The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps will never give up the Strait of Hormuz

It is perfectly obvious that the regime in Tehran, and in psrticular the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, is going to hang onto some sort of control of the Strait of Hormuz whatever Donald Trump says. Tehran has been helped by Oman which sits on the southern side of the strait, which is also keen on having management (money-making) control of shipping going through the narrow channel. I don't see how Trump is going to stop it happening. Returning to war is not going to change Tehran's determination to maintain the leverage it now has, with or without Oman. This is a disaster for Trump, a disaster for the world's shipping industry, and probably a disaster for keeping oil prices down. If every ship going through the strait has to pay, say $1,000 or maybe $1 million, when using the strait, it's going to have a huge impact on oil prices and shipping insurance. It will deal a massive blow to Trump who has said publicly on numerous occasions that the Strait of Hormuz is an international channel and that fees can therefore never be charged. As the talks continue in Switzerland on this issue and the Iranian nuclear programme, I can envisage a settlement in which Iran is granted the right to charge some sort of fee for ensuring safety for all shipping in exchange for a deal over Iran's uranium-enrichment programme. I reckon Iran will go for that, and Trump will be forced to accept it so that he can boast he has stopped Iran from building a nuclear bomb. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER PAPERBACK. ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES, AMAZON.

Starmer boosts defence spending but is it enough?

Keir Starmer has only got another 20 days or so as British prime minister before he "voluntarily" steps down and hands over to Andy Burnham. But he has managed to find the time to publish, at last, the defence investment plan to fund the armed forces and modernise their equipment for future wars. It has taken a long time and he has persuaded the Treasury to hand over an extra £15 billion to help build a new class of warship which will be a mother ship for drones, plus some additional vessels for the Royal Marines and a fancy new combat aircraft that will fly alongside unmanned air veihcles. Yes, more drones. The Ukraine war has taught the whole world that warfare is now different. Forget tanks and traditional warships, the requirement is for drones, drones, drones, whether in the air, on land or on the water or under the water. Thousands of them are needed to fight off Russia in the future. The problem is that drones are not the answer to everything. When it comes to big military powers like Russia, they have hypersonic ballistic and cruise missiles and if the UK doesn't have the most advanced air-defence systems, we would be crushed in a war. The UK should be buying US Patriot missiles and parking them around the country if we want to be safe from Russian missile attack. Drones are great, they are more potent than in the past, they have longer ranges and can be guided to hit targets spot on. But we need so much more than drones to stay ahead of our enemies. And this is where the extra money is going to seem paltry by the time it has been spent on new fancy drones. With the UK economy drifting like a slow-moving barge, it's difficult to see where all the money for defence is going to come from. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS, AMAZON.

The challenges at America's top spy agency

The al-Qaeda terrorist attack against the United States on September 11, 2001, was one of the biggest intelligence failures of all time, which might have been avoided if America’s spy agencies had worked more cohesively. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was created in the aftermath of 9/11 to learn that painful lesson, and ensure that every one of America’s 18 intelligence agencies coordinates and cooperates with each other. But now this overseer of spooks - from FBI agents to military intelligence - is under attack by the Trump administration, senior Congress politicians and long-serving intelligence officers have warned. They are alarmed over the appointment of a new acting director for the ODNI who, before he took over the reins on June 19, had never had any experience of the secret spying world. The relatively-unknown Bill Pulte, a Trump loyalist, is head of the government’s federal housing finance regulator. He will be keeping that job, too, while joining the cabinet in his new senior intelligence role. Pulte, 38, arrived at the ODNI office at 1500 Tysons McLean Drive, Virginia, just outside the Washington DC border, with a list of names to be chopped, and his role appears to be to cut, cut, cut. The apparently arbitrary nature of the job losses has raised questions over whether the ODNI will be so undermined as to be ineffective, or whether it survives at all. The ODNI was set up by President George W Bush in April 2005, after the excoriatingly thorough inquiries that followed the 9/11 attacks. The investigations found that vital clues to Osama bin Laden’s plot to train terrorists in Florida to fly Boeing airliners and launch them like cruise missiles into the Twin Towers and Pentagon had been picked up by the FBI. Likewise, the CIA obtained covertly-acquired information - but the two threads were not connected in time. The ODNI has gone through many variations. It expanded to about 1,660 personnel, became too bureaucratic and has continued to rival the CIA for winning the ear of the president. But after the 9/11 catastrophe, most members of the US intelligence community would concede that a DNI remains an important post. But not if it’s filled by a man with no clue about intelligence matters. A former long-serving CIA officer told The Times: “I do think this an effort to, at the very least, significantly scale down the size of ODNI. Frankly, that’s not entirely a bad thing. It has ballooned in ways that was never intended since 2005. “The question is how they do it — will they go about it strategically or with a sledgehammer? There’s no question that we need a DNI, but a more tailored and rightsized ODNI wouldn’t be a bad thing at all.” A more alarmist interpretation of Pulte’s appointment as intelligence chief was delivered by Senator Mark Warner, Democratic vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, and Representative Jim Himes, Democratic ranking member of the House intelligence committee. “We are concerned that your record as director of the federal housing finance agency demonstrates a willingness to misuse your position, including your access to sensitive information, to pursue President Trump’s perceived political enemies and further his retributive political agenda,” they wrote in a letter to Pulte. They also warned that further job cuts (in addition to the 500 losses announced under Tulsi Gabbard who resigned from the DNI post last month) would “risk jeopardising the mission of an organisation explicitly created after 9/11 to prevent any future such terrorist attack”. The shake-up at the ODNI comes as Trump has repeatedly shown that, rather than listen to the advice of his own intelligence agencies, he prefers to operate on gut instinct and on occasions to seek the views of non-US spy chiefs who have their own particular furrow to plough. The classic example of this was in February, before the war with Iran. Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, appeared with David Barnea, the head of the Mossad spy agency, a video screen during a national security meeting in the White House’s basement “situation room” and predicted that airstrikes would bring down the regime in Tehran and lead to a popular uprising. A day later, American intelligence analysts had interrogated the claims. John Ratcliffe, the director of the CIA, described the Israelis’ regime change scenarios as “farcical” while Marco Rubio, secretary of state and national security adviser, agreed they were “bullshit”, according to the New York Times. But Trump appeared to trust Netanyahu and Mossad more than the CIA’s own assessments, and the Israelis were proved wrong: Operation Epic Fury, the war started on February 28, did not create a revolution. Similarly, the White House was furious after leaked intelligence reports suggested that last year’s US-Israeli strikes on Iran had only set back Iran’s nuclear programme by a few months, rather than completely “obliterating” it, as the President had boasted. Former senior officials with long experience of working with the US intelligence community fear that Pulte’s appointment is part of Trump’s long-running battle with the alleged “deep state”. They shared the concerns expressed by Senator Warner and his House colleague over the the acting director’s qualifications and motivations. “I would say that there are arguments that the DNI experiment led to some bureaucratic bloating and the DNI was never given control over IC [intelligence community] budgets that would have allowed the occupants of the office to really oversee the entire IC as many hoped would be the case,” one former senior official said. “But whatever the arguments may be for reform, putting someone like Pulte in charge who has no knowledge of or experience with intelligence, not only violates the spirit but the letter of the law. “Even more troubling is the fact that Pulte is there to execute Trump’s retribution agenda against the alleged ‘deep state’ who drew attention to the extraordinarily unusual array of contacts between Trump’s 2016 campaign and envoys of Russia’s government. It is a gross politicisation of the intelligence structures and endangers US national security.” Trump has also tasked Pulte with investigating “rigged elections” as part of his intelligence agency role. Last week the acting director was reported to have installed a woman who worked on election monitoring for the Republican National Committee, as his chief of staff, raising further criticism. Senator Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, remarked that Pulte’s office was supposed to be countering foreign threats, not importing “election denialism into the intelligence community.” Pulte’s tenure is expected to be temporary. Trump has nominated Jay Clayton, a federal prosecutor in New York, to be Gabbard’s permanent replacement. Clayton, 59, a former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and veteran Trump Administration official, is at least a more conventional choice for the role. “Few people anywhere in the Legal Community are respected at the level of Jay,” Trump said earlier this month in a Truth Social post announcing his pick. “I encourage the United States Senate to confirm Jay as soon as possible.” However an attempt by Democrats to speed up Clayton’s appointment before Pulte could begin work was also derailed by the president. As part of a political tug of war with his critics, Trump demanded that the Senate hold hearings to confirm Clayton’s replacement as US Attorney for the Southern District of New York before they interviewed him for the post of Director of National Intelligence. The question being raised on Capitol Hill is: how much damage can Pulte do as acting director before Clayton’s appointment comes up for confirmation by the Senate? PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS

Does anyone care about North Korea?

The whole world goes crazy with wars, unbelievable heatwaves, earthquakes etc etc and all while these things are going on, North Korea just keeps on building more missiles, more warheads, more artillery, and MORE NUKES. No one cares. No one is dashing off to the UN Security Council to demand resolutions, no one is going to Beijing to demand Xi Zinping restrain Kim Kong-un, the North Korean leader, there are no headlines in any newspaper warning North Korea could blast us all to kingdom come. All we get are news stories showing Kim Jong-un standing around watching the latest firing of something or other aimed at destroying South Korea or the US or wherever. No one cares. Well, I'm sure South Korea cares but no one else seems to worry about it. It's one of the most extraordinary facts of life in this mad world, that one individual leader can get away with building a massibe nuclear and conventional force without anyone batting an eyelide, apart from continuing with sanctions which make no difference to the lifestyle of the leader sitting in his palace in Panmunjon.

