the power equivalent of three Baltic nations”. With winter approaching, if that level of destruction continued, Ukraine’s population would inevitably face freezing months with daily power blackouts. Talks, sponsored and mediated by Qatar, took place in August but any progress towards some form of deal was scuppered when Ukrainian forces invaded the Kursk region in western Russia and seized a wide area of territory. Moscow pulled the plug on the talks. However, the FT quoted a diplomatic source as saying there were “very early talks” about restarting discussions on ending strikes on energy facilities. The Kremlin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, was dismissive of the report, describing it as fake news. But Peskov has a habit of protesting too much. Something is going on. In similar fashion, the so-called grain deal between Russia and Ukraine, now aborted, was constructed through the intervention of Turkey and the United Nations. It was a deal which seemed unlikely at the time, allowing Ukraine to continue exporting its grain stocks by cargo ship along a 357-mile corridor across the Black Sea to the Bosphorus Strait. Moscow promised to provide safe passage. The deal which enabled Ukraine to return to near pre-war grain export levels of around 6.5 million tonnes a month, operated from 22 July 2022 to 17 July 2023. Prior to the agreement, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its deliberate targeting of the country’s grain stores, spiked global food prices and led to warnings of famine in Africa. Russia also temporarily halted its grain exports, and the combination raised fears of a world food crisis. Turkey which controls the maritime routes from the Black Sea, hosted the talks that resolved the crisis. Since Russia scrapped the deal, Ukraine has cleverly adapted its export routes to avoid Russian attacks. Whether the reported preliminary talks on an energy infrastructure deal, originally initiated by the Russian and Ukrainian intelligence services, come to fruition, it does raise the question of whether back--channel negotiations might lead to something even more hopeful, such as ideas for bringing the war to an end. However, that would seem to be over-optimistic at present. Putin is going to be in no mood to do any deals with Ukraine’s President Zelensky while Ukrainian troops remain as an occupying force in Kursk. Indeed, thanks to his friend Kim Jong-un, several thousand North Korean troops are even now training in Russia to join the Russian counter-offensive units attempting to liberate the region. In the meantime, the European Union is doing its best to provide Ukraine with some of the energy supplies it requires to survive the winte. The current plan is for the EU to restore 2.5 gigawatts of energy capacity which is the equivalent of around 15 per cent of the country’s needs. However, about 80 per cent of Ukraine’s thermal plants (coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear) have been destroyed and a third of hydroelectric power is also out. So, even with the EU’s help, power supply is going to be restricted throughout the winter. Russia, too, has suffered from attacks on its energy infrastructure. Last month Ukrainian drone attacks hit the Moscow oil refinery and the Konakovo power station in the Tver Oblast which is one of the largest energy producers in central Russia. Kyiv has made it clear it intends to continue with such attacks with the aim of forcing Moscow to the negotiating table. The reported Qatar--sponsored talks could be the best hope for both Kyiv and Moscow to call a halt to this type of targeting. Then we will see if it leads to something more significant.

Joe Biden has just lost the election for his vice president

To every single pro-Trump Republican voter and undecided Republican voter it sounded like President Joe Biden called them all garbage.He didn't, or at least he didn't mean to say that but the way it came out it sounded definitely like he said exactly that. And it didn't help that Kamala Harris swiftly made a statement saying she doesn't believe that anyone supporting Trump is garbage, or words to that effect. Poor old Joe and poor Kamala. She's probably done for now in terms of grabbing any Republicans to vote for her. The White House put out a clarification, desperately trying to show that when Biden appeared to call Republican supporters garbage, there was actually an apostrophe before the 's' and that he was referring to the comedian who was so coarse and rude in his supportive speech at Trump's massive rally in Madison Square. The comedian, Tony Hinchcliffe, described Puerto Rico as a floating island of garbage. Biden's apostrophe was there all right in the written version of his remarks but it still came out badly from the president's lips, and Trump of course seized on it. With one week to go before the election, it could not have been timed better for the Republicans. Biden stumbles at the best of times but his latest mispeak may have caused irreparrable damage to Kamala's campaign for the White House, however many times she stresses that she wants to be a president for all Americans (even the garbage ones!)

