Joe Biden has no regrets

Poor old Joe, as Donald Trump calls him, he does seem to be a bit in cloud cuckoo land at the moment. In an interview, Biden says he has no regrets about standing for reelection and then dropping out with only three months left of the presidential campaign. Je ne regrette rien. Well, I can tell you who does have regrets, Kamala Harris and the whole Democratic party. Biden is convinced that it wouldn't have made any difference even if he had dropped out much earlier or not stood for reelection at all which doesn't say much for his opinion of Kamala Harris whom, after all, he chose to be his running mate. Does that mean Biden thinks Trump was on an unbeatable path to the White House. If so, why did he say repeatedly that he was the only one in the Democratic party who could beat Trump - for the second time. To say he has no regrets is a bit of slap in the face for the Democrats who now have four years of being shoved into the background and with probably little hope of winning the 2028 election. At some point, Biden will regret that if nothing else.

How has Hamas survived this long?

Since the October 7, 2023 atrocity when Hamas killed 1,200 Israelis and captured 250, the terror organisation has suffered a huge death toll at the hands of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) - perhaps 17,000 kiled - and have lost nearly all of their top commanders. And yet, somehow, Hamas still survives both as a fighting force and as rulers of Gaza. How is this possible when Israel has the military power to annihilate them? It's yet another golden rule learnt by the superior of two military forces, that might and firepower don't necessarily bring victory. The Taleban survived against the huge superiority of the US-led coalition forces over 20 years because it was their territory, they knew where to be, where to hide, and how to fight a superior force. The same has been the case with Hamas versus Israel. Hamas still have their underground tunnels and bunkers, they have the remaining Palestinian population to hide amongst and when their commanders have been killed - the latest one killed this week - they bring on new ones. Benjamin Netanyahu wants to destroy Hamas once and for all. I don't think the IDF are ever going to be able to achieve his objective.

Putin's summer offensive in Ukraine has begun

While Donald Trump seeths with frustration over Putin's failure to agree a ceasefire in Ukraine, and Europe ponders whether it will be on its own supporting Kyiv, the Russian leader is just getting on with the task of mounting a new offensive. About 50,000 Russian troops are gathered on the northern border of Ukraine and seem poised to try and seize control of the whole of the Donetsk province in eastern Ukraine. They may not succeed because the Ukrainian forces are wise to what he is up to and will no doubt do their best to target the incoming troops. But what the summer offensive tells us more than anything is that Putin is not remotely interested in a ceasefire or reaching a peace settlement and that at least for the next few months he will order his troops to grab as much territory as possible. The general view is that this is his way of gaining leverage if and when settlement talks begin. But I don't think this is the case any more. I think Putin has decided that he no longer has to fear what Trump will do, if he ever did, and that he's prepared to screw over Trump and pursue his war aims whatever the US president does or says. Trump has claimed he doesn't understand what the crazy Putin is doing, especially after their nice two-hour chat on the phone which gave Trump some hope that his personal relationship with the Moscow leader would be critical in ending the war. But while Putin is obviously prepared to play along with Trump, he is not really listening. The gathering of thousands of troops on the Ukrainian northern border shows he is getting a second wind. He is ready for a long war.

Nobody knows what to do with Ukraine

Attempts to end the war in Ukraine have failed beyond hope. So now what? Nobody really knows what to do and how to bring this appalling conflict to a close. Donald Trump was the most confident that he could do it but his efforts have come to nothing. Europe has stuck with Kyiv and have kept sending arms and making promises, but, basically, the UK and the whole of Europe desperately want it all to end so that they can spend money on other things, like defence and welfare and health and education and poor roads. The one person who knows all of this and is exploiting it is, of course, Vladimir Putin. He is just winning, winning, winning. Europe now apparently has authorised Zelensky to use his donated long-range missiles to hit inside Russia. So, in the next few weeks, watch out for a huge increase in attacks from Ukraine into Russia, possibly into Moscow itself. This will exacerbate and make more dangerous the war between these two countries. It might make Europe feel good and it will certainly make Zelensky happy, but will it help to bring the war to a negotiated end? I fear not. It will just make Putin angrier and more determined to crush Ukraine. And so the war will go and on. Nobody, either in the US or Europe knows what steps to take next because all efforts to forge a ceasefire, let alone to sign a peace settlement, have fallen on deaf ears in Moscow. Putin is happy to carry on and watch the US and Europe throw up their hands in dismay and frustration.

King Charles and his tricky address to Canada's parliament

With anyone else in the White House, King Charles's state visit to Canada would have been a routine affair with plenty of pomp and processions and an obliging speech for the state opening of parliament. But with Donald Trump as US president, the same man who said he wanted Canada to become America's 51st state, it presents a huge problem for the monarch. Charles has asked Trump to come to the UK for a state visit in September, so he can't go too far in saying he wants Canada to remain part of the Commonwealth, an indepdent sovereign country which just happens to share a long border with the US. Charles can't criticise Trump's crazy notion of absorbing Canada into the United States, but on the other hand if he ignores the threat totally he will disappoint every Canadian both in and out of parliament. Charles and his speech writers are pretty clever at avoiding controversy but his address to parliament can't be anodyne. It has to underline Canada's importance as a sovereign nation without mentioning or even hinting at Trump. But yet getting the message across: keep out, Trump! Whatever he says, Trump will be reading between the lines, so good luck, Your Majesty, with coming up with the right formula to ensure everyone is happy.