Trump doesn't want to see Andy Burnham

Donald Trump probably thinks Britain has now gone down the tubes so far he doesn't even have to bother talking to whoever is in 10 Downing Street. Initially it was Keir Starmer and that was bad enough in his eyes, although he did say Starmer seemed a nice guy. But now Starmer is about to exit from Downing Street, thanks to his back-stabbing and chest-stabbing cabinet colleagues, and there will be a new bloke in Downing Street whom Trump has clearly never heard of. He called him a town mayor. And liberal, ie socialist. So he made clear in chats with reporters in the Oval Office that he didn't expect or want to see Burnham in the White House. He could make his first trip abroad as prime minister to Guatemala for all he cares. He didn't say that. I said it. But that's what he is implying. So, not a good start for this town mayor who is to become prime minister without a fight on July 18. What a farce. Certainly we voters didn't vote for Burnham. We had nothing to do with it. It's all down to the Labour party mafia who killed their leader and went for someone with a bigger smile and flashier glasses. Trump will probably have to meet with Burnham at some point but it ain't going to be soon. In fact, Burnham has suggested his first trip abroad might be to Israel to face up to Benjamin Netanyahu. Good luck with that, Andy.

Who to believe, the US or Iran, over the negotiations?

Ever since the negotiations between the US and Iran began, whether directly or through intermediaries (Pakistan, Qatar), we have seen conflicting reports of what has or has not been achieved. The US makes big claims, and Iran denies them. Vice President JD Vance claimed yesterday that the Tehran negotiators had agreed to allow international nuclear inspectors into Iran to monitor all suspected nuke programmes. Iran said this wasn't true. Who are we to believe? It's actually the same old story. The Iranian negotiators might say something privately to someone, whether to Vance or to the Pakistan prime minister, but then in public says the opposite. What matters as far the rest of us is concerned is the public statement because that is how Iran works. The public statements are the ones that matter. So even when Donald Trump claims the Iranians have said privately that they will do this or do that, it only counts when a formal statement is made in public, and that more often than not contradicts what some Iranian negotiator might have whispered into someone's ear during negotiations. The US behave in a different way. When Trump makes bold claims about what Iran has agreed to do during private discussions, they turn out to be "in your dreams" remarks. So, for example, Trump said Iran had agreed to hand over the 440 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium and that the US and Iran would work together to dig out the material in canisters from deep underground where they were buried by the B-2 bombing in June last year. Tehran said they never agreed to that. So, this is what we have to put up with for the next 60 days or, claims from both sides which clash. The lesson is to listen to what Iran says publicly because that is when the supreme leader and his military backers have agreed what to make public. All the supposed private stuff doesn't really matter.

Trump challenged by Iran and algae

It's going to be tough-going for Donald Trump to get a final settlement with Iran that looks and seems better than the one signed by Barack Obama in 2015 without firing a shot. So far, from the 60-day talks in Switzerland, the discussions are all about exactly the same things that Obama's negotiating team talked about, with the big exception that Iran has found its super-leverage card in the Strait of Hormuz and neither side has yet got down to the nitty-gritty details vis a vis Tehran's nuclear programme. And yet already the US has temporarily lifted a whole bunch of sanctions and allowed Iran to export oil which means that the new regime in Tehran has won a huge bonus just from day one of the Switzerland talks. How many more goodies is the US going to grant Tehran? No wonder the Republicans in Congress are beginning to feel uneasy about the war and the aftermath. American taxpayers will also be asking why Iran is benefting so much from the talks while the cost of living for them is still high and causing suffering. This is all bad news for Trump and now he has been hit by the algae problem, the spreading green on the famous Reflecting Pool in Washington DC which should be super-blue. The millions of dollars spent on updating the pool appear to have been wasted. The algae is back and the blueness has gone. One poor duck has already died sipping the water. All Trump needs now is for the ballroom he is building at the eastern end of the White House to go pear-shaped. It's already massively over budget. Perhaps the golden look he is creating will turn green, like the Reflecting Pool.

Trump can't bomb Iran again

Since the much-criticised Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the US and Iran, Donald Trump has at least three times said that if a final settlement is not reached to his satisfaction he can always go back to bombing Iran. Everyone knows, probably even Trump, that this is not true. Now that the peace momentum, if there is a peace momentum, is underway, the option of returning to bombing has gone for good. What would it achieve anyway? Just more death and destruction and therefore more money will have to be raised to help Iran reconstruct. Also, it wouldn't look very good if Trump just reverted to bombing every time the negotiations are beginning to look a bit fragile. Iran will just bury itself in its bunker and refuse to continue negotiating and probably do its best to rush for a nuclear bomb, although that would be impossible at the moment because so much was destroyed by the US and Israeli bombing of nuclear plants in June last year. No, Trump's only option now is diplomacy and keep fingers crosssed that the mullahs and generals in Tehran will be ready to do a deal of sorts. So, that's a win for Iran. Meanwhile, the Iranian negotiators continue to use the other winning card they possess - citing Lebanon and Israel's continuing strikes against Hezbollah as the key element, as far as they are concerned, in the negotiations. If Tehran is happy with the progress made it's because they know they have screwed Trump over Israel's actions in Lebanon. Trump knows that however much he swears at Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli leader will carry on targeting Hezbollah every time Hezbollah targets Israel.

Iran has all the cards as talks begin

The negotiators from Tehran gathering in Switzerland for the beginning of talks with the US to forge an overall long-term deal will be super-confident that they hold the cards. This is because the main card in Donald Trump's hands is the bombing card but he doesn't really have that anymore because if he starts bombing again, the whole deal will crash and we will be back to square one. Whereas Iran has the Strait of Hormuz card, which will remain its best leverage for ever. Also, the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, one of the two main negotiators, has all the wealth of experience of negotiating on behalf of Tehran for the nuclear deal agreed under the Obam administrion in 2015. He knows his nukes much much better than any of the American negotiators. He has all the technical stuff in his head. His fellow negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian parliament and a former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. knows his onions, too, and won't conceded anything which might weaken the power of the IRGC. So, JD Vance who seems to spend more time writing books than performing as vice president, and the other two negotiators, Steve Whitkoff, Trump's business buddy, and Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, know more about business ventures and property than the intricacies of diplomacy. All in all, these talks in Switzerland are going to cement in all the goodies already promised in the memorandum of understanding - sanctions relief, unfreezing of Iranian funds and the $300 billion reconstruction fund - while failing probably to get a fullproof nuclear deal. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

The Lebanon question is going to ruin the Iran deal

The Lebanon issue is striking back. Iran has been very clever. By insisting that Israel's war with Hezbollah in Lebanon has to be linked inextricably with the Trump/Iran deal, it means every time there is violence in Lebanon, the Iranians take revenge, by closing the Strait of Hormuz again - like they have today - or refusing to start discussions in the 60-day phase of the negotiations to conclude a final settlement. This puts all the emphasis on Israel to stop bombing Hezbollah. But if Hezbollah attacks Israel, Israel will attack Hezbollah, Benjamin Netanyahu has made that clear. So it goes on. The Trump/Iran deal is so fragile, it could collapse any day. But the clever thing is that Iran can then blame Israel, when in fact it's just as much Iran's fault because the mullahs have failed to rein in Hezbollah. But Trump will be so angry he will also blame Israel. Yes, the leaders of the Iranian regime have been very clever. They have outsmarted everyone.

Trump battles to persuade his critics that the Iran deal is good

Republican heavyweights, newspaper columnists and broadcasters have all given the thumbs down to Donald Trump's deal with Iran. Israel hates it. The Gulf states don't like it, Western leaders praised Trump when they met him for the G7 meeting but they probably didn't mean it. They praised him because they were desperate to get back on side with him and keep him happy. So, Trump has a helluva battle on his hands to try and prove to the world that he has engineered the best possible deal with the regime in Tehran. The only way, it seems, he can do that is by making the next 60 days the toughest of all for Tehran so that when all the details have been agreed on the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions-lifting and the nuclear question, Tehran will be seen to have taken its medicine and the US can claim to have won the arguments. That, unfortunately, looks pretty unlikely. There is already so much that is good for Tehran in the Memorandum of Understanding, now signed by Trump, that the future detailed agreement may go their way as well. For Trump, he has to show that his negotiating style will get there in the end, and in 60 days' time, the world will feel a safer place. Good luck with that.

Tons of money for Iran if the peace deal is honoured

All the details of the Memorandum of Understanding between Iran and the US are now published, and it shows beyond question that if the Tehran regime behaves itself and adheres to the terms of the agreement, Iran will be flooded with money: a $300 billion investment fund for reconstruction, paid for mostly by Arab states in the Gulf, an unfreezing of £24 billion which had been held in European banks, mostly in Belgium for some reason, and a huge amount of revenue from the sale of oil to anyone who wants it, mostly China, with all sanctions lifted. It's a bonanza for Iran. Their negotiators have done well. As for the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has agreed there will be no tolls or fees for the next 60 days during the next stage of negotiations. But after that Iran and Oman will hold talks about the "management" of the strait for the safe passing of ships through the chokehold. What on earth does that mean? Is there a chance Iran and Oman will be allowed to charge some sort of admin fee in future? If so, that woulld be totally against what Trump and co have been saying ever since the war with Iran began. It would also be counter to international maritime law. Once again, the Iranian negotiators have done exceptionally well to get that sentence into the MoU. Trump will need to do a lot of explaining to the world's shipping companies. Insurance premiums will go up, the cost of oil will be affected and Iran will get richer. The nuke issue will have to be dealt with in the next 60 days as well, not enough time I would have thought to nail down the detail that will have to be negotiated to prevent Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon.