Does Hamas want a ceasefire?

The president of Egypt has come up with the most modest of ceasefire proposals to try and generate new momentum to end the war in Gaza and bring the remaining 101 Israeli hostages home. Following the killing by Israeli soldiers of Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, on 16 October, there was a degree of optimism, especially in Washington, that a ceasefire and diplomatic solution to the war in Gaza might be on the cards. The Biden administration hoped the death of Sinwar, an ideological opponent to all the most recent ceasefire attempts, would unblock the peace-making impasse. But Hamas survivors, hunkered down in their tunnels and bunkers beneath Gaza, appeared incapable, let alone interested, in making any sort of deal. Now President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has proposed a 48-hour ceasefire to facilitate the release of just four Israeli hostages in exchange for an unspecified number of Palestinian prisoners detained by Israel. The Egyptian leader's objective is for the two-day truce to then lead to a longer-term ceasefire. He has suggested a ten-day negotiating period following the release of the four hostages. His proposal has coincided with the arrival in Doha, capital of Qatar, of the heads of the CIA and Mossad for renewed talks for a ceasefire/hostage-release framework. The deliberate limitations of the el-Sisi plan underline how challenging it has been for any of the peace negotiators to persuade Hamas, and Israel, to consider compromise. No Hamas representatives will attend the meeting in Doha between Qatar's prime minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, David Barnea, Mossad chief, and Bill Burns. CIA director. Egypt which was also represented has been intimately involved behind the scenes and last week hosted a group of Hamas delegates to guage their thoughts on el-Sisi's proposal and future negotiations. Is Hamas and its diminished leadership ready for a ceasefire deal that will undercut the red lines set in stone by Sinwar: an immediate end to the war and the total withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza in exchange for more hostage releases? Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, has his own red lines but they read very differently. He wants Hamas to lay down tits arms and surrender, and to free all the hostages, alive or dead. At this point there would appear to be no room for compromise on either side. But the dynamics of the war in Gaza have changed dramatically. Hamas is crushed, albeit with some resistance still evident, Hezbollah, its unfailing supporter, has suffered near-terminal blows to its leadership hierarchy from Israeli assassination airstrikes in Lebanon; and Iran, Machiavellian orchestrator of all things turbulent in the Middle East and Israel’s arch enemy, has learned on two separate occasions in the last six months that it lacks the capability to protect its military sites – and thus, potentially, its nuclear facilities – from Israeli long-range ballistic-missile airstrikes. However, will these critical setbacks for Iran and its proxy forces lead to a shift in strategy on the part of the so-called Tehran-led axis of resistance, offering hope of a ceasefire deal in both Gaza and Lebanon, or will it all spiral into an even more dangerous period in which the United States will be dragged into a full-scale regional war? It is these two alternative scenarios which are currently driving the key external players in this Middle East conflict – the US, Egypt and Qatar – to find a new formula that will raise prospects for an end to the fighting, or at least the release of all the remaining hostages. Ceasefire hopes have come and gone over the last 12 months since the Hamas atrocities committed in southern Israel on 7 October last year. In between the negotiations, mostly abortive, the casualty toll in both Gaza and Lebanon has continued to rise relentlessly., as Israel has pressed on with its mission, ordered by Netanyahu, to destroy Hamas and to deal a fatal blow to Hezbollah. Washington still wants a deal that will embrace far more than the release of hostages and a long-term ceasefire. Washington’s framework for peace in the Middle East includes the normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. However, after Israel’s retaliatory airstrikes on Iran on Saturday, Saudi Arabia put out a robust statement, condemning the attacks which it said constituted a “serious violation of Iran’s territory and contradicts established international norms and laws”. Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, who was in the Middle East last week, made it clear that the grand vision of a more comprehensive peace framework for the region remained a priority for Washington. If Kamala Harris wins the election next week, it is presumed she would wish to continue pursuing this strategic objective. Meanwhile, the immediate efforts are focusing on trying to persuade all parties to agree a ceasefire., however short-lived. There hasn’t been a ceasefire in Gaza since November when fighting stopped for seven days during which 105 hostages were freed in exchange for 240 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. There was also a brief pause in fighting in June along a road in southern Gaza to allow for United Nations food trucks to enter safely. But it wasn’t a ceasefire. Fighting carried on elsewhere. For President Biden and his foreign policy legacy, any sort of ceasefire that raises hopes of a better and more far-reaching deal in the future, will be welcome news. He has less than three months left of his presidency, and the possibility of his successor being Donald Trump, not his vice president.