The Kremlin accuses Trump of being over-emotional

The Kremlin (Putin) thinks Donald Trump is getting overwhelmed with emotion about all the recent deaths in Ukraine. Clearly the Kremlin (Putin) is not worried about all the deaths the Russian drones and missiles have been causing in recent days, men, women and children cut down by these flying bombs. But Trump is fed up with Putin for failing to do what he wants which is to negotiate a long ceasefire and stop the killing. He called Putin "absolutely crazy" for carrying on killing people when he promised on the phone last week to start immediate negotiations with Ukraine to forge a 30-day ceasefire. Have those negotiations begun? No, they haven't. So that hugely promoted phone chat between Putin and Trump was just blather. Blaa blaa blaa. Trump is getting increasingly angry that Putin is not playing ball. But, seriously, did Trump really think that Putin would cave in and bring the war to an end just because the US president was getting all emotional about the continuing deaths. The statement from the Kremlin today was perfect evidence that Putin plans to go on sending drones and missiles to cause maximum death and destruction for as long as he wants. He will decide when to stop, if ever, and doesn't care less about Trump's intervention. Instead, he approves the condescending statement from the Kremlin about Trump getting all emotional. It is not a good sign!

Has Zelensky run out of hope for his country?

For more than three years, the former comedian turned president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, has fought the Russian invaders and tried to win the support of the the West to back him. His achievements have been phenominal. Ukraine still survives despite a massive onslaught of violence from Russia and he succeeded in corralling the United States and Europe into supplying him with the weapons he needed to defend his country against the invasion force. He is now one of the most famous and recognisable figures on the planet. But is it all now going to go wrong? The US under President Trump wants to stop spending more money on Ukraine and Trump himself has effectively said he will walk away if he can't get Moscow and Kyiv to sign a peace settlement. Europe is still backing him all the way but the Europeans are no substitute for the US. Meanwhile, the missiles and drones keep raining on Kyiv and other towns and cities. Has Zelensky finally run out of hope for the survivability of his country or is he resigned to non-stop war for the next decade? Either way, this is a bad moment for him and for the Ukrainian people. All the effort Zelensky put in to build an alliance with the West to save his country could now be wasted. Putin looks more confident by the day and holds all the cards. He is clearly not afraid of Trump and is just as happy to play him as he is to play Zelensky. Putin is also not remotely afraid of Europe which he sees as divided and run by hopeless governments. Putin sees himself as the new emperor. Zelensky is a brave and resourceful leader. But I fear it's all going to end in humiliation for him.

Drone war goes on and on in Ukraine and Russia

The war between Ukraine and Russia is almnost exclusively now fought out by drones and missiles. You never hear about tank attacks or artillery strikes, let alone infantry combat. It's drones, drones, drones and they are getting more and more deadly and with longer ranges. To such an extent that the Ukraine military are now confident about launching drones which will reach the outskirts of Moscow. Both Russia and Ukraine are producing drones on a massive scale, so there is never a shortage. This sort of war can go on for ever, and right now, with Vladimir Putin dismissing any attempts to agree a ceasefire, let alone end the war, he will just carry on launching the drones every day and night. Likewise, Ukraine has factories and research facilities to produce better and better drones. Even as Moscow and Kyiv were engaged in a transfer of hundreds of prisoners of war, both sides were launching drones against each other. We never hear anymore about American Abrams tanks, or German Leopard tanks or British Challenger 2s. The only thing that counts are drones, as well as missiles, It's a frightening, ever-present type of warfare and because both Russia and Ukraine are building more and more, it means neither side is going to win. It will just be relentless. I don't see it ending for years.

Is Trump's big bill beautiful or ugly?

Making a judgment about Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill" is almost impossible because it is so complex. It's more than 1,000 pages long with detailed clauses on every page and financial imlications that are difficult to guage with any degree of certainty. It's claimed the bill which covers a multiple range of political issues will increase the national deficit by another $3.8 trillion. The figure is so staggering you wonder whether that's accurate. If it is accurate then the US deficit, currently around $2 trillion will be nearly $6 trillion. You don't have to be a financial expert to work out that a deficit of such huge proportions cannot be good for a flourishing economy. The interest on the national debt is so enormous that it has been claimed last year it exceeded the total amount spent on defence in the US - $997 billion. How can a country be financially stable if it pays interest on borowing at that rate? No wonder there are a lot of Republicans in the Senate who will be looking at this situation when they come to examine and "approve" the bill. These days most countries talk about the need to have fiscal responsibility which means trying to balance the books without borrowing huge sums. The US under the Trump administration doesn't seem that worried about the piling-up debt. But at some point the mathmaticians in the administration will realise the massive debt is no longer sustainable.

Why did Joe Biden not know he was a prostate cancer risk?

There are all kinds of questions being raised in Washington about Joe Biden's latest medical shock. Principally, how come the former president of the United States was not checked for prosrate cancer every year as part of his annual medical check-up? In 2014 he was given a PSA test, the normal blood check to see if there are any signs of prostate problems, but no PSA test since then. This goes against all that is known about checking for this disease. For all men, president or not, as soon as there is the slightest signal that the prostate is not behaving the way it should, then doctors advise two ways forward: to have a biopsy to detect any sign of cancer or to watch and wait which means having checks every year to see if the PSA level has increased to an unacceptable figure. None of this appeared to have happened with Biden. We don't know what the 2014 PSA level was but eleven years later he is suddenly diagnosed with an aggressive cancewr in the prostate and also in his bones. This is quite shocking and makes no sense. In the lead-up to this diagnosis there must have been clear signs that Biden's prostate was malfunctioning. There would have been a build-up over a period of years and if annual PSA tests had been carried out it would have been detected. A full explanation is needed.

