American troops leave Iraq for good

The last American soldiers from a two-decade military commitment in Iraq have finally withdrawn from the sole-remaining base at Erbil in the north of the country. About 100 British troops have also been withdrawn, unable to stay without US logistical and intelligence back-up. Unlike the chaotic evacuation of thousands of US troops and petrified Afghans from Afghanistan in 2021, this was a quiet, unopposed withdrawal of a few hundred American soldiers. So ends the presence of US forces in Iraq, perceived by the Baghdad government as a sign of increasing confidence in its ability to keep the country’s enemies at bay. However, since the decision was taken by President Joe Biden in September 2024 to remove all US troops from Iraq by September 30 this year, the Middle East dynamics have changed dramatically. The US is at war with Iran, Iranian proxy militias are ever-present in Iraq, plotting attacks on American forces in the region, and the influence of Tehran on the Baghdad government has grown exponentially. The underlying threats and the continuing responsibility of the US to monitor the region and act militarily if required were highlighted by Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command who oversaw the troop-withdrawal from Erbil. “As we step back and hand full primary responsibility for Iraq’s security to the government of Iraq and the brave people of Iraq, the US and coalition forces stationed across the region will remain ready to respond to any Isis [Islamic State] threats that arise,” he said. Operation Inherent Resolve, codename for the US-led coalition mission against Isis in Iraq and Syria, formed when the terrorist group seized huge swathes of territory in both countries and declared an Islamic caliphate, will remain in being. However, from now on, the counter-Isis mission will be headquartered in Jordan. Many of the 1,500 American and coalition forces based at Erbil, capital of Kurdistan in northern Iraq, will transfer to Jordan. The RAF will continue to fly over Syria to combat the remnants of Isis but it is unclear whether they have permission to fly over Iraq. America’s military involvement in Iraq is a tale of many woes which have been exhaustively chronicled since the decision by President George W Bush to invade the country in 2003 to topple its leader, Saddam Hussein, and remove the Iraqi dictator’s suspected hidden weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence failed then, and failed again when, after Bush had declared “Mission Accomplished” on May 1, 2003, an al-Qaeda-led insurgency erupted across Iraq, leading to the birth of the Islamic State, forcing the US to stay put and face an enemy bent on murderous revenge against the western occupiers. America’s military commitment in Iraq effectively lasted 23 years, from 2003 to 2026, although there was a period, from 2011 to 2014, where none were present. Baghdad appealed to the US and coalition partners, including Britain, in 2014 to redeploy troops to help destroy Isis, although in an advise-and-assist capacity. The lessons from those two decades have been sobering for the US military. Political mistakes made in Washington and by Bush’s envoy, Paul Bremer, sent to Baghdad to administrate the post-Saddam era, quadrupled the challenges they faced. The US-led coalition had to counter the growing intensity and violence of the insurgents who, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Iran today, learnt how to adapt warfare techniques to confront a superpower army. Specifically, the insurgents who evolved into Isis used improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and cheap, off-the-shelf commercial drones with grenades attached to kill and maim. The biggest political mistake which complicated the job of the thousands of American troops during this period was the decision by the Bush administration to launch a nation-building programme to turn Iraq into a democracy-loving ally while at the same time getting rid of the country’s army and civil service, sent home for being Baathist loyalists to Saddam. It left a vacuum which was exploited by the insurgents whose numbers were multiplied by disillusioned Baathists who joined up. The impact for the US-led coalition and for the Iraqi people was devastating. Nearly 4,600 American troops were killed between 2003 and 2026. It has been estimated that between 187,000 and 211,000 Iraqi civilians died from violent action during the same period. US Central Command is now on overwatch from Jordan, as well as at other forward-operating bases spread throughout the Middle East. But will the absence of American troops in Iraq, albeit in relatively limited numbers, pose greater risks for the region as a whole? Could Isis revive? Will Iran benefit? The lesson from Afghanistan, where no residual US force was left as an insurance policy, cannot be ignored. Jasim al-Bahadli, an Iraqi security analyst, told Reuters: “Iran stands to benefit strategically from the coalition departure because it removes a military presence that for years acted as a counter-weight to Tehran’s influence in Iraq.” He also warned that Iran’s militant proxies in Iraq would seek to gain more influence over Baghdad’s security and political decision-making.