Trump or Harris, who will the undecided choose?

The US election result is going to come down to a few million voters who right now have still not made up their minds. It's that close. It seems extraordinary that there should be anyone left in the United States who has not definitely decided who to support. Can doubters really be considering Donald Trumpo, rather than Kamala Harris? If this is the case, then I think Trump will probably win. Because if they havc serious doubts whether Harris can be a strong president, they will ignore all the bad stuff and go for Trump as the big bloke who will tell America's enemies to go hang. Some of the undecided will still be unable to vote for Trump and will take the risk of voting for Harris even though she has not inspired them as a candidate. They would prefer to vote for her than join the noisy lot who bellow for Trump. But I suspect these undecided are in the minority. The rest of the undecided will take a deep breath and hope that Trump doesn't become the dictator that all the Democrats say he will become if he gets hold of the White House again. Yes, these doubters will risk voting for Trump because they don't want to risk voting for Harris.

Will Iran strike back?

Israel and Iran are still fighting a shadow war, delivering punishment from the skies but playing it all down. It's a bizzare and potentially dangerous game. Both Israel and Iran have warned of battles to the end but clearly don't mean it which is fortunate. Nevertheless the you-hit-me and I'll-hit-you confrontation going on is escalating bit by bit, until one day, the restraints will be off and one side or the other, probably Israel, will launch an attack that will do really serious damage, like blow up an oil installation, causing conflagration, or target the Supreme Leader in his weekend residence. On October 1`, Iran carried out a much bigger attack on Israel than it did in April which was the first time Tehran had directly hit Israel. Israel's response was limited and now in retaliation for October 1, its air force bombers have increased their payload and targets, delivering a less limited but still restrained attack. And so it goes on. Unless it doesn't. Tehran is playing down the latest Israeli attack and wise people are saying this probably means they are going to call a halt to the tit-for-tats for now and not respond this time. But many, more extreme voices in Tehran will be saying it's vital to respond to show that Iran will not be cowed by Israeli attacks. Saving face is always a crucial ingredient in this tit-for-tat game. But the ayatollahs in Tehran know that if they approve a bigger hit on Israel, as promised a few days ago, Israel will come back with something bigger, too. Then what? Then it could be a real war. It's all psychology, but highly dangerous psychology. Wrong judgments can so easily be made. In the end I suspect Iran will follow a wait-and-see policy because the regime knows there is one man they can rely on to urge restraint on the Israelis, and that's the man who will remain as president of the United States until Januarty 19, 2025, Joe Biden.

Is Benjamin Netanyahu waiting for the US election to be over before striking Iran?

Benjamin Netanyahu is still waiting to give the go ahead for Israel's retaliatory strike on Iran. There have been stories about Iran "bracing" for the expected attack for weeks. That's a lot of bracing. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why Netanyahu has held back from attacking Irainian targets, hoping that Iran will be caught napping. But I suspect the main reason why we have this delay is that Netanyahu has decided to wait until the election is over in the US on November 5. He probably wants Donald Trump to win because Trump has said Israel should be allowed to get on with the job of destroying Hamas etc and, as president, he would help him do it. And Netanyahu would prefer to have Trump as the elected president waiting to take over on January 20 next year than the vice president to Joe Biden who has caused him such grief over the last few months. That doesn't mean the strike against Iran will be delayed until November 6, although it's not out of the question. But Netanyahu nill be studying the polls to see whether there is going to be any firmer insight into who is going to win. Right now it's so close, no one can tell. But in the last two weeks, a lot of undecided people are going to make up their minds and that could change things a lot. My guess is that Netanyahu, canny politician that he is, will order a mighty bombing of Iran on November 4, the day before the US election, hoping the undecided will vote for Trump to stop the Third World War from breaking out. Kamala Harris might not know what the hell to do, and Joe Biden, in the final throes of his presidency, won't be able to do anything. Thus Trump wins and Netanyahu gets what he wants.