Can the Qatari 747 be converted into a proper Air Force One?

Converting the Qatari “gifted” luxury Boeing 747 into an Air Force One, equivalent to a flying White House, could turn into a significantly more expensive and technically challenging task than envisaged by President Donald Trump. Trump has indicated he wants an interim Air Force One – the Qatari option -by the end of the year. However, it’s likely to take far longer than the three years and eight months left of Trump’s presidency., unless the specifications for the aircraft are drastically reduced; and that could be seen as playing Russian roulette with the president’s safety. The controversial announcement that Trump had accepted the offered gift of the 747during his recent Middle East tour, followed years of frustration and delay arising from the Boeing company’s attempt to build two new Air Force Ones, now not expected until 2029. Transforming a luxury aircraft into a flying beast capable of withstanding the totality of potential hostile targeting, from cyber attacks and electronic jamming to “worst scenario” nuclear explosions, is going to require the most advanced expertise and a timetable which so far has been beyond the capability of one of the biggest defence companies in the world.The $400 million Qatari 747 is currently parked at the airport in San Antonia, Texas, waiting to be officially handed over to the US Air Force. The gift has been met with an alarmed reaction from Congress over the ethics of accepting the plane at all. But the president said he would be a fool not to be grateful for the gift and has now left the task of transforming it into an Air Force One in the hands of the air force and the Pentagon. What will be involved? Richard Aboulafia, managing director of Aerodynamic Advisory and an expert on the aviation industry, told The Times: “It’s an enormous challenge. We have two ‘buckets’ [stages] here, first the stripping down to the nuts and bolts to make sure that there is nothing there that could compromise the aircraft’s security. “This is the Qatari government, so, obviously I’m not making any accusations, but it would still be necessary to make sure there are no hidden listening devices, like electronic bugs, or a concealed transponder [which acts like a radio that reveals the aircraft’s location and altitude].“Then in the second bucket, you have the upgrade, to turn it into an Air Force One. It has to be wired so that the communication system is survivable under every scenario. Boeing’s new Air Force One programme is building in all new systems, including the battle management system.” He added:“It’s difficult to see how a Qatari aircraft could be ready for operational use before the Boeing one, so what is the point, unless President Trump wants to keep the aircraft for when he leaves office. {Trump has denied this].” The Boeing 747 is the obvious choice for an Air Force One. It has four engines, specifically designed for long-haul flights. The 747-8, the 13-year-old luxury variant donated by the Qatari royal family, also has four engines. The current Air Force One, called Boeing VC-25A, is based on the Boeing 747-200B and was designed with in-flight refuelling. However, the new-generation model which, like the Qatari aircraft, is based on a 747-8 and is designated VC-25B, will not have this facility. The Qatari luxury jumbo jet does have an air-refuelling capability but it would probably need substantial upgrading to meet the specifications required for an Air Force One. The most crucial aspects of an Air Force One are its survivability as an airborne command centre as well as a means of transport for the president and his key staff. Communications have to be invulnerable to attack or jamming and must be as secure as if the president was sitting in the Situation Room in the basement of the White House. The US Air Force which is responsible for ensuring the commander-in-chief can continue to govern and issue executive orders at all times when in midair will ensure that whoever adapts the Qatari Boeing into an Air Force One will include back-up systems to ensure 24-hour operability. The advanced communication system has to be capable of withstanding the impact of electromagnetic pulses (EMP), one of the additional “ingredients” of a nuclear explosion which can wipe out electronics. One way to provide such protection is to build what is known as a metal “Faraday Cage” around the communications systems to keep out the EMP threat. The current Air Force One is fitted with sophisticated self-protection devices to ward off incoming surface-to-air or air-to-air guided missiles. The AN/AAR-54 missile launch warning receiver gives notice of incoming missile threats and the AN/AAQ-24 Nemesis directional infra-red countermeasures system ,when launched against missiles can disrupt the guidance equipment. The presidential plane also has flares to confuse incoming missiles, and chaff, which, when fired, consists of a cloud of aluminium reflective strips that act as a decoy to draw radar-guided weapons away from focusing on the real target. The Qatari 747-8 would need all such systems to provide sufficient protection for the president. “The key to Air Force One is the security of POTUS [president of the United States] and his communications,” Paul Beaver, British defence analyst and aviation historian, said. “To modify an existing airframe will take time, possibly years. It would be better to start from scratch,” he said. However, starting from scratch would also take years, probably into the 2030s. But Trump wants it in the next seven months. The only way this would be feasible would be if corners were substantially cut and the security features normally associated with the aircraft were reduced, making it a less secure presidential aircraft than the current Air Force One. Boeing’s new programme is already well over cost, with estimates rising from the initial $3.9 billion in 2018 to more than $4.7 billion. Even the Qatari option with fewer security features will cost millions, if not billions.