The US/Iran memorandum of understanding is paper-thin

First of all, the MoU between Washington nand Tehran was said to be two pages. Now, apparently, it's only a page and a half. Probably the most accurate description of the MoU which is supposed to end the war between the US/Israel and Iran has been provided by the US vice president, JD Vance. He said the clauses in the MoU were all general. The specifica details will have to be bashed out in the next 60 days. Actually, I doubt all the details will be sorted in juty 60 days. The nuclear issue alone took two years to resolve under the previous agrement during the Obama administration, and the wording was immensely complicated. This sort of deal is not going to be negotiated by a couple of Trump friends. It will need the US's finest nuclear brains. So the MoU to be signed in Switzerland by JD Vance on Friday is so paper-thin that, on reading, it might seems as if it is too broad-brush to have any true meaning. However, if the signing goes ahead as planned, then it's better than a resumption of war. Generalities allow for too many interpretations but there will still be some form of broad agreement on the following matters: the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of the US naval blockade and an agreement on both sides to discuss all the detail over the next 60 days. Key to this will be the Strait of Hormuz. Iran is still saying it will charge administrative fees - ie tolls under a different name. Trump is not going to allow this. But you can bet there is going to be some form of language eventually which will make the Strait of Hormuz less free than it has always been. Tehran enjoyed having the power to close the strait and then impose payments on shipping companies and the regime is unlikely ever to agree to give up that entitlement unless it gets something pretty massive in return, like a lifting of ALL international sanctions over a short period. So far, nearly all commentators have rubbished the deal before it has even been made public. I suspect, and hope, that there will be enough meat in the few paragraphs to lay the foundations for a better relationship between the US and Tehran, and a settlement that can get the global economy back working properly again.

Who has lost most from the war with Iran? The Iranian people

President Trump promised the Iranian people before he launched attacks on Iran: "We're coming to help you." This was after the appalling slaughter on the streets of Tehran and other cities in Iran when protesters came out to show their anger at the rising cost of living and lack of opportunities for young people. Seven thousand or more were killed by Iranian security police who used machineguns to quell the protests. Nothing has changed even after the declaration by Trump that a deal has been signed with Tehran. The Iranian people will still have to live and suffer under an extremist regime which cares nothing for their well-being, only theior retention of power and a share-out of the country's wealth among themselves. The bombs may have stopped falling, but several thousand civilians died during the war and rhe prospects for a happy, prosperous future are zero. Indeed, when the Tehran regime starts to renege on the so-called peace deal after the 60-day ceasefire has come to an end, the war could be restarted. Tehran has made it absolutely clear they plan to impose tolls on shipping in the future which will mean more money for the rulers and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and higher oil prices. There are other losers from the war: all the Gulf states were targeted by Iranian missiles and drones. Their previous wealth and stability, attractive ingredients for westerners and tourists who want to enjoy the heat and luxury lifestyle, have been damaged for ever. Tousism has already fallen catastrophically and fewer westerners will want to live in any of the Gulf states. The word "peace" in the memorandum of understanding signed by the US and Iran will be seen by many in the region as a false hope.

Is Keir Starmer facing his last few weeks as British prime minister?

I could say poor Keir Starmer. He won a huge majority for the Labour Party, annihilated the Conservatives who had enjoyed years of total chaos, and promised voters he would not raise income tax. Now, here we are, nearly two years later, and the Labour government under Starmer is also facing political chaos. Starmer promised to spend much more on defence in the light of Russia's increasing aggression towards Europe, and maybe particularly towards the UK, and yet he has failed to find the money to fulfil his promise. The welfare state handouts have gone way over the top, there are a million young people who have never had a job and have no money or prospects and have to live with their parents because they can't afford a home of their own, and, worse for Starmer, many of his cabinet colleagues are fed up with him. Now, this coming week, he will know for sure whether Andy Burnham, a would-be leader of the Labour party currently Greater Manchester mayor, is standing for parliament again so that he can challeng Starmer, beat him and any other contenders, and enter Number Ten as the next prime minister. Andy who, most people in the rest of the world will be saying. Well, he was a minister in a previous government and seemed ok but when he went for the top job he lost to Starmer which is why he gave up parliament and hoofed off to Manchester. He is standing for Makerfield near Manchester in a by-election and if he wins, Starmer will be in trouble. The truth is that whether Burnham or Starmer is the prime minister by the end of it all, it will make very little difference. There will still be no extra money for defence, there will still be a million young people unemployed and nothing much will change. Starmer seems a decent bloke doing his best which isn't good enough, and Burnham is a decent bloke who will try to do his best but it won't solve Britain's economic problems unless he throws away all the Labour promises published in their manifesto at the last election and announces a rise in income tax across the board and a huge tax boost for business which will force them to recruit more people, preferably out of the million young unemployed, and hang on to all the employees they currently have and stop sacking them all in favour of AI. I will end the way I began, poor Keir Starmer.

Fingers crossed, The Iran Deal will be signed tomorrow....or will it?

I love it. Donald Trump says the deal with Iran will be formally signed tomorrow but Iran says it won't! Plus ca change. But the basics of the deal now seem to be fairly simple. The Strait of Hormuz will be opened, the US Navy blockade of Iranian ports will be lifted, there will be no more bombing, sanctions will be slowly lifted, but the nuclear issue will be discussed at some later point. That will all be contained in a memorandum of understanding. But there are so many unanswered questions. Will the Strait of Hormuz be fre and open without any interference whatsoever by Iran, or is Tehran still insisting on some sort of administrative/management arrangement alongside Oman? If Trump agrees to that, the war was all for nothing. And if Iran fails to agree to hand over the 440 kilos of highly-enriched uranium, the war was all for nothing. And if the regime remains a severe, anti-west, democracy-suppressing military junta, the the war was all for nothing. Yes, lots of questions still, Mr President.

Please Mr Trump can we have that deal, so we can all get on with our lives!

Megotiating a complicated peace deal that covers the whole of the Middle East is hugely challenging and probably impossible. But the US president keeps on telling everyone that "The Deal" is as good as done. So, there is only one question. Where the hell is it? Is he really telling us the truth or is he just building up our hopes and can then blame Iran or Israel or Hezbollah or whoever if it all goes wrong? When he decided to call off the strikes planned for the third night in a row on Iranian military targets, he said it was becasue he had had phone calls from important people in Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Pakistan who said that, through their endeavours, the full deal was ready to sign. So at the last minute, he called off the bombers and Tomahawks. Tehran instantly denied anything had been totally agreed. The wording was slightly different than before, howeve, so there must be something going on. But there is still no deal on the table. Trump is not yet in position to dollop his massive signature on any piece of paper. I want to be optimistic but in the Middle East anything and everything can go wrong. There are so many egos and bad memories and so much hatred that it would seem beyond any negotiator to find the right formula. But Trump seems super-confident, even though it's not actually him or his special envoys who are doing the tough work. The Pakistan army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, is there in the thick of it. Today is Friday. Who knows, perhaps by this weekend or early next week, this famous deal might just come to fruition. Or else, it's back to bombing. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. WATERSTONES, AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Can Trump bomb Iran to the peace table?

Now that the US and Iran are once again "exchanginbg" bombs and missiles as if it's Operation Epic Fury Part One and a Half, the question has to be asked: Can a superior military power literally bomb an opponent country to the negotiating table? Can the US enforce peace by using war? Obviously this concept has worked in the past. The Serbian war against Kosovo was pretty much resolved by Nato bombing, plus, eventually, the parachuting of troops into Kosovo to make sure the Serbian troops went back to Belgrade. But that might be the exception. Normally bombing from the air does not win wars. Vietnam was a huge failure. The mass bombing by the Americans didn't win the war, nor did the infusion of hundreds of thousands of troops. The Gulf war of 1991 was won by brilliant ground warfare, artillery fire, tanks and Apache attack helicopters, as well as air power. The Iraq war wasn't won as such because when it was supposed to be over ("Mission Accomplished"), there followed a murderous insurgency which went on for years. Afghanistan was a disaster. Neither air power nor ground action won that one against the Taleban. So, now we have Iran. This war is different in many ways, but mostly because the regime in Tehran has ruthlessly exploited its advantages - closing the Strait of Hormuz and launching ballistic missiles and drones at every Gulf state, as well as US bases in the ruegion and Israel. So, will the renewed bombing by the US change all that and force the mullahs to negotiate? I fear not. This is because the mullahs are not really in charge anymore. Control is in the hands of the generals who command the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and they are not going to surrender just because the US has gone back to bombing. In fact it will drive them further into their bunkers and they will hang on until Trump realises that being commander-in-chief of the mightiest military power on the planet doesn't actually guarantee winning wars. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. WATERSTONES, AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS. THANK YOU.

What does Trump know about the shootdown of the US Apache helicopter?

Shooting down an Apache attack helicopter is a serious business. It's not like hitting a drone. So did Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps target the helicopter with a crew of two on board? If the helicopter was hit by a missile, the chances are the two crew members would not have survived. But they were picked up safely. So, did the Apache collide with an Iranian drone? That also seems unlikely. The crew would be super-experienced and could evade a drone. Nevertheless, Donald Trump instantly blamed the Iranians and ordered Central Command to retaliate. Iranian air defence systems and communications sites were bombed. The rescued crew will presumably be able to give a better picture of exactly what happened. If it was an Iranian missile, then Iran got what it deserved. But if it turns out, it was a helicopter malfunction, then Iran is going to be very aggrieved. My feeling is that Trump, as commander-in-chief, must have been told something which convinced him it was the IRGC which brought the Apache down. In other words, the fantastic array of US surveillance aircraft around in the Gulf at the moment must have images of a missile or whatever heading for the Apache. If that's the case, then Trump's decision to retaliate was the right one. Central Command said the response was proportionate. Centcom is investigating. Meanwhile the ceasefire between Iran and the US has already been breached so many times that it puts in danger the "oeace" negotiations which, amazingly, are still going on to end the war and reach a settlement.