Is it Biden's fault that the world is now in such a dangerous state?

Some of Donald Trump's former officials, such as General John Kelly, his former chief of staff, are saying the ex-president is a Fascist and a danger man who never listens. But others, such as Robert O'Brien, his former national security adviser, are saying that under Trump the world was a safer place. No wars. No invasion of Ukraine. No Middle East war. And that under Biden, his cautious, weak approach had been exploited to the full by, first the Taleban, then Putin and Xi Zinping, and Iran and, basically anyone with a grudge against the US. This is too simplistic. Even though the president of the United States has always been and is today a key figure in the way the world works it's far less so now and increasingly less so because of new alliances being formed against American domination, notably the one forged by Putin with China, India, Brazil and South Africa and others. But O'Brien is sure that if Trump had been in the White House in the last four years, Putin would not have been tempted to invade Ukraine. He says, in a piece in The New York Times, that Putin went for Ukraine because he took comfort from the chaotic withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan under Biden's watch and thought he could get away with invading his neighbour without risking having a war with the US as a consequence. He was right. Biden sent billions and billions of dollars worth of weapons to Ukraine but made it clear from the start that he would never put American troops into Ukraine to fight Russian troops. Under the O'Brien thinking, Trump would have left that option in the air and it might have deterred Putin from invading at all. Who knows?

How dangerous is North Korea's dispatch of troops for the war in Ukraine?

On the face of it, it is extraordinarily dangerous and bizarre that Vladimir Putin has come to the point in his war in Ukraine that he needs to turn to North Korea for help. Thousands of North Korean combat troops have headed to Russia, according to Lloyd Austin, the US Defence Secretary. It is assumed by American intelligence officials that they will soon be in Ukraine joining Putin's invasion army in the east or perhaps initially helping Russia to drive Ukranian occupying troops out of the western regioon of Kursk in Russia where Kyiv's forces have been spreading their wings since August. No figures have been given of the number of North Korean troops but speculation is it could be as many as 11,000. These are combat troops but without combat experience, so the chances are they will just be more Putin cannon fodder, like the murderers and rapists released from Russian prisons to fight for him in Ukraine. Having no experience or specific training for this sort of attritional warfare, Kim Jong un's gesture to Putin could mean a lot of body bags returning to Pyongyang. Nevertheless, it's a significant moment and Kyiv will need all the help it can get from US intelligence assets to pinpoint the arrival of these North Koreans and target them as swiftly as possible. However well or badly they perform in Kursk and Ukraine, the North Korean leader is clearly hoping for some quid pro quo for sacrificing thousands of his soldiers. And this is where the real danger comes. Putin, to show his gratitude, might agree to help his buddy in Pyongyang to improve the range and accuracy of his intercontinental ballistic missiles to threaten the United States. That might suit Putin. He'd be happy for the US to be threatened by North Korea. It makes it even more important that if and when the North Korean troops arrive in Ukraine, they receive a very hostile welcome from the western-backed Ukrainian military. If Kim's soldiers fail to make a difference, Putin might be less eager to assist Kim's ICBM programme.

Will Netanyahu's strike on Iran be proportionate or punitive?