Trump's Golden Dome anti-missile system outlined

The Golden Dome, Donald Trump's grand Reagan-style vision of an all-embracing missile defence system on land, at sea and in space, was formally unveiled by the president in the Oval Office although the actual details remain unknown. The most dramatic claim made by Trump was that the system would be up and running before he completes his presidency in about three and a half years' time. He said it will cost $175 billion. It's a big ambition and a lot of money, but Trump seemed super-confident that the military will be able to produce aqd deploy the system in this short timescale. At the moment there is an already pretty robust layered system which involves silo-based interceptors in California and Alaska, space-based sensors and warships armed with Standard missiles capable of shooting down medium-range missiles. But this system was designed to deal with the perceived ballistic-missile threat posed by North Korea and Iran, not Russia and China. Now Trump wants to protect the US homeland from every type of missile threat, including the longest-range ballistic missiles (with nuke warheads), cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles and even long-range drones from wherever they come from. That's a pretty tall order even though technology has advanced significantly since Ronald Reagan first came up with the idea of a perfect shield protecting the US from missile attack. It was swiftly called his Star Wars programme. Much of it was based on the idea of having lasers and other Star Wars-style weapons up in space. It never happened. It was unaffordable. Now Trump reckons it is affordable and $25 billion has already been set aside for the first phase of the new layered defence. Will this mean that, after all, the US is going to havespaced-based lasers and particle beam weapons and goodness knows what else protecting the US homeland? There's a long time to go before that is going to happen I suspect.

Trump and Putin chat about peace or war

Donald Trump wants an end to the killing and an end to the war in Ukraine. Does Putin have an interest in either of these ogbjectives? This is the question behind the telephone call whcih Trump and Putin are having this morning. If Trump gets the feeling that Putin is simply not interested in a peace settlement, then it will be very difficult for Trump and the Trump administration to continue to fight for Ukraine's cause. There have been enough warnings from the White House that Trump is not going to go on for ever putting in the effort to broker a deal. If Putin is sensible, he will give Trump just enough to make it worthwhile for the president to stay interested but no more. I doubt Putin is going to say, "Okay, Donald, for you I'll stop fighting." The first nobjective is to get a 30-day ceasefire and then within that period to start negotiating the framework for ending the war. But this is not going to happen if Putin rebuffs Trump. Trump could then say, leave ot to Europe to sort out the war. But is in no position to back Ukraine for ever against Russia. Putin knows this, of course. So he may think it's in his interest to play the White House v Europe and see what comes of it. In all of this, what Zelensky wants and calls for will be largely ignored.

World crises keep swapping around

Only recently the news headlines were warning of a potential nuclear war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, ceasefire hopes were being raised in Ukraine and Gaza and the Roman Catholic cardinals voted for an American Pope. It was non-stop Big News. Today is the same but the emphases have changed. India and Pakistan are not at war any longer, restraint was imposed, diplomacy worked, so no nukes were drawn out of their bunkers; ceasefires in Ukraine and Gaza have disappeared into the dust as Vladimir Putin in Moscow refuses to consider peace deals and Benjamin Netanyahu has launched his latest offfensive to grab control of the whole of Gaza, and Palestinians are dying every day. The Pope, on the other hand, is being inaugurated today and the sound of ecstatically cheering crowds in St Peter's Square is so much better than the sound of gunfire and bombs falling. Maybe there is hope in this Pope. The last one got tangled up in chruch crises. Wouldn't it be great if suddenly all the terrible wars going on at the moment just came to an end and the poor people suffering under the bombs and missiles and drones managed to retrieve their lives and have a future? But no, that is far too unrealistic a hope I fear.

Trump still optimistic he will persuade Putin to do a deal

Putin shows absolutely no interest in ending the war in Ukraine. But Donald Trump who announced he will be phoning Putin on Monday, remains convinced that the Russian leader is ready for a deal. Russia is now such a war economy that even if the confict in Ukraine were to come to an end, the military build-up is not going to stop and it will give Putin ideas about future "special operations". But Trump is optimistic Putin really is anxious for a deal and if he wants to stay in the good books of the US president, he might just play ball. It would be an amazing achievement if, under pressure from Trump, Putin caved in and went for peace. But the signs are not good. Only today a Russian drone attack killed a busload of civilians in Ukraine. So, even while the presidents talk on the phone, the killing will go on. This is the reality of the world today. It's the same in Gaza. Lots of talk about ceasefires and peace and hostage releases, but every day the killings go on. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza have to stop. The sooner the better.