A deal with Iran in two or three days, says Trump

Claims about the war in Iran coming to an eed at any moment have been made so many times that it is difficult to take any predictions from the White House seriously. But the fact is that while the US naval blockade of all Iranian ports continues, Iran and its poor people are being bled dry. No oil exports, no trade, nothing coming in except humanitarian shipments. At some point there is going to ba another total breakdown of society in Iran and the streets will be filled with thousands of people protesting. This is what Trump is probably counting on, so that even though there are still breaches of the ceasefire, the rulers of Iran do actually want the war to end so that the country can benefit from at least partial lifting of international sanctions. If there really is a deal waiting in the wings will it be the victory for the US that Trump has been boasting about for so long? In his latest remarks, Trump said that the deal would be sigbed in two or three days and as soon as the signatures are on the agreement, the Strait of Hormuz will open. As for the nuclear issue, Trump is saying he has got it in the bag, ie Iran will pledge not to build a nuclear bomb. But Iran has said this before, so only if the Tehran regime starts to dismantle what's left of its uranium-enrichment programme and hands over the 440 kilos of 60-per-cent-enriched material will anyone believe that the nukes question is finally resolved. If Trump's latest pledge about an end to the war falls apart, like all his previous promises, then the missiles could start flying all over again. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Israel and Iran back to war

Donald Trump has told Israel to stop bombing Iran but Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has ignored him. This tells a lot. Trump has said he is in charge and if he tells Netanyahu what to do or not to, he obeys. This simply isn't true. The ceasafire is now so shakey it's as good as dead and buried. Iran fired a barrage of missiles at Israel, supposedly in return for Israel's continued launching of attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Trump told Netanyahu not to retaliate. But how could he expect Israel not to fire back when Iranian missiles have come hurtling towards them? Of course Israel retaliated, just as Trump has retaliated against Iran when the mullahs have fired missiles and drones at US military forces in the Middle East. Tit-for-tat is an accpeted form of warfare. So, the ceasefire, already a misnomer after masses of breaches since it was announced in April, is over for now. Meanwhile, how will the resurgence of missile attacks affect the negotiations to end the war? Basically, there is never going to be a deal unless there is a comprehensive settlement which involves the US, Iran, Israel, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen. And that sort of agreement, ie no more attacks from any quarter, looks as far away as it has ever been. Even if there is a sort of deal between the US and Iran, there will still be plenty of scope for war if none of the other parties are signed up.

A sense of drift in Washington

Most images of Donald Trump on social media and in the newspapers these days show him with his eyes closed as yet another interminable meeting takes place in the Oval Office. He will be 80 this year and it looks like he's getting tired, especially since so many things are going wrong for him. There is a real sense of drift at the moment because there is still no breakthrough in the war with Iran. We don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but Tehran and its injury-recovered supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, seem to be putiing their foot down and insisting on having all Iran's frozen assets released, totalling around $24 billion, before any deal is discussed about limiting their nuclear programme and reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Does Trump fall asleep when the subject of Iran crops up in conversation? Trump has to be careful. If pictures keep on being published of him nodding off in the Oval Office, comparisons will increasaingly be made with his predecessor, Joe Biden, who invariably closed his eyes during the latter part of his term in office. Trump would not like to be compared with "poor old Joe".

JD Vance has a thing about Britain

The vice president of the United States doesn't have much of a role to play and it must be pretty frustrating which is why perhaps the current holder, JD Vance, spends so much time haranguing Britain over one thing or another. In his latest verbal outburst, he has blamed the appalling murder of the young Henry Nowak by a Sikh called Vickrum Digwa on mass immigration into the UK. If he believes that, ok, but keep his views to himself. What makes him think we are interested in what the US vice president believes, especially when it is simplistic nonsense. He has done this bfore, as has, of course, Elon Musk, who loves to take the side of the Reform leader Nigel Farage in rebuking Britain and the British government for its immigration policies. The more one hears the views of JD Vance, the more unlikely, it seems to me, that he will be a suitable candidate to succeed Donald Trump in 2028. In fact, if things continue to go badly for the Trump administration it is far more likely that the winner of the 2028 presidential election will be a Democrat. The Democratic party just has to get its act together and find a candidate who will wow America and the rest of the world. He or she hasn't emerged yet. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Putin sitting down to talk with Zelensky? Can't see it

In Vladimir Putin's eyes, his bete noir, Volodymyr Zelensky, has been a dead man ever since he failed to be toppled and then fought back against his invasion troops. But now Zelensky has written an open letter inviting Putin to hold face-to-face talks to find a settlement. Zelensky must have known that he would be rebuffed. Putin is not remotely in the frame of mind to talk real peace with anyone and certainly not at the same table with his arch opponent from Kyiv. It would play very badly back home unless of course Zelensky had given the impression beforehand that he was ready to do a deal that would deliver more Ukrainian land into Putin's hands. And he's not going to do that. So the Zelensky letter was fairly pointless except that it forced Putin to respond. Even then, I can't envisage Putin agreeing to be in the same room as Zelensky, let alone sit across from him at a table. This is why it's going to be so difficult for anyone else, whether Trump's special envoys or some selected European chief negotiator, to persuade Putin to make some concessions. He doesn't want a compromise deal, he wants to crush Ukraine, and in particular, its leader.

Ceasefires? What ceasefires?

The wordd 'ceasefire' has a certain connotation. It means, simply, that two warring sides agree to stop fighting and shooting and bombing and all goes quiet. It's a huge relief to the poor people whose lives have been ruined by warfare, and it's a big boost for the negotiators attempting to bring wars to an end. But not today. There is a ceasefire between the US and Iran but almost daily there are tit-for-tat strikes. Even worse ceasefire violations are going on in Lebanon and Gaza. Hezbollah continues to fire rockets into Israel and the Israeli Defence Forces retaliate with airstrikes, In Gaza, Hamas is active as ever and the IDF launches attacks on a pretty comprehensive fashion. People die. Donald Trump has been making light of the ceasefire breaches but the fact is, for the people, the civilians, in all three countries, and in the Gulf nations being targeted by Iran, life remains hellish. The word 'ceasefire' is meaningless for them. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES.

Will Donald Trump really meet with Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei?

Donald Trump, in his usual way, has thrown into the air an idea that he might meet up with Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader to discuss and sign an agreement. Could this ever happen? It's difficult to imagine the two men meeting and shaking hands. Not after the destruction US bombs and missiles have done to Iran, not after the bombing of Iran's three main nuclear sites, and particularly not after Mojtaba Khamenei was grievously wounded when bombs killed his father, the then suprme leader, on day one of the US/Israeli attacks on Iran that began on February 28. However, if Trump has put forward the idea, I guess it's just possible the matter has been raised but I would have thought it was wishful thinking that the supreme leader would agree to sit down with the US president. And where would such a meeting take place? Not in Washington, that's for sure. And not in Tehran. It would have to be somewhere like Qatar or possibly Pakistan. But first of all, we have to have an agreement, and that seems far away at the moment, with bombs and drones falling most days. The Strait of Hormuz is not totally static, a few ships have been going through on the Omani side of the chokepoint with US warships coordinating their safe passage. But we are only talking about a dozen or so. All the rest are still stuck out in the Gulf of Oman or Gulf or Arabia. The crews must be sick to death of their situation. If there is going to be a deal to sign and a meeting between Trump and Khamenei, the sooner the better.

Vladimir Putin is the most dangerous leader in the world

A massive strike on Kyiv and other cities, killing civilians, has underlined how desperate and dangerous Vladimir Putin is. He's not getting what he wants out of his "special operation "in Ukraine, so for a long time now he has just been hitting out without any sort of strategy. It's just blind hatred and a determination to kill and destroy as much as possible. This makes him the most dangerous leader on the planet. He is bitter and vengeful and angry and he is never going to do a peace deal with the Kyiv government. Neither the US nor Europe has a chance of ending this war. Only Putin can end it and he can't bear to conmtemplate finding any settlement with a country he would prefer to wipe off the face of the earth. This dangerous man could be leader of Russia for another two decades. The war in Ukraine could last that long, too, in some form or other. There will never be perfect peace. Not while Putin is the leader. What he doesn't seem to realise is that as he continues attacking Ukraine he is not actually getting any nearer his dream of subjugating his neighbour. He will never achieve that and in the meantime he is doing immense damage to his own country and to his own people. Trump has failed to stop him and whoever succeeds Trump will also fail. It's a total tragedy for Ukraine.

Trump says "just sit back and relax"

Donald Trump is in a very relaxed mood and wants all Americans to stop worrying about the war against Iran. In a Truth Social post he advised everyone "just sit back and relax". It's difficult for most families to do that because the war has caused the cost of living to rocket upwards and most of them can't afford to fill up their cars with petrol (gas, for the Americans). But what Trump I guess is trying to do is calm the waters as the negotiations continue to end the war although there is little sign a deal is coming any day soon. In fact, the longer it all goes on, the more tetchy both side become and, sure enough, they start firing at each other. This is the way with ceasefires. Look what's happening in southern Lebanon where there is supposed to be a ceasefire and also in Gaza where another ceasefire is supposed to be running. With Iran, it's all called self-defense attacks. The US thinks Iran is about to loose off a missile or drone and slams a few bombs into the launch sites. Then the Islamic Rebolutionary Guard Corps fires off a missile and drone towards US bases in Kuwait by way of retaliation. This has happened two or three times since the ceasefire. And I have no doubt there will be more such incidents until a peace deal is signed. Will it actually ever happen? Right now, it seems unlikely. But Trump says sit and relax, so maybe he is convinced there will be a settlement.

Why does Europe want to negotiate with Putin?