On 20 June 2019, President Donald Trump rescinded an order he had given for a military attack on Iran in retaliation for the shooting down of a long-range Global Hawk surveillance drone. He decided that a missile strike on Iranian military bases which might cause casualties would have been disproportionate. Global Hawk was unmanned. No American had died. The bombers, already en route, were summoned back to base. No one could suggest that Benjamin Netanyahu is facing the same decision. The circumstances are entirely different. There is no moral equivalence. On 1 October Iran launched nearly 200 ballistic missiles on Israel, and Netanyahu has vowed to respond with a significant retaliatory strike. However, there is one issue which does mirror the decision-making that went on in Trump’s mind late on Thursday June 20 five years ago: should a retaliatory tit-for-tat strike be proportionate or punitive? President Joe Biden, ever cautious and worried about the potential for a real war between Israel and Iran, has emphasised the need for proportion. The 180 ballistic missiles launched against Israel were mostly shot down by Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system and by US-led coalition warships in the region. Those that got through damaged the Nevatim airbase in the Negev desert in southern Israel but without destroying any of the F-35 fighter jets parked there, caused minor damage at other bases and fell relatively harmlessly near Mossad’s headquarters north of Tel Aviv. A Palestinian man was killed when he was hit by missile fragments in the West Bank city of Jericho, and there were minor injuries from falling debris elsewhere. The battle damage assessment, as the military like to call it, concluded that the Iranian attack had largely failed.: 180 ballistic missiles, one fatality. However, judging by the Israeli preparations for a retaliatory strike, leaked from a classified report produced by the US National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Netanyahu and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant, have decided that a punitive, not a proportionate response, is required. The leaked documents, based on US satellite images of Israeli forces rehearsing an attack, indicated the thrust of the proposed retaliatory strike will involve air-launched long-range ballistic missiles identified as Rocks ALBMs and “Golden Horizon” weapons, believed to be from Israel’s Sparrow series of missiles with a range of 1,240 miles. When asked by reporters whether he knew what Israel planned to attack and when, Biden replied “yes and yes”. But he wisely divulged nothing further, other than to underline his hope that a ceasefire in Lebanon and possibly in Gaza might be on the cards following the killing by Israeli troops of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar on 16 October. Biden dispatched Antony Blinken, his secretary of state, to Israel and the Middle East region to devote yet more time and energy on trying to broker a ceasefire in what has become a spiralling conflict. Will Blinken, who arrived in Israel today (Tues), also try to persuade Netanyahu to limit what is viewed even in Washington as Tel Aviv’s necessary and justified determination to respond to Iran’s ballistic-missile strike of 1 October? It’s probably too late to beg Netanyahu to go easy. He has made it clear that this time round – in contrast to the last retaliation for an Iranian missile attack in April - Israel has to be more heavy-handed. Even though the 1 October missile launch killed only one individual, the clear aim of the Tehran regime was to cause serious damage. A proportionate response would look like failure in Netanyahu’s mind. The unknown question is how Iran will respond if Israeli Air Force bombers succeed in destroying or severely damaging key military sites . In other words, achieving far more destruction than Iran managed with its 180 ballistic missiles. The Israel Defence Forces claimed the missiles caused minor damage to maintenance and administration buildings at several airbases and did not harm critical infrastructure. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has warned that any attack by Israel, particularly if it targeted the country’s nuclear facilities, would be met with like-for-like strikes. He said in an interview with Turkey’s NTV network last Friday that specific military targets in Israel had been pinpointed. Israel has so far waited three weeks without retaliating. In the meantime, Yahya Sinwar has been killed, raising tentative hopes of a slowing-down of the war in Gaza, Hezbollah has launched drones against Netanyahu’s holiday residence in the Mediterranean coastal town of Caesarea in northern Israel and the US presidential election is just two weeks away. The political and strategic landscape has thus changed. But will it make any difference to whether Netanyahu and his cabinet go for a full-scale punitive strike on Iran or a more limited but precise attack which would highlight the country’s vulnerability and maybe force Tehran to think twice about another tit-for-tat bombing? In his current mood, Netanyahu seems intent on striking a mighty blow on Iran. The consequences could scupper ceasefire hopes and have an impact on the way Americans vote on November 5.

Trump is easing towards beating Kamala Harris

The polls are now so tight it's impossible to make a safe prediction about who is going to win on November 5. However, there are signs, just little ones, that Donald Trump is beginning to ease his way past the vice president and into a winning position. It's not copper-bottomed, but there's definitely a sign of Trump moving forward. There are only two weeks left and if that slightest of movements ahead for Trump continue, then he will get the White House back. This should energise the Kamala camp to start warning the whole country about what a second Trump administration could mean. But I reckon it's now almost too late. I suspect most American voters have taken everything into account, including Trump's odd ramblings, his felony charges awaiting trial, his past disgraceful remarks about women, his threats to put away his political opponents and his false claims, and yet still many of them will vote for Trump. I suspect three of the reasons are that Kamala is a woman, she is only 5ft 4ins tall and she seems to be a very nice person. Maybe American voters don't want a very nice person to be president standing up against very un-nice people like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong un and the Tehran lot. They would prefer to have a tall, overweight, bully of a man who, despite his eccentricities and outrageous tendencies will enjoy facing up to the world's dictators and try and see them off. So, is Kamala too nice to be president? This, I think, is the fundamental question which could be why Americans on November 5 will go for Trump.