Trump hints at nuclear deal with Iran

President Donald Trump says a nuclear deal with Iran is “close” and that Tehran has “sort of” agreed to curbing its suspected clandestine atomic weapons programme. Speaking to reporters on his Middle East diplomatic tour, the president gave a response to questions with his characteristic, casual choice of words that hint of a dramatic breakthrough without actually providing evidence of a deal which could potentially be his biggest foreign policy achievement to date. The US and Iran have now had four meetings of indirect negotiations in Oman, and although the content has remained confidential, the atmosphere between the two sides has been candid but amicable, raising expectations that a deal to end the threat of Tehran “breaking out” and building a nuclear bomb could be brokered diplomatically without the need for Trump to resort to military force. However, despite Trump’s enticing sound bite, there remain so many sticking points before a meaningful agreement can be signed that there have to be doubts about whether Iran is yet ready to bend to the US president’s demands. The biggest obstacle of all are the red lines which the US and Iran have set for themselves in the negotiations mediated by Oman. Initially, when the first round of talks began in Muscat last month the US position appeared to be that Iran would need to limit all enrichment of uranium to 3.67 per cent which would be the level appropriate for use in a civil nuclear programme. However, this position changed when Trump declared in an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press on 4 May that his goal was the “total dismantlement” of Iran’s uranium-enrichment programme. Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy at the Muscat talks, underlined his boss’s demand by saying it was Washington’s “red line”. Abass Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister and the official chosen by the Tehran government to be the negotiator at the Oman talks, said the continuation of the enrichment programme was Iran’s red line. He accused the US of “inconsistency” and said it was unhelpful. Trump also wants any deal with Iran on its nuclear programme to embrace two other areas of concern to the US: the Iranian ballistic-missile programme and the support Tehran provides for proxy militia and terrorist groups in the Middle East, notably Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen and the Popular Mobilisation Force in Iraq. When Trump in his first administration withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed in 2015 during Barack Obama’s presidency, he cited the failure to include any clauses on Iran’s state funding of terrorism as one of the reasons. He also described the deal, agreed by Iran with the US, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany, as a “horrible one-sided nuclear agreement” which wouldn’t stop Tehran from building a bomb eventually. This was partly because there was a finite period for limiting Iran’s enrichment programme of only 15 years. Iran has insisted that it has no intention to build a nuclear weapon. But the rapid development of its uranium-enrichment programme tells another story. The number of gas centrifuges required to “spin” the uranium at accelerating speeds to higher grades have proliferated at Iran’s key nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz. Enrichment has also progressed way beyond what is suitable for civil nuclear power and is approaching weapons-grade level – 90 per cent enrichment. In its latest report for 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which has had the job of trying to keep track of Iran’s overt and covert nuclear programme, said nearly 275 kilograms of uranium had been enriched to 60 per cent. Another 606 kilograms had been enriched to 20 per cent. The Hiroshima bomb used about 64 kilograms of uranium. The IAEA is due to produce an updated report at the end of this month. Different estimates have been given about how long it might take Iran to build its first nuclear bomb after a decision is made to go ahead. But the timescales have come down rapidly. The estimates range from a few months to a year. However, that doesn’t take into account the time and expertise required to fit a nuclear warhead to a delivery system. The talks between the US and Iran have been constructive for a number of reasons: Attempts at moving the nuclear issue along failed to make any headway during the administration of President Joe Biden, although efforts were made to put new life into the JCPOA which, by the way, is still supported by the other 2015 signatories. The arrival of Donald Trump in the White House for a second term gave new impetus to the nuclear threat posed by Iran. Trump said he would prefer a diplomatic solution but made it clear the military option was one he would take if necessary. When six B-2 Spirit strategic bombers arrived at the British-owned US base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in March, joined a few weeks later by four B-52 bombers there was widespread speculation that the military option might be on the cards sooner than anticipated. The US military focus, however, was at that time on the Houthis in Yemen, but Tehran would have got a fright. The political and strategic dimension has also changed dramatically. Israeli military action against Hamas and Hezbollah, and US attacks on the Houthis dealt massive blows to Iran’s so-called “forward defence” aimed at deterring the US and Israel from launching an attack. Also, crucially, Israeli airstrikes on Iranian air defence systems in October in retaliation for Tehran’s direct strikes on Israel, have made Iran more vulnerable to any attempt by the US to bomb its nuclear facilities. Last month Iranian foreign minister Araghchi said Iran was ready to “seal a deal” provided the US withdrew its “military solution”. While it seems unlikely Trump would want to rule out an option that can only put pressure on Iran to sign a new nuclear deal, the optimistic comments coming out of the talks so far suggest that Tehran is now more desperate than ever to get an agreement with Trump that will remove at least a proportion of the sanctions that have crippled the country’s economy and provoked unrest in the population, particularly among the younger generation. Whether Trump’s comment about an imminent deal proves right, other rounds of talks are being planned and the signs are looking more positive than they have for months. Much will depend on whether those red lines can be nuanced.

Putin no-show dooms the Ukraine "peace" talks

So, Vladimir Putin's name is not on the manifest nor on the list of Russian delegates heading for peace/ceasefire/anything talks with Ukraine in Istanbul. Had he gone, Donald Trump would probably have gone, too, and there might just have been a better chance of a decent outcome. But Putin has stayed in Moscow, and Trump will go back to Washington after completing his Middle East trip. A golden opportunity lost. It was never really on the cards. Putin is nowhere near the stage when he wants or needs to have a face-to-face on the war in Ukraine with Trump. If he had met Trump in Istanbul the world would have expected some sort of grand result, if not a declaration that the war was going to stop on a certain date. So Putin's best option, only option, was to not bother with the Istanbul meeting and instead, send his former culture minister with nothing to say except the usuual formula about needing to eliminate the root causes of the problem with Ukraine, ie its very existence. Putin also has the tricky matter of being wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court and could be arrested if he leaves Russia, although Turkey is not a signatory, so he would have been fine. But it was probably a tiny issue for the Russian president. Mostly it was a case of Putin saying no, not yet, if ever. He doesn't want to sit down in the same room as Zelensky anyway and will now wait to see if Trump insists on calling for a summit. But he is in no hurry.