The worst job in the world is to try negotiating with President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine to everyone’s satisfaction. Yet European leaders want to do just that. Frustrated by the failure of the Trump administration to negotiate anything of value with Putin, Europe is scurrying around looking for the ideal candidate to confront the Russian leader across the table and bash out a peace deal. It’s a fantasy world, of course. If Putin obstructed Trump, his old sparring partner, and never remotely got close to a deal with the Americans, why would he consider sitting down with some European leader, or ex-leader, to bring the four-year war to an end? Indeed, why would Trump be happy to hand over the poisoned chalice to a European at a time when he has little affection for anything Europe and has been dismissive of the Transatlantic alliance following his go-it-alone (alongside Israel) war with Iran? European Union foreign ministers are discussing the potential for diplomatic intervention vis a vis the war in Ukraine at am informal meeting in Cyprus today. Already alarm bells have been ringing about the need first to formulate a policy approach towards Russia before anointing an individual to be the EU chief negotiator. The renewed interest in Europe taking over the diplomatic efforts to forge an agreement between Putin and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky would appear to be doomed - but for one thing. Putin is probably at his weakest since the war began on 24 February 2022. While his natural response to that realisation has been to escalate the war, not back down, somewhere in his mind he must quietly fancy the idea of an EU special negotiator supplanting Trump’s team and arriving at the Kremlin to sit at one end of the 20ft white-topped oval beech table inside the Kremlin while he sits grandly at the other end. The Russian leader, when questioned, has even indicated he might contemplate a European role in trying to find a formula for peace. But he instantly came up with a name that would suit him, his old friend former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder. EU leaders didn’t like the sound of that and other names have been floated, such as Angela Merkel who speaks fluent Russian and always got on with Putin when she was German chancellor, and Mario Draghi, former Italian prime minister. President Alexander Stubb of Finland has suggested he would be prepared to take on the role provided there was first a ceasefire agreed. This is all premature stuff. But the EU has Zelensky on side. He has been pushing for a bigger role for Europe for a long time, ever since his verbal battering from Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the Oval Office fifteen months ago. However, it’s trickier for Europe than it is for the Trump administration. Trump comes with his personality baggage, and Putin likes that. As a former KGB boss, he loves the drama of a set-to with a Big Rival. Trump fills that spot nicely. They play the game in front of the world’s TV cameras and expectations are high. But, as with the notorious Anchorage summit in Iceland on 15 August last year, nothing of any significance emerged. Would Putin really succumb to the charms of a European chief negotiator and make conciliatory noises about a possible peace deal after he had effectively snubbed Trump’s efforts? Europe also has its problems. Unlike Washington which has wavered over Ukraine like the huge Stars and Stripes flags now installed on the north and south lawns of the White House, European leaders have been pretty steadfast both in terms of arming Kyiv and standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Zelensky in fighting off the Russians. Europe, too, has been adamant that it backs Zelensky’s position on territory. Putin’s demand for the whole of the Donbas region, including the areas still under Ukrainian ownership, has been rejected by Kyiv. Trump, on the other hand, has spoken in the past about the necessity of doing a territorial deal to end the war. So, any Europe-led diplomatic intervention based on that sort of red line would start on shaky ground in Putin’s eyes. Nevertheless, the state of the battlefield after more than four years might still be the decisive factor. According to Anne Keast-Butler, director of GCHQ, the government’s signal intelligence centre, nearly 500,000 Russian soldiers have been killed since the war began. That’s a higher figure than has been officially estimated in recent months. Russian invasion troops have achieved zero territorial gains for months; and even though Putin launched 90 hypersonic and intermediate-range ballistic missiles and 600 drones at Kyiv and other cities on the night of 23-24 May, Ukraine’s determination not to falter has remained resolute. Ukrainian strikes with drones and cruise missiles into Russia, hitting targets on the outskirts of Moscow must have concentrated Putin’s thinking as he hides away in his network of bunkers. Trump’s focus right now is on Iran, with Cuba waiting in the wings for White House treatment. Perhaps the president will be relieved to hand over the war in Ukraine to the Europeans. He has as good as said it’s a European responsibility. However, is Europe truly ready to take on the role? In the end, Trump will want to claim the trophy for ending a war he boasted he could wrap up in twenty-four hours. He won’t like Europe getting in the way of that dream. Whoever is chosen to be the EU chief negotiator could well be battling it out with Trump as well as Putin. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER.

Proposed Iran deal makes no sense

Iran claims Donald Trump is making excessive demands to bring the war to an end and find a peace settlement. But it's just as much the other way around. The hardliners (aren't they all?) in Tehran are making demands that Trump can never agree to. Princippaly to do with the Strait of Hormuz. The situation at the strait HAS to return to the status quo ante, in other words, a free-flowing shipping route through the chokepoint without any interference from either Iran on one side or Oman on the other. Any final deal that allows the Islamic Revolutionbary Guard Corps to have "management" contrtol of its side of the strait, whether demanding tolls or not, cannot be allowed, not if Trump wants to declare victory over the mullahs in Iran. But this is what is being implied in the one-page memorandum of understanding, or, at least, in the thinking of the Tehran regime and its interpretation of the MoU. Iran, having enjoyed the fruits of control over the strait it doesn't want to give it up. The thought of extracting $1 million a go every time a ship goes through the strait would be like manna from heaven. It would help Iran to rebuild its economy and, possibly, renew its nuclear programme. So, Trump cannot agree to a deal which even hints at Iran benefiting from reopening the strait. He had a meeting in the White House Situation Room on Friday to talk about the MoU but came out after two hours without giving it a nod of approval. So he must have doubts. On the other hand, he is pretty anxious to wrap the whole thing up, whatever he claims about "not rushing" into a settlement. The other thing that makes no sense is the apparent Trump order to lift the naval blockade. This is crazy because it's working and making Tehran desperate. So keep the blockade going until all the dots and dashes have been sorted out.

Nato must stand up to Putin

A Russian (who else could it be?) armed drone flies low over the border into Romania and smashes into the top floors of an apartment block exploding in a ball of flame and injuring two civilians. All Nato has said so far is that it will defend every inch of every alliance member. But actually, that's just words. Romania has been droned by Moscow and has got away with it. It could have been a misfiring by Russia but it looks far more likely to be a deliberate strike to see what Nato would do. Nothing it seems, so Putin will be very happy. Of course its tricky for Nato because they can't just fire off a drone or two at Russia in retaliation, but first and foremost that Russian drone should have been shot down before it reached the Romanian city of Galati, and then examined with great care to prove it was a Russian brand. And then Moscow should have been warned that if they do anything like this again, it will be regarded as an attack on the whole of Nato, and see if that gives Putin a reason to be more cautious next time.

A potential Iran deal in the midst of strikes and counter-strikes

As so often with ceasefires, the violence still carries on. Iran threatens US ships with drones and ballistic missiles, so America takes instant safeguarding action, and then Iran retaliates with strikes on a US base in Kuwait and so on and so on. But amidst all the military action, the negotiators have been getting on with the job of finding a formula for peace. Now, it seems there may be a final draft. But Trump seems to have rejected it as a fabrication. So who knows what is going on. The new draft, just a one-page document, appears to say that Iran and Oman will share the joint management of the Strait of Hormuz to allow all shipping safe passage. But will this include a toll system? Either way, Trump is not going to approve a deal which gives Iran any sort of control over the strait. It didn't exist before the US and Israel attacked Iren on February 28, so the president is never going to go along with Iranian control now. But with Oman on side as joint manager of the strait, may be this could be a concession worth looking at but only if there is a guarantee of free passage for all ships, plus of course, an agreement by Tehran to give up enriching uranium to a high grade. But it may be a step backwards too far for Trump who wants two days to think his thoughts. I guess he will say no, and then what?

Never take our eyes off North Korea

It is one of the most extraordinary things about this world that every so often there is another war and we all think the third world war is about to arrive. So the Russian war against Ukraine and the US/Israel war against Iran have consumed every newspaper, radio and TV station. Death and destruction and lives ruined, people made homeless, despair and desperation and poverty. But all this time, North Korea just carries on developing more and better long-range ballistic missiles, more and more nuclear warheads, more and more long-range artillery systems, cruise missiles and every other type of missile you can imagine. Does anyone do anything about it? No, because it is now what we expect North Korea and its scary leader Kim Jong-un to do. He is building a mighty fortress around his country and you hardly hear a whisper from Washington. Donald Trump has suggested he might have another go at meeting up with his "friend", Kim, but Kim can't be bothered to meet him. All he wants to do is dress up in his fancy leather coat that goes down to his ankles and watch as the latest ballistic and cruise missiles get fired off and then everyone around him claps and fawns over their leader. It's a total anathema, it's a blotch on the planet but it's there and will remain there and the world just gets on with other crises. North Korea is probably one of the gravest threats to world peace but Kim is left alone to get on with it.