The "terror bomb plot" at RAF Fairford

Is it possible that everyone, from President Trump and Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, to all the top bosses of the UK's counter-terrorism organisations, are going to end up with egg on their face? The investigation into the alleged bomb plot against the base used by American bombers to bomb Iran is steadily going downhill. At first it was all apocalypse now: five men in balaclavas in three vans suspected of carrying explosives heading for the base. It looked cut and dried: an attempt by unknown men, possibly linked in some way to Iran, taking revenge on the base for striking Iranian targets. The regime in Tehran, notably the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leaders, had warned that RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire would be a legitimate target for revenge attacks. So, it wasn't surprising that the police announced they had stopped the three vans and arrested the suspects. A brilliant operation all neatly tied up. To help with the drama, Trump declared that he knew all about it, that the men had been followed and the plot had been anticipated. He congratulated the British for stopping what could have been a big hit on the controversial base. But the five men, all British nationals in their twenties from London, were released on bail! What on earth was that about? Suspects in a terror plot released on bail less than 24 hours after they were arrested? And where were the explosives for this plot? Nowhere, declared the bomb squad. There are so many questions not being answered that one can only make the assumption that the initial fears of a terrorist attack were not based on fact, let alone prior intelligence. After all, it was the 999 call from a farmer (female) tipping off the police that she had seen three vans and five men in balaclavas which launched the massive armed police response. If there are no explosives, what will these men be charged with, and what on earth were they up to? You don't wander around the countryside in the early hours wearing balaclavas for fun and games. It gets more and more mysterious and it may just all fall apart.

US midterms could be a blue wash

The way things are going for Donald Trump at the moment - vis a vis the war with Iran, steeply rising cost of petrol and diesel, cost of living in general - the Democrats are going to sweep the board in the midterm elections in November. It could mean the Democrats seizing control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, a result which would be disastrous for Trump and his final two years in the White House. But the big question is this: where are the Democratic leaders, who is rising to the top to challenge the Republicans in the presidential election in 2028? There is no one with the right stuff coming forward as far as I can see. Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, looks to be the most likely top candidate but is he the sort of politician capable of changing back the United States to the country it used to be before Trump arrived on the scene? I doubt it. Other potential candidates such as Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg tried and failed the last time. They don't look or sound like winners. This is a major problem for the Democrats. They may be looking forward to a good midterms election but can they see beyond it to 2028? The country awaits.

Trump rejects Iran's peace offer

Donald Trump didn't take long to dismiss Iran's new peace offer. The reason is not difficult to understand. Effectively, Iran wanted all the goodies available first before opening the Strait of Hormuz: a lifting of the US naval blockade, an end to all conflict across the region, including Lebanon and Yemen, and the ban on Iranian oil to be lifted. Then and only then would Iran be prepared to talk about everything else, such as the nuclear programme. Trump doesn't like to have the terms dictated to him and not only said no but also suggested that after the midterm elections in the US in November he could be back to bombing Iran once again. That was presumably said to put the maximum pressure on the Tehran regime to accept Trump's terms which would be - open the Strait of Hormuz totally and then we'll talk. It's a game of bluff and counter-bluff. Iran said that if the US returns to strikes, it is ready to retaliate. What we do know now, thanks to revelations about the huge damage done to US bases in the Gulf region from Iranian ballistic-missile and drone attacks, is that Iran can retaliate in a big way. So, Trump must be hoping that the economic crisis for Iran, deprived of any income from oil sales, will fall to its knees and beg for mercy. This is what should happen, but I fear it won't. Trump has an enemy he can't really fathom.