Trump welcomes rebel Syrian leader with a no-sanctions gift

President Donald Trump was in a generous mood on the first day of his Middle East diplomatic tour, announcing the lifting of sanctions against Syria and offering a similar gesture to Iran, though with strict conditions. The decision to end sanctions on Syria came as a surprise and was greeted with applause by his audience in Riyadh. Trump said he had been asked by the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Turkey to consider lifting sanctions to help the new government in Damascus which took over after the ousting of President Bashar al-Assad on 8 December last year. To underline the changed strategy by the Trump administration, the US president will meet with President Ahmed al-Sharaa, the new Syrian leader, in Saudi Arabia today. It will be a dramatically symbolic meeting for the Syrian president who seized control of Damascus last year at the head of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, previously linked to al-Qaeda and designated by Washington as a terrorist organisation. Since taking power, al-Sharaa has been wooing western leaders and international institutions to give him a chance to bring stability and peace to a country that had been torn by civil war for t14 years under Assad, now living in exile in Moscow. Today in Riyadh he won his biggest scalp, the president of the United States who reversed Washington’s policy at a stroke. Although Syria’s future still remains uncertain and unpredictable, because there are so many competing political and militia groups, Trump’s backing will be a prize he can take back to Damascus to cement his leadership status in the country. Syria has been one of the most sanctioned countries in the world, although since al-Sharaa’s seizure of power in Damascus, some of the sanctions have already been eased. In February the European Union suspended certain economic sanctions to help with the development of democracy in the country. President Erdogan of Turkey which is now the dominant foreign power supporting al-Sharaa, and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia, played the crucial role in persuading Trump to drop sanctions against Syria. Trump said Erdogan had called him the other day to end sanctions. Giving his reasoning for lifting sanctions, Trump said:”There is a new government that will hopefully succeed in stabilising the country and keeping peace.” Iran which was the dominating power in Syria when al-Assad was president, was given an option by Trump during his speech in Riyadh. He offered a “new path and a much better path toward a far better and more hopeful future”. But he warned that Tehran would never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. “The time is right now for them to choose,” he said. There are currently high-level talks underway between the US and Iran over the Tehran regime’s nuclear programme. Trump warned that “things are happening at a very fast pace, so they have to make their move right now”. He highlighted Iran’s “destructive” involvement in causing “unthinkable suffering in Syria, Lebanon. Gaza. Iraq, Yemen and beyond”. The speech was a tour de force in Trump-style foreign policy-making. He also raised his hopes of one day persuading Saudi Arabia to normalise relations with Israel and join the Abraham Accords, the 2020 agreement he brokered in which the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, two of Saudi Arabia’s neighbours, established diplomatic relations with Israel. This vision, however, was greeted with stoney silence. The concept is unpopular in Saudi Arabia and rejected by the Saudi leadership until the war in Gaza comes to an end and an independent Palestinian state is created. Trump acknowledged the doubts in Saudi minds. “You’ll do it in your own time, and that’s what I want and that’s what you want,” he said. Trump’s first day of his four-day Middle East tour, which will include visits to the UAE and Qatar, was notable for its warmth towards Mohammed bin Salman. Trump made frequent remarks praising the Crown Prince for transforming Riyadh into a major global business and technology capital. He also said “Mohammed” was his friend. His praise was in remarkable contrast to the views of his predecessor President Joe Biden who had frosty relations with the Crown Prince whom he accused of being responsible for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post journalist and critic of the Saudi government. Khashoggi was killed and dismembered by Saudi agents inside the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul in October, 2018.

Why Hamas released the last surviving American hostage in Gaza

The last surviving American hostage held by Hamas has been released, coinciding with the arrival today of President Trump in the Middle East. The timing could not be more significant. Previous attempts to negotiate the release of Edan Alexander, a 21-year-old Israeli-American soldier from an elite army unit, failed despite high-level talks in Qatar. However, Hamas, not a terror organisation known for its nuanced approach to diplomacy, clearly realised that with Trump in the region, the “gesture of good will” might pay additional dividends. Alexander was serving on the border with Gaza on 7 October 2023 when Hamas gunmen arrived in force and killed 1,200 Israelis and other nationals and seized 251 hostages. The young soldier was one of 59 hostages left to be released, only 24 of whom are thought to be still alive. Four other American hostages are believed to be dead. Alexander, born in Tel Aviv but raised in New Jersey,was held in Gaza for 583 days. Trump who is due to land in Saudia Arabia tomorrow as part of a Middle East trip that will include visits to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates but not Israel, described the freedom for Alexander as “monumental” and said it was “a step taken in good faith”. The decision by Hamas to release the American hostage without preconditions – in other words, no consecutive release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel – has underlined how the dynamics of the Gaza war have been changing. There are multiple competing objectives: *Hamas wants the war to end without being comprehensively defeated. They want to survive to continue playing a leadership role in Gaza and to achieve that, they need all Israel Defence Forces (IDF) troops to withdraw from the territory. The holding of hostages has been key to this strategy. *Israel, under Benjamin Netanyahu, has now made it clear that the total defeat of Hamas and the occupation of the whole of the Gaza Strip is the priority, even more important than the release of the remaining hostages; and thousands of reservists have been mobilised to flood Gaza with troops. *The Trump administration has backed Israel to eliminate Hamas but the president has other objectives and needs the war to end and the hostages released, to achieve it. His arrival in Saudi Arabia is a reminder that Trump’s long-term vision is to persuade Riyadh to agree formal diplomatic relations with Israel as part of an expanded framework of peace and stability in the region. Saudi Arabia has shown willingness to consider this strategy but not until the war in Gaza comes to an end. The release of Edan Alexander is, therefore, a clever chess move by Hamas to gain favour with Trump as he lands in the region and to put pressure on Netanyahu to call off his plan, approved by his security cabinet, to launch a new all-enveloping offensive to seize the whole of the Gaza Strip. Steve Witkoff, Trump’s ubiquitous special envoy, slipped away from the Trump delegation to Saudi Arabia in order to fly direct to Israel to speak to Netanyahu. The Israeli prime minister has so far treated the freedom for Alexander as a bonus and a sign of desperation by Hamas rather than as an incentive to suspend or cancel his new offensive in Gaza. Netanyahu, of course, is under all sorts of pressure, political and diplomatic. Trump is getting almost as frustrated with the Israeli prime minister as he is with President Putin and the Russian leader’s ambivalent response to Washington’s demands for an end to the war in Ukraine. Domestically, Netanyahu is being accused of deliberately expanding and prolonging the war in Gaza in order to safeguard his own position. He still faces corruption charges which he has described as “an ocean of absurdity”. The release of Alxander has also intensified the demands of the hostage families, a potent political force in Israel, to focus far more effort on gaining the return of the other hostages, dead and alive. One of the principal players on the American side in recent negotiations with Hamas was Adam Boehler, Trump’s special envoy for hostage response. The other key members of the Trump administration involved were Steve Witkoff and Marco Rubio, the secretary of state and temporary national security adviser. Most of the talks between the US and Hamas have been carried out indirectly, with Qatar acting as mediator. But earlier this year, Boehler held direct talks with Hamas in Doha, Qatar to try and secure Alexander’s freedom, as well as the bodies of the four dead Americans. But those talks faltered, partly because of Israeli objections. The last time there were hostage releases was in January and February during the two-month ceasefire. Thirty-eight hostages were freed in exchange for 1,500 Palestinians held in Israeli prisons. The ceasefire ended in March after a breakdown in talks to agree the next phases in a longer-term settlement which should have led to the release of the remaining 24 surviving hostages and 35 dead captives, held by both Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists.