The price of peace with Iran

A US/Iran “peace” deal on paper might bring the war to an end but what will it mean for the future of the Middle East, America’s standing in the region and the security of Israel? Even as President Trump’s negotiators and special mediators (Pakistan’s army chief and prime minister), were trying to finalise the wording of the memorandum of understanding laying down the principles of a peace settlement, the idea of a grand-design strategy was already under discussion. A contained or, better still, conciliatory regime in Tehran could make the difference between a future of constant warfare and a region blessed with prosperity and improving relations. At this stage, after a bitter war which has brought death and destruction to more than half a dozen countries in the Gulf region, it might seem overly optimistic to imagine that a tentative deal between Washington and Tehran might lead to a period of genuine stability, even possibly an element of trust between longstanding enemies. It looks out of the question at present with so much rivalry and hatred and enduring ideological differences. However, the Trump administration is intent on expanding the Abraham Accords, the deal that saw the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain sign an agreement to normalise diplomatic relations with Israel ion September 15, 2020, during Trump’s first term. With Israel’s military attacks against Hamas in Gaza and against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Tel Aviv government's refusal to countenance an independent Palestinian state, any further moves to bring countries such as Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords family had to be abandoned. The US/Israel war on Iran, even though supported by Gulf allies fearful of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, further postponed discussions with Washington over its grand-design concept for the Middle East. First, however, depending on the effectiveness and viability of a peace deal with Iran, the US will need to make key military decisions about its presence in the region over the next few years. It has become an axiom in western diplomatic circles that Iran can never be trusted to act in good faith. As a consequence, the US will have to retain a permanent aircraft carrier strike group in the region and preserve the 50,000 troop levels currently spread out in a number of Gulf nations. For the foreseeable future, while the negotiations continue to find a satisfactory nuclear deal with Tehran, it will be imperative to have all the military assets at a high state of readiness to impress on Tehran the need to reach a long-term agreement on the country’s uranium-enrichment programme. There are currently around 4,400 marines stationed on amphibious assault ships in the Gulf, about 3,000 combat soldiers from 82nd Airborne Division and hundreds of special operations troops, awaiting orders from Trump for action in Iran. They can’t stay there for ever but will have to remain during the proposed 30-day ceasefire extension. However, the US view on what military assets must stay in the region to deter Iran will conflict with the stance adopted by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). “Iran appears to believe that it is negotiating from a stronger position than the United States and is accordingly attempting to remake the regional order in a way that benefits Iran,” said the Institute for the Study of War in Washington. This suggests that whatever agreement is signed about reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the long-term plan of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, may be to retain some form of strategic control over the strait. For the purposes of the peace deal with Washington, however, Iran will no doubt initially play ball and reopen the waterway without imposing tolls on shipping, in return for the US lifting its naval blockade of all Iranian ports. The blockade which has involved two dozen US warships and about 150 aircraft, has been remarkably successful: more than 100 commercial ships have been prevented from entering or leaving the ports over the last six weeks. Iran has lost $450 million a day in trade. Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command, said the blockade had allowed “zero trade in and out of Iranian ports which has squeezed Iran economically.” Trump has vowed to keep the blockade going because it has been the best leverage against Tehran. But the required quid pro quo – lifting the blockade for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz – will force Admiral Cooper to stand the warships down. Key to guaranteeing the free passage of shipping through the strait in the future will be the presence of a European-led coalition-of-the-willing armada of ships to safeguard all vessels of every nationality. The UK has been in the lead in developing such a coalition. Provided this arrangement is not scuppered by a renewal of Iranian intervention, it could help repair relations between Trump and American allies in Europe which have become frazzled ever since the US launched its war on Iran without consultation on February 28. Trump was angry that European leaders didn’t instantly offer to help in the war on Iran. But if European navies can now play a significant role in ensuring the safety of shipping in the Gulf, Trump might come round to the view that Europe and Nato have a place after all alongside the US. Likewise, the end of the war in Iran would potentially have other positive diplomatic consequences, notably in the Middle East. But that would depend on something which Tehran has been insisting on since the negotiations began, the simultaneous ending of Israel’s war with Hezbollah. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s leader, has warned Trump that Hezbollah, supported and armed by Iran, would always remain a threat to Israeli security, and that he must have the right to protect his citizens by targeting the designated terrorist group whenever required. This will be a stumbling block for Trump’s dream of wrapping the Abraham Accords around all of America’s Arab allies which he sees as the best way to defend Israel long-term and build opposition to Iran. Ultimately, the goal must be more than just containing Iran. Trump says he has found the new leaders in Iran to be more practically-minded. An Iranian regime more intent on pursuing prosperity for its people than threatening Israel, and the Middle East in general, would be a result Trump could boast about for the rest of his presidential term and beyond.

Trump really does believe a deal with Iran is about to happen

Donald Trump is all smiles today. He is reasonably happy with the way the talks are going to end the war But he is also urging caution to demonstrate that he is not going to rush into a bad deal. He says he doesn't do bad deals ever. Certainly the signs in Tehran and around the Middle East are increasingly hopeful. Of course, as has happened before, it could still all go wrong, but I think this time the rulers in Tehran are keen to negotiate a deal to open the Strait of Hormuz. One problem is the supreme leader, Ayatollah Motjaba Khamenei. Very few people know where he is in hiding, and those that do, have to get messages couriered to him so that he can keep abreast of the state of the negotiations. He has to approve everything personally, and thus there are delays because apparently it can take days for the couriers to reach him. It's a bit like when Osama bin Laden was hiding in his compound in Abbotabad in Pakistan. Al-Qaeda, the terrorist organisation he founded, had to use trusted couriers to pass messages. It was thanks to this system that the CIA was able to track him down. They followed the main courier. Thus, bin Laden was finally traced and taken down. Now I'm not saying the same will happen to Mojtaba Khamenei, but you can bet Israel's Mossad are trying to pinpoint his location via the couriers. But they can't take him out becauae there is a ceasefire and Trump would be furious. He says the current Iranian leaders are more practical to deal with, and I assume that includes the supreme leader. So stay away, Mossad.

US naval blockade was the final nail in Iran's economic coffin

From defiance to a deal, the regime in Tehran has finally come to the conclusion the country cannot survive economically if the US naval blockade continues to slice huge chunks of income from the treasury coffers. The blockade, only imposed after everything else failed to get a peace settlement, has been remarkably successful. Ships going in and out of Iranian ports have been stopped by an array of US guided-missile destroyers. Last night US Central Command issued some fascinating statistics which underline why suddenly Tehran is at last interested in doing a deal with the Americans. Centcom said the warships had "redirected" - ie blocked - more than 100 commercial vessels since the action began on April 13. So, in six weeks, the US warships have stopped all ships entering and leaving the ports. In addition, they have disabled four and allowed 26 humanitarian aid ships to pass. The massive operation has involved both warhsips and aircraft. Centcom said 200 aircraft and warships had taken part - probably about a dozen warships and the rest were aircraft from the two aircraft carriers in the region, the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS George HW Bush, as well as fighters from the USS Tripoli amphibious ready group, part of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit. The blockade has targeted vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas. That means every port on the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of Centcom, said the blockade had allowed zero trade into and out of Iranian ports "which has squeezed Iran economically". One estimate is that Iran has lost $450 million in trade every day since the action began. Even the Tehran regime, having done the maths, realised it couldn't go on. So, a deal began to emerge. It's a renarkable achievement by the US Mavy and Marines.

Deal tenterhooks over Iran war

Not for the first time and probably not for the last time there is heightened talk of a possible imminent deal to end the war in Iran. It could all come to nothing like so often before but, despite all the fiery words from the regime in Tehran I cannot believe the relatively new and almost invisible supreme leader really wants his country to be subjected to another round of massive bombing by the US and Israel. The leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps go on about taking revenge in a way the world has not yet seen. But this is just words. Whatever is claimed, the previous round of bombing did huge damage to the IRGC's military machine, and a second phase will destroy whatever is left. So, this weekend, aware that Donald Trump has been talking with his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth about the options for launchig more attacks, Tehran seems to be wavering. Talks between the Iranian parliamentary speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and the canny Pakistan chief of staff of the army Field Marshal Syed Munir, in Tehran have obviously ended with some sort of formula. There is renewed talk of a memorandum of understanding, the phrase used by Trump when he set down 30 wish-list objectives, the most important of which is the reopening of free passage for all shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. If Tehran agrees to stop interfering in the strait that will be a huge plus for Trump, even though the strait was open before he launched attacks on Iran on February 28. The nuclear issue may well be ppstponed for a later date. This is not such a big plus for Trump because his principal mantra is that Iran cannot ever have a nuclear weapon. Let's see how close the Iranian memorandum of understanding is to Trump's memorandum of understanding. I guess there will be significant differences, but maybe, just maybe, the wording will be less abrasive and more amenable to Trump's demands.

Trump has to "win" the war in Iran before midterms

If the war with Iran is still going on by the midterm elections in November, Donald Trump could be a big loser. The Republicans could lose the House of Representatives and maybe even the Senate. So the president has less than six months to find a solution which he would be able to describe as a victory. Iran is not going to help him. In fact with this setting up of the so-called Persian Gulf Strait Authority which Tehran intends to use as a way of charging all ships fees for passing through the chokepoint (possibly sharing the funds with Oman across the water), it means the Islamic revolutionary rulers in Iran will become the Mafia bosses of the strait. It's protection money - "you pay a fee or else we attack you and burn your ship". Trump could never describe that as a victory. Likewise, if the nuclear issue is not reolved that will also prevent Trump from ending the war satisfactorily. One way or another, those 440.9 kilos of 60-per-cent-enriched uranium, lying buried under damaged nuclear plants, has to be uncovered and sent out of Iran. If not, it will remain a permanent worry for the White House and for the Middle East, and for all of us. So, what can Trump do in the next six months to save Congress from being handed to the Democrats in November? Restart widescale bombing of military targets might look good but what will it actually achieve? Giving in to Iran's Strait of Hormuz blackmail would be a political disaster. So there is only one option for Trump. He must tell Tehran that he plans to redouble the blockade of all Iranian ports for an indefinite period unless Iran stops interfering in the Strait of Hormuz. And as an added warning, Trump should tell Tehran that if it fails to back away from the strait, he will order the Pentagon to bomb every nuclear site for a period of two weeks until they are totally destroyed. Then see what the mullahs do!

Iran tries to make control of the Strait of Hormuz official

Iran is getting more confident about taking over the Strait of Hormuz. It has formed a special authority to be in charge of the key part of the chokepoint in order to dictate who can go through and who can't and to charge a fee. It's outrageous but the regime in Tehran has geography on its side and it's going to be a huge challenge for Donald Trump and the whole shipping world. What in practical terms can Trump do to prevent Iran absorbing the strait under its control? It doesn't seem to matter how many aircraft carriers the US Navy sends to the Gulf or how many guided-missile destroyers. The fact is, the Iranians are sitting pretty on their land overlooking the strait and they have most of the cards in their hands. Unless, of course, Trump authorises a massive military operation to seize a chunk of Iranian coastline and put troops everywhere to make sure ships get through without being interfered with or charged. Just bombing everything won't make a difference. It has to be troops on the ground. But Iran knows for sure Trump doesn't want to do that. So before the US/Israeli strikes began on February 28, tankers and other vessels were passing through the strait without any interference from Iran. Now it has totally changed. So the war has made things worse, not better. As for the nuclear issues, that is still in limbo. So, where are we, nearly twelve weeks into the war? We've gone backwards, everything is worse than it was before February 28.Someone very clever has to sort this out once and for all. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS, AMAZON.