Israel should avoid killing Iranians in its retaliatory strike

Why Israel has delayed so long before striking back at Iran for its October 1 launch of 200 ballistic missiles, we don't know, but it may be something to do with Benjamin Netanyahu's indecision over how devastating a response to make. He has said it will be significant, unlike the last time Israel hit back at Iran when airstrikes just destroyed an air-defence system at a military base. This time it will be much more. But Netanyahu would be wise to insist that the target should be structure, not people. Iran's attack on Israel was pretty comprehensive and large-scale but the missiles targeted an Israeli airbase, home for F-35 fighter jets. They didn't go for cities and civilians. That would have been dangerousaly escalatary and would have led to an instant attack by Israel, probably against Iranian cities, too. Iran is not stupid. It cannot afford an all-out war with Israel, so the message from the ayatollahs was this: We will hit you but we don't intend to kill Israeli civilians. Netanyahu should follow suit. Go for Iranian military sites and hit them hard, but avoid casualties where possible and definitely leave the Iranian people alone. A slaughter of civilians on the scale of the killing of Palestinian people in Gaza and Lebanese civilians in Beirut would lead to a war with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Gazans must have hated Yahya Sinwar

The people cheering loudest over the death of Yahya Sinwar, leader of the brutal Hamas organisation, must surely be the poor Palestinian people living in what's left of Gaza. What did Sinwar give any of them but repression, fear, starvation, a ruthless regime and war. They have never had a proper governing body to care for them and provide a decent future. The Hamas predecessors were corrupt and useless and when Hamas took over ruling the Strip, they proved to be nightmare governors who terrified the people into obedience. So, yes, the death of Sinwar, the most brutal of all the Hamas hierarchy, will have given the Palestinian people some hope of an end to the war. It won't be an end to their suffering because they have lost everything. Israeli air strikes have destroyed so many of their homes that Gaza is now a landscape of rubble. But if there are no real leaders to take Sinwar's place, perhaps the people themselves will rise up and demand an end to the fighting. I don't know whether anyone will have the courage to strike out against Hamas. But now is the time to do it, while the Hamas leadership is in turmoil. But the chances are slim and since Sinwar's death, the airstrikes have not stopped.So the misery of the Palestinian people will continue. Thanks to Yahya Sinwar, architect of the October 7 atrocity, the reason why the Israeli army invaded Gaza.

What next after the violent death of Yahya Sinwar?

When Osama bin Laden was killed by US SEAL commnandos, there were hopes that al-Qaeda would be so totally demoralised that the terrorist threat they posed around the globe would be emasculated and would crumble to nothing. Of course it had a major effect on the operational capabilities of the terrorist organisation, but a new leader was chosen and al-Qaeda kept going, albeit without their spiritual founder and without the apparent ability any longer to carry out a major attack on the scale of the 9/11 atrocity. Now that the Israelis have killed Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, will this spell the end of the Hamas organisation and bring the war with Israel to an end? First of all, it is true to say that the killing of the ooverall leader of Hamas and the architect of the October 7 brutal assault on Israel is going to set back the group so much that for the next few months they will just hide away and struggle to survive. During this period, Israel will no doubt capitalise on the death of Sinwar by aggressively going for the remnants of Hamas. Will this mean the end of Hamas? Finally? The tragedy is that whoever is picked as the new leader of Hamas, they still have 101 hostages, a third of them dead, and they will probably do everything they can to keep the war going, using the hostages as human shields. Sinwar is dead, but Hamas will fight on.