Stick with Trump and you get a story

The reporters travelling with Donald Trump to the Middle East are sure of one thing. They will get a surfeit of breaking stories. Trump brings reporters he likes and trusts along with him everywhere and they get the tasty morcels that emerge every day. It's so unlike the Joe Biden era. You were lucky to get any atory when travelling with him. But Trump uses every opportunity to hint at what's coming up and if he doesn't tell his reporters' fan club he puts it on his social media platform. It's news news news every single day. Even before he arrives in Saudi Arabia tomorrow, the story broke that the last surviving Amnerican-Israeli hostage in Gaza was to be released. Trump announced it. Big headlines everywhere. When he is in Saudi Arabia there will be all sorts of snippets emerging to make the headlines, not least, the potential for Saudi/Israeli diplomatic relations and the Iran nuclear programme which Trump is try to scotch with negotations going on for the last two weeks. Whatever you think of Trump, it has to be said that his presidency so far has been a blockbuster - at least for the reporters in tow.

What does Putin think of Washington/Beijing talks?

For the May 8 end of Second World War celebrations in Moscow, Vladimir Putin had his good friend Xi Zinping alongside him. Lots of hugs and hand-shaking and smiles. All very symbolic of the burgeoning friendship and alliance between Russia and China. They are strategic partners, effectively lined up against the United States and everything America stands for on the global stage. So what will Putin be thinking when he reads that Donald Trump's envoy and Xi Zinping's envoy have met in Switzerland and had a jolly good discussion and negotiation about resolving the tariff/trade war and improving relations between Washington and Beijing? Does Putin think Beijing is playing a double game here or did Xi reassure him when he was in Moscow that he has a grand plan with the US which won't upset or undermine his deep love for Putin and Russia? I think the Chinese president will have reassured Putin that his main priority is strengthening the relationship on all counts with Moscow but being a global economic superpower China has to have meaningful trade relations with Washington. Trump has said that if Putin stops the war in Ukraine and accepts a peace settlement, then the benefits for Russia will be huge vis a vis trade and business relations with the US. So far, Putin hasn't taken that on board. But if Washington and Beijing agree a new way of doing business together, it might persuade Putin to do likewise. Thus the war in Ukraine could end. It's just a thought but it might work.

A woman to be "C", head of MI6

So it looks like the next Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) is going to be a woman, the first in the agency's history. According to the Sunday Times, the shortlist of three candidates does not include a man. Ergo, a female "C", the most famous letter in Whitehall. Everyone from the Prime Minister downwards in government refers to the Chief of MI6 as "C". The intelligence service has had a lot of very good women at the top of the hierarchy for many years but every time the possibility of a woman taking over the top job came up it was always a man who got it. Sir Richard Moore, the current "C", is retiring at the end of the year after five years in the post. So now is the time when Whitehall looks at the replacement candidates. The Sunday Times says two of the candidates are insiders, long-term MI6 intelligence officers, and the third, the favourite, is the current ambassador to the United Nations, Dame Barbara Woodward, a former ambassador to Beijing. She'll be the favourite because of her contacts and experience in China, the Number One challenge for the West. But for the intelligence officers in MI6, their choice would be to have an insider in the top job. They always prefer that. It's said Barbara Woodward has no intelligence backgrtound but of course that is not strictly true. As ambassador in Beijing and in the UN she will have had access to classified material and will know the hierarchy at MI6 HQ at Vauxhall Cross. It's not the same as having experience of standing cold and apprehensive on dark street corners in some hostile capital waiting for a source to turn up. But she will know her intelligence stuff. We will wait and see who the mandarins recommend to Sir Keir Starmer.