UK government hits a storm over lifting of Russian oil ban

It couldn't have come at a worse time. The Labour government in UK has eased the ban on Russian oil imports because of the crisis over supply. It's not crude oil but refined oil for jet fuel and diesel and it's refined in India and Turkey. But it's still Russian oil. So, great news for Putin and his war effort in Ukraine and bad news for the UK which is supposed to be one of the leading nations helping Ukraine to fight off the Russians. It's also bad timing because in a few weeks there is to be a by-election up in Makerfield when Labour leader contender Andy Burnham hopes to become an MP and stand against Keir Starmer. The Labour government decision to buy Russian oil will play badly for Burnham. Perhaps that's why Starmer made the announcement! The Conservatives and Reform party will focus on this decision at the by-election and, who knows, Burnham might well lose. The reality is that every country is now faced with having to make huge decisions about energy supplies because of the war in Iran. The Strait of Hormuz is closed, so none of the refined oil coming out of the Gulf states which the UK previously relied on, is getting through which is why Labour has had to turn to India and Turkey for jet fuel and diesel. But it started off as Russian oil. So it looks really really bad. The US did the same but not for themselves. Washington just said Russian fuel that was already on its way to be refined for countries that desperately needed it could go ahead. All in all, the war in Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has played into Putin's hands very nicely. This guy really does get away with everything. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. YOU WILL LOVE IT. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Putin is losing the war in Ukraine

I never thought I would say it but Putin has effectively lost the war in Ukraine. He may still occupy 20 per cent of the territory but his troops haven't gained an inch in extra land in the Donbas region for months, and the Ukrainian military's amazing development of counter-drone interceptors, costing a mere $1,000 each, has transformed the battlefield, making it almost impossible for the Russians to carry out successful drone raids. Ukraine, on the other hand, has launched hundreds of long-range drones into Russia, getting as far as the outskirts of Moscow and have hit oil terminals, airbases and power plants. The war is now as much in Russia as it is in Ukraine. This is a staggering achievement by Ukraine, backed now by Europe instead of the US. Everything has gone wrong for Putin. The Russian people are at last waking up to the realisation that their leader is waging a war that is destroying their stability, wrecking the economy and killing hundreds of thousands of their menfolk. The Ukraine fight back has gone through various stages. There was a moment two years ago when it looked as if Russia would grab much more territory and Ukraine would be begging for mercy. But that didn't last long. Ukraine kept going and now the Russian troops must be disillusioned, terrified and desperate to go home. The Ukrainian warfighting industry is the best in the world, everyone wants to learn from them. Sometime this year, Putin will sue for peace, I predict.

Bomb (sorry clock) is ticking for Iran

Donald Trump is preparing to bomb Iran again. He said the clock is ticking but he meant the bomb is ticking, and he has added the extra titbit that if Tehran doesn't sign a peace deal, the US will effectively destroy Iran, by which I assume he means he will annihilate the country's energy infrastructure. I very much doubt he will go ahead and do this. The world would accuse him of an international war crime if he deliberately targets and destroys every power station and oil terminal and gas field. And that wouldn't solve the world's oil crisis anyway and it wouldn't open up the Strait of Hormuz because facing ruin and disaster, the hardline rulers of Iran will fight back and keep the strait shut for ever. Trump's best option is to do everything he and the military can to force open the strait and forget about bombing Iran's energy plants. But that will mean troops on the ground. If Tehran refuses to play ball, then it may be the only thing left for Trump to do. Boots on the ground and the casaulties that will inevitably follow would, however, make Trump's popularity rating, already historically low, take a deep dive, and the mid-term elections in November will end the Republicans' chances of retaining control of the Senate and House of Representatives. It's tricky being prsident of the United States.

The UK in political shambles

This poor country has had so many political upheavals in recent years it is hardly surprising everything seems so depressing and down-at-heel and pessimistic and dreary. All political leaders promise to change things and make everyone happy but invariably fail. In fact most of the time they achieve the opposite. This is the case with the government of Keir Starmer. All the promises have fallen by the wayside. Growth in the economy is minimal, everyone is over-taxed, borrowing by the gobernment is sky-high which means having to pay billions of pounds in interest - what a waste - young people can't get jobs and can't afford housing, and millions upon millions of people are living off benefits. It's a dire situation. Amidst all of this bad news, the Labour government which won a huge majority at the last election is disintegrating. Keir Starmer is surviving as prime minister by his fingertips and probably for not much longer, and eager contenders for the top job are queuing up and stabbing everyone in the back in the process. Everyone seems to think that Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, will be the great Labour hope, provided he wins a by-election to become an MP again. But what has he really done in his political career so far to give us voters any sense of excitement that he will be The One. The same for the other contenders, Wes Streeting who speaks like a robot, Ed Milliband, who led the Labour party in opposition and was ineffectual, and Angela Rayner, a character no qiestion but a political liability, backed by the unions which means some pretty daft socialist ideas in her head. So whoever steals the premiership from Starmer is going to have to start all over again and instil some sense and intelligence and bravery into the whole political system. Will any of these candidates for Number 10 have a real clue how to go about it? WHAT YOU NEED IS SOME ENTERTAINMENT. SO BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Trump tells Taiwan not to go for self-determination

There have been two comments from Donald Trump since he left Beijing which will alarm Taiwan. First he gave no promise that he would authorise the $14 billion in arms package which Congress has presented to the White House, and, second, he warned Taiwan not to go for self-determination. Well, first of all, the US has been supplying arms to Taiwan for ever to help them defend against a possible attack from China, and it would be an extraordinary move if he stopped the weapons sales, although it would be greeted with hurrays by Beijing if he did. Second of all, Taiwan already sees itself as an independent country, separated both geographically and politically from what is always called mainland China. It has a flourishing economy and is the world's largest producer of micro-chips. Taiwan does not want to become another Hong Kong, independent to a degree but still governed and controlled by Beijing. But of course Hong Kong was in a different situation. It was a British colony with a leae that ran out in the 1990s and Britain had no choice but to hand it back to China. Taiwan, formerly known as Formosa, became a republic when it broke away from Beijing after the Chinese civil war in 1949. So, there is no expiring lease as with Hong Kong. But for Trump to tell Taiwan that it should not go for self-determination is a bit rich when the Taiwanese consider themselves to be a totally separate and self-governing republic. These words will have pleased Beijing no end. Trump also said he didn't want to have to travel 9,500 miles to fight a war with China. What does that tell Taiwan, and what does it tell Beijing? PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Donald Trump and Xi Zinping best mates

They certainly made every effort to show that they wanted to be friends, or at least partners in strategic stability, as the Chinese president preferred to put it. The Chinese leader is always full of these sort of homilies. He loves the big language, the elegant phrases, to sum up relationships with other countries. Trump is more direct, he just likes to tell everyone how well they got on. But the big summit in China between Trump and Xi got off to a tricky start when the Chinese president insisted that Taiwan was at the forefront of the relationship he woud have with Trump. In other words, he was telling Trump to leave Taiwan well alone because it was a matter for Beijing to sort out and had nothing to do with Washington. Not once did Trump mention how he might help Taiwan if China tried to take it by force. So, unless something else was said in private to give Xi concerns about how Trump would respond to an attack on Taiwan, the Chinese leader will no doubt be satisfied that he got his message across nice and early. The rest of the summit was all about trade and AI and the need for a fair and just partnership on the global stage. Trump came away with claims of huge success and big deals. But I suspect Xi was also very satisfied with the way things had gone. Over the next few days we will probably get different versions of the summit. But at least there were no diplomatic hiccups.