B-2 stealth bombers sent to hit Houthis and send a message to Iran

Dropping bombs sends messages. Overnight the United States sent B-2 Spirit strategic stealth bombers to hit underground Houthi weapons stores. The aim was to frighten Iran. Using America’s most potent bomber to hit bunkers controlled by a militia force which has no sophisticated air-defence systems might seem over the top – a superpower sledgehammer to crack an irritating nut. However, the early morning raid was far more than a strike on a militia force which has been a persistent threat to Israel and to western commercial shipping in the Red Sea, the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Aden. The Pentagon is not confirming what type of munition was dropped by the B-2s. But this bat-winged aircraft, part of the US strategic triad of nuclear delivery systems, is also the only platform in the US Air Force capable of carrying the mighty 30,000lb (15 tons) Massive Ordnance Penetrator or MOP which, with its dense steel casing, can plough through 200ft of earth, rock and reinforced concrete before exploding. The MOP, technically a GBU-57, has never been dropped in anger. Only 20 were ever built, and they were designed purely to be able to penetrate further underground than any other weapon on earth, apart from a nuclear bomb. So, whether or not one of these huge bombs – and each B-2 can carry two – was used against the underground Houthi target, the message was loud and clear to Tehran, backers and financiers and armourers to the Houthis: the B-2 stealth bomber with its immense conventional payload capacity is waiting in the wings. The timing of the B-2 raid, and the announcement of the stealth bombers’ involvement by the US defence secretary himself, Lloyd Austin, as opposed to a run-of-the-mill press release from Central Command, made the attack all the more significant. Iran, and Wasihngton, and the whole western world, is waiting for the Israelis to retaliate for the launching by Tehran of around 200 ballistic missiles against Israel on October 1. President Biden has pleaded with Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, not to attack either Iran’s nuclear facilities, for fear of uncontrollable escalatory repercussions, or its oil industry plants because of the potential consequences for oil prices; and Netanyahu has apparently given assurances that although the retaliation will be significant, his bombers won’t go for nuclear or oil targets. This is why last night’s B-2 raid on the Houthis was so much more than taking out underground bunkers stocked with Iran-supplied weapons. This was a direct message to Tehran., and a reminder to Netanyahu that if the time comes when Iran decides to leap ahead and build a nuclear bomb, the US, and only the US, has the means to deliver long-term damage to sites which are buried deep inside mountains. The statement from Lloyd Austin, a former commander of Central Command , drove home the message. “Today, US military forces, including US Air Force B-2 bombers, conducted precision strikes against five hardened underground weapons storage locations in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen. This was a unique demonstration of the United States’ ability to target facilities that our adversaries seek to keep out of reach, no matter how deeply buried underground, hardened or fortified.,” he said. “The employment of US Air Force B-2 Spirit long-range stealth bombers demonstrates US global strike capabilities to take action against these targets when necessary, anytime, anywhere.” Last night’s strike was the first time the B-2 had been used in an operation since the war in Afghanistan. If a MOP was dropped, it would not just be a demonstration of this weapon’s capability but it would also force Iran to review its calculations about the bomb’s penetration powers and whether their nuclear facilities would be vulnerable. Iran’s principal nuclear site at Natanz is burrowed in a mountain, and even the MOP might have difficulty in destroying the underground facility. The bomb was designed to target deeply-buried sites and has a 6,000lb high-explosive warhead. The key element of the bomb is its ability to delay detonation, with a modified fuse design, until it has reached the most vital part of the buried target. The Houthis also have weapons sites buried in mountains but they are not as sophisticated as Iran’s facilities, and their air-defence systems are crude by comparison with Iran’s Russian-built S-200s and S-300s which guard the facility at Natanz and at other nuclear plants. Yet, the US still went ahead with sending the B-2s which are housed at Whiteman Air Force base in Missouri, unless they had been forward-deployed to a location in the Gulf specifically for this mission. If the MOP wasn’t used on this occasion, the B-2s would have carried highly effective bunker-busting Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) with 2,000lb warheads and/or the GBU-72 bomb which has a 5,000lb warhead. They might have been sufficient to destroy the five sites mentioned by Austin. However, the deployment of B-2s against the Houthis, whatever weapons were on board, was supposed to strike fear in Iran. These bombers, each costing more than $1 billion, were designed to evade enemy air-defence radars and their use in combat in Kosovo, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan proved their worth as a unique bombing platform.