Charmer Starmer wins over Trump

Keir Starmer got a lot of flak for bending the knee to Donald Trump and flattering him at every available opportunity at a time when other leaders were denouncing the new president or staying away from him because of his unpredictability. But ever since the shocking scenes in the Oval Office when Trump and his vice president JD Vance harangued President Zelensky before the world's media, it became evident that the only way to have a decent chat with the US president was to smile and agree with everything he said. Starmer effectively did that and now everyone is saying his whole approach to the Trump conundrum has produced dividends. For a start, he has got himself the first trade deal that has come out of the White House. A deal is a deal, whether it's a terrific one or not. The trade deal Starmer has won, through his negotiators, isn't the perfect agreement but it's a beginning and it's better than no deal at all, which has been the case for years under successive British prime ministers. So, it's one up for Starmer.

VE Day should be a reminder to all dictators

Here we are, 80 years after the end of the Second World War which caused millions of deaths and destruction of whole cities, and yet the lessons that should have been learned have not been learned. The world is suffering from more wars than ever before: Ukraine, Gaza, the Congo, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and, potentially, between India and Pakistan. Terrorism is everywhere. The threat of a Third World War has been in the air ever since Russia invaded Ukraine. Newspaper headlines here in ther UK often warn of a future attack on this country by Russia. I think and hope that such dire warnings are exaggerated. But the headlines indicate the fear in people's minds that the world is going down a dangerous and scary path. The 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War will hopefully persuade political leaders that no action should ever be taken which might lead to another global conflict. The Soviet Union played a crucial role in the defeat of the Nazis. President Putin should be proud of that but also be aware of his awesome responsibilities to seek peaceful, not military solutions to what he believes are Russia's grievances.

India and Pakistan deadly brinkmanship

India launched missile attacks on “militant” sites in Pakistan and in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir in retaliation for the terrorist strikes two weeks ago which killed more than two dozen Indian tourists. The military action raised already heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, both of whom are nuclear weapon states. India said in a statement that it had attacked nine locations. Pakistan countered by claiming three sites had been hit and that a child had been killed and two others injured. However, India said it had restricted its missile strikes on infrastructure used by militants in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and in eastern Punjab province, “where terrorist attacks against India have been planned”. From early reports it seemed the missiles were fired from fighter aircraft operating inside Indian territory. Pakistan claimed none of the aircraft had entered Pakistani airspace. In a statement, India’s defence ministry said: “Our actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature. No Pakistan military facilities have been targeted.” The statement added: “India has demonstrated considerable restraint in selection of targets and method of execution.” Although Pakistan claimed it had responded to the attacks, raising fears of prolonged retaliatory action, there were hopes that the Indian government might feel it had taken sufficient revenge for the terrorist attack two weeks ago and would hold back from launching further strikes. Speaking at the White House, President Donald Trump said he was not surprised by the attacks since the two neighbouring countries had experience hostile relations for decades. However, he added: “It’s a shame. I just hope it ends very quickly.” There were calls last night for intensive diplomatic efforts to stop the outbreak of cross-border violence from developing into a full-scale war. A spokesman for Antonio Guterres, the United Nations secretary-general, said he urged “maximum military restraint from both countries”. “The world cannot afford a military confrontation between India and Pakistan,” the spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, said. The Indian government had warned that it would retaliate for the terrorist attack on 22 April in which 26 people were shot dead by gunmen near the resort town of Pahalgam in the region of Kashmir controlled by India. Although India described it as a terrorist attack, the government blamed Pakistan for backing the armed group responsible, identified as the Kashmir Resistance. Pakistan denied involvement. India administers the southern and southeastern regions of Kashmir and Pakistan controls the northern and western areas. China controls the eastern section. It has been a volatile region since the partition of India into India and Pakistan in 1947. India and Pakistan have already fought four wars. The first was in 1947-1948 and was known as the first Kashmir war. The second Kashmir war was in 1965. In December 1971 the two countries went to war after the Bangladesh liberation movement fought for independence in eastern Pakistan. India backed the nationalist movement against Pakistan. In 1999, an Indian-Pakistan war, also known as the Kargil war, erupted from May to July. It was focused on the Kargil district in Kashmir when Pakistani troops crossed the so-called Line of Control, the de facto border between Pakistan-controlled and India-controlled Kashmir.

No hope for Gaza

(Apologies for absence. Major blog technical problem, now resolved) The decision by the Israeli cabinet to go full-throng into capturing the whole of Gaza is a disaser for the Palestnian people, disaster for the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) who don't want to become indefinite occupiers of the territorial Strip and probably disastrous for the remaining 59 hostages, only about 24 of whom are believed to be still alive. Benjamin Netanyahu said from the beginning that the objective of the military offensive in Gaza was to eliminate Hamas and rescue all the hostages. He has failed on both counts. Ceasefires, peace settlements etc were tried but ultimately failed. So, now, it's back to full war but with the aim of total occupation. Thousands of Israeli reservists are being called up. For the families of the hostages this is a sad and tragic day, with hope of recovering their loved ones disappearing.Trump should send a delegation to Israel to try and get a more sensible solution discussed but it doesn't look as if the US president is eager to get involved again after the failures of the previous negotiations in Qatar to find a lasting peace deal. So the future is bleak for the Palestinian people and for the hostages.