Trump's dilemma over Strait of Hormuz

With its control of the Strait of Hormuz, the hardline regime in Tehran is holding “a gun to our head”, a former American intelligence and defence chief has warned. CIA director and then defence secretary in the Obama administration, Leon Panetta has a sombre assessment of President Trump’s chances of ending the war in Iran with a satisfactory settlement. “My sense is that it’s very likely this war which was supposed to end after six to eight weeks, is probably going to continue for a number of months,” he told The Times. “This is because we have not found the key to how we achieve, not just a continuing ceasefire, but a resolution to some of the crucial issues which will then allow us to end the war. The president, frankly, has very few options,” he said. Trump has rejected as “garbage” Tehran’s latest response to the White House one-page memorandum of understanding which laid down the principles for a settlement that would be acceptable to the president, including the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, the ending of all uranium-enrichment and the disavowal of any ambition to build a nuclear weapon. Trump has met with military leaders to discuss possible options for a new phase of attacks on Iran, aimed at forcing Tehran to come round to Trump’s way of thinking. But Panetta sees little point in resorting to more bombing. “I question whether additional military action is going to produce any real change in the regime. They’ve been able to withstand a great deal, and from our own intelligence the indication is that they can continue to withstand that kind of impact. So I’m not sure military action provides a key to trying to apply leverage right now,” he said. “The president is going to have to decide: does he continue to seek some kind of quick end to the war? If so, that means he’s got to deal with the Strait of Hormuz, and, at the very least, he has to provide a negotiating mechanism for the nuclear issue. But that process is not there right now,” he said. As CIA director between 2009 and 2011, Panetta was in overall charge of the agency's successful tracking of Osama bin Laden to a compound in Abbottabad in Pakistan. The al-Qaeda leader was shot dead by Seal Team Six special operations troops on May 2, 2011. Panetta served as US defence secretary from 2011 to 2013 during which he lifted the ban on women serving in combat roles and was responsible for implementing President Obama’s decision to pivot more naval power to the Asia-Pacific region to counter China’s rapidly growing military presence. Could Trump, despite his proclaimed reluctance, send troops into Iran to sort out both the reopening of the strait and recover the 400 kilos of highly-enriched uranium buried under at least two sites that were bombed in last June’s Operation Midnight Hammer mission carried out by US and Israeli bombers? “The only justification for putting boots on the ground is if you want to make sure that Iran never controls the Strait of Hormuz,” Panetta said. “When I was secretary of defence, [we concluded] you’ve got to have enough troops to cover 50 miles on each side of the Strait of Hormuz and 100 miles further in to control that entire area. There will be casualties as a result of that kind of effort.” He said there was no support in the US for a mission of that kind - which could require around 200,000 troops - either in Congress or among American people. “The only other way to approach this is to recognise that Iran will have some control, but that the main passage will be operated by an allied coalition which will guarantee free movement of ships without fees. I think that’s a preferable approach. But at this moment in time, Iran has a gun to our head with the closure of the strait. Somehow, we’ve got to find a way to make sure that that gun is not there.” “The reality is, we always knew that Iran would ultimately close the Strait of Hormuz, and we should have had a plan,” he said. “We missed that opportunity. As long as the strait remains closed, as long as they continue to put tremendous pressure on the US and the world economy, we’re not going to get anywhere because they have the leverage.” Reopening the Strait of Hormuz should be the priority for the moment, he said. The nuclear issue could only be resolved with long negotiations, involving experts on both sides who specialised in the subject. Panetta said he wasn’t impressed by Trump’s two negotiators, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law. “They are just two business guys from New York,” he said. “If Iran refuses to deal with the nuclear issue, we always know what the ultimate option is, and in many ways, it’s the gun we have [vis a vis] Iran. They have got to negotiate some kind of approach here, or they will continue to face attacks with regards to their nuclear capability. So, each side is in this situation where they’re waiting for the other side to blink. In many ways, they both consider the other side to be a paper tiger.” He emphasised that both sides’ priority should be to end the war. “rather than continue with this hit and miss approach to the ceasefire, this hit and miss approach to the Strait of Hormuz, and have this thing just continue to ultimately become another permanent Middle East war.” “My biggest concern is that we cannot trust the regime. It’s a hardline regime. We have to wake up to the fact that the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] and the military basically run that country right now. I can’t trust them and I don’t think the United States can trust them,” Panetta said. “I think they’re also in a position where they wonder if they can trust Donald Trump as president, to stand by whatever agreement is made. My greatest fear is that within another four to five years, no matter if we arrive at any kind of agreement, that ultimately the United States and Israel will be back at war,” he said. Apart from rocketing energy prices around the world as a result of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the other negative repercussions of the war in Iran has been the deterioration in the Transatlantic alliance after European leaders largely refused to back Trump’s war. “[It’s] a period where the United States is increasingly acting alone in terms of whatever objective it’s trying to achieve, and the experience in my 50 years of public life is that the US, if it wants to protect our security, cannot afford to just act on its own.” BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS

Trump's Golden Dome missile shield will cost more than expected!!!

What surprises me is that anyone in Washington should be surprised that a congressional report claims Donald Trump's Golden Dome space-based anti-missile interceptor programme is going to cost, wait for it, $1.2 trillion instead of $175 billion. There is no such thing as an affordable missile shield aimed at preventing any or all missiles fired at your country from wherever. Ronald Reagan discovered that when he came up with his famous Star Wars project in the 1980s. He envisioned a total shield consisting of lasers and particle beams and goodness knows what sitting on platforms in space but it just ran ran ran out of money and was largely abandoned, although all the work done then will no doubt help the Trump Golden Dome concept. But it still won't be affordable. And the truth is that no system will be fullproof, so the word 'shield' is over-egging it. I'm sure Trump will pursue it and get Pete Hegseth to try and deliver the goods. But if at the end of the day the programme really will cost $1.2 trillion or possibly a lot more, then Congress might just dismiss it out of hand. The Pentagon has put forward a defence spending plan for next year of $1.5 trillion, a 40 per cent increase on last year's request. That's a seriously huge increase. But how much of that wil go towards the Golden Dome? I haven't managed to spot the answer yet. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Trump will find it hard to outsmart Xi Zinping

Trump will want to come away from his trip to Beijing with a long list of successes. But if all he gets is a pledge by the Chinese leader Xi Zinping to buy more soya beans from American farmers - one of the things on his to-do list - then that will be a very small diplomatic achievement. Basically, what he wants is for Xi to say he will intervene with the Iranians to open the Strait of Hormuz, probably with the quid pro quo that the US lifts its blockade of Iranian ports. That would be good news indeed. In fact such an arrangement would make a lot of sense. The trouble is, Iran has geography on its side, and once the US warships have gone home, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will still be there and they can interfere with the Strait whenever they want. But if China backs the deal, then there might be a reasonable chance of it sticking, at least for the forseeable future. The Strait of Hormuz is the absolute key to this crisis. Trump hasn't got the combat manpower in the region to force open the strait, so a deal via Beijing will have to do. But Xi will want a lot in return, like a new arrangement for getting hold of US technology, a lifting of trade tariffs and, best of all, a softer line on Taiwan. Will Trump be prepared to offer such concessions in return for a guaranteed agreement over the strait? He will be tempted.

When Taiwan is raised Trump must remember to stick to the script

The question of Taiwan and Beijing's insistence that the the breakaway republic must be brought back into the Chinese fold has caused problems for previous US presidents. Sticking to the strict format of words to emphasis the American diplomatic approach towards Taiwan has been the crucial factor in developing relations with Beijing. The approach is called strategic ambiguity. In other words, the US agrees not to support Taiwan's battle for independence from Beijing but also does not back China's ambitions to reabsorb the island under its wing. President Joe Biden on four occasions forgot about the carefully drafted words and told questioning reporters that if China invaded Taiwan, the US military would rush to defend the Taiwanese. Each time officials had to clarify his response to point out that the US policy on Taiwan had not changed. Now Donald Trump is heading for Beijing for a two-day meeting with President Xi Zinping, and there are officials in Washington who are keeping their fingers crossed that the president doesn't change the wording of the script and say something that will give hope to Beijing that the US policy has altered. Like, for example, instead of saying that the US does not support Taiwanese independence he might tell Xi he, Trump, opposes Taiwan's independence. Only one word difference but it would be huge for Beijing. No one knows for sure what Trump might say. But there is a possibility he might think he could persuade Xi to urge Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in return for a change in the language over Taiwan. He probably won't but Trump has proved on numerous occasions that he is unpredictable, which is why US officials are so anxious about this summit between Trump and Xi.

Trump and Xi Zinping, two Big Guys

Iran has given its response to the latest US proposal to end the war but we don't yet know what it consists of. But will it give the one thing Donald Trump is desperate to hear: that Iran will not interfere in the Strait of Hormux and will allow international shipping to use the waterway free of charge? If so, then Trump will fly off to Beijing this coming week with a big smile on his face. He needs to be able to tell President Xi Zinping that the oil crisis is over. But I fear that Iran will have responded im a very different way which means Trump's crucial meeting with the Chinese leader on May 14 and 15 will go ahead on a bad footing for the American president. Trump needs to demonstrate to his Chinese counterpart that he has the power to control events and that the war with Iran is effectively over. Instead, he will have to admit to Xi that he hasn't yet found the solution to ending the war. This is likely to have an impact on the two days of talks which Trump would prefer to focus on trade and Taiwan and artificial intelligence. Trump had postponed the meeting with XI in order to have more time to sort out Iran. But Iran and the replaced regime have proved more resilient than expected, and now there is a very real possibility that the war could go on for many more months.

UFOs are back in the news

Amidst all the news about the war in Iran, the continued fighting in Ukraine, the cruise ship with some ghastly rat virus on board and everything else going wrong in this world, it is a relief to read more reports of UFOs courtesy of the Pentagon. Donald Trump has ordered the Pentagon and intelligence services to make public all the decades of classified reports on Unidentified Flying Objects. Many reports have been published over the years, but this time Trump wants everything released to put paid to the con[piracy theory that the US government has been hiding aliens and has been concealing evidence of real alien spaceships. Judging by the latest report today there is nothing new to say. Lots of fun stuff but no confirmation that the objects spotted are being driven by little green or blue aliens. As one wonderful American astronomer said on an American TV news channel, if there are aliens around why are they just visiting the US, why aren't they going to other interesting countries, "like Bulgaria". UFOs are fun but generally there's some sort of explanation for these sightings. However, Barack Obama said the other day that he believed there probably were aliens on another planet but he had seen no evidence, and he was the president of the US for eight years.But let's have a look at whatever else the Pentagon has locked away. You just never know!

Can Iran ever be trusted?

Even if a deal is signed and sealed and the war is over, can Iran be trusted to abide by the agreement? Under its revolutionary regime, there is little incentive for the Iranian rulers to abide by anything agreed with the hated United States. One of the items being discussed apparently as part of a settlement is a promise by Iran not to build any more underground bunkers for uranium-enrichment production. But Iran is doing just that right now with its so-called Pickaxe Mountain facility south of the nuclear plant at Natanz. At this new complex which is still under construction, the bunkers are buried 2,000ft under granite, beyond even the biggest of America's bombs to reach. US satellites have spotted Iranian workers piling in concrete to make it the most invulnerable nuclear bunker they have ever built. Will this be dismantled under a deal with the US? If not, it will provide Iran with the perfect underground plant to continue enriching uranium to bomb-grade level. The nuclear issue, the mnost important one to address, is nowhere near being resolved. The talk at present is for a moratorium on enriching uranium beyond the acceptable 3.67 per cent which can be used for medical purposes. The deal will also have Iran agreeing in writing not to develop nuclear weapons. But they have already done the hard graft and are closer than they have ever been to producing a bomb. Obviously at present, with the US firepower in the region ready to strike, there has been no evidence of Iran trying to recover the 440 kilos of 60 per cent-enriched uranium lying buried in canisters at Isfahan and Natanz. If there is a peace deal, the contingency plan for US special forces to attempt to grab the uranium is off the books. That means, Iran's ambition to possess a nuclear bomb will never go away.