Iran offers new deal

It is one of those ironies that if there is to be a deal between Iran and the United States to stop the war it will probably be something like or something very like the 14-point Memorandum of Understanding that was drawn up by the Trump administration and Iran and then fell apart after someone stupid in the Islanic Revolutionary Guard Corps decided to attack a ship in the Strait of Hormuz. The main ingredients of the memorandum are being picked over by the US and Iran, but basically what it says will probably do. The Iranian foreign minister has produced a slightly revised version, suggesting that instead of waiting 60 days for talks to begin on Iran's nuke programme after the war has come to an end, it could be just seven days. That's really the only change being offered. Since the US was happy with the Memorandum of Understanding, the Trump administration might as well go for the new idea. Why not? If Washington thought the memorandum was ok in Jine, then why should it not think it's ok today? Go for it and end the war and bring to a close the nightmare economic crisis around the world.

No leader knows how to cope with the world anymore

As Donald Trump and Xi Zinping meet for their summit in Washington you wonder whether either of them has a clue about how to save the world from a rapid downhill journey to chaos. If it's not wars, it's AI or economic disaster. There is much pageantry and handshakes but whatever the two leaders agree to will make very little difference. Why? Because they have almost nothing in common. President Xi Zinping wants China to be the dominating economic force on the planet, and Trump thinks the US IS the dominating force on the planet and won't let go. People who want to have their own home, their own ability to feed their families, and forge their own future play little part in this big-power battle. Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, has come up with some sort of alternative way for the world's divisions based on multi-culturism but it's all just words. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair announced a Third Way but whoever hears about that these days? There is no plan for the world ahead. Massive climate change is going ahead whatever anyone does, AI will destroy the world's workforce and no one will be able to afford to drive their cars, whether petrol- or electrical-driven. Big summits like the one we have in Washington today solve nothing. They just tinker round the edges.

Fire and brimstone from Donald Trump

Donald Trump used his speech before the UN General Assembly to warn that he had it in mind to "annihilate" Iran. To achieve that, he will need a heck of a lot of bombs and missiles and in the process could kill a lot of civilians. So, it's just rhetoric. But if he isn't going to do it, why give such a warning at the UN which is supposed to be all about respecting countries' sovereighty and rights? Well, he did also say there could ne negotiations, and the president of Iran, who was present, was listening and soon after we heard that Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy, had met up with the Iranian foreign minister in a room somewhere in the UN. Probably nothing will come of it. But there is always hope. Trump does not want to restart the war, not with the midterm elections just a few weeks away. He wants a deal above all else. Iran will be hoping to have enough leverage to ensure it gets a deal it likes. Trump won't care too much provided the Strait of Hormuz is opened and running smoothly and there is a clause which guarantees Iran will never seek to build a nuclear weapon. He will say that's a victory even though that was exactly the position before the US and Israel attacked Iran on February 28. What, in other words, was the war all about?

Andy Burnham to Saudi Arabia's rescue

Out of the blue, Andy Burnham has announced that he has approved the deployment of an RAF midair refuelling tanker to help Saudi Arabia in its fight against the Houthis in Yemen. When asked for help, Donald Trump said no, not wanting to get involved in yet another war. But a phone call to London, and suddenly the UK is happy to help out. I don't know how meaningful it is to send a tanker to the Saudis. But the timing is so obvious a three-year-old could work it out. Burnham has left for New York today for the United Nations General Assembly where he has fixed to have a special meeting with Trump. That's it, it's the real reason for the tanker. Burnham can boast to Trump that the UK is helping him in his Middle East war. Trump has been pretty pissed off with the UK government for failing to give full support for his war against Iran. Even though UK bases were used for some of the strikes on Iran, when Keir Starmer gave his aporoval, subsequently supported by Burnhan, the strikes were limited to defensive missions, ie when defending US and Gulf assets from attack. Although the line between offensive and defensive is pretty muddy, it was an attempt by the UK government to keep out of the war per se. Now, Burnham, having seen that Trumnp was reluctant to help out the Saudis against the Houthis, realised this was an opening for him. That may be a bit cynical but I can just imagine the arguments that must have gone on in Number Ten. Anyway, it's almost bound to achieve the result Burnham wanted which is a friendly session with Trump in New York.

Trump's triumphal arch with drone and sniper accessories

Donald Trump has come up with a brilliant idea. Instead of just building a 250ft-high Arc de Trump near the Arlington cemetery as part of his architectural legacy, he has decided to placate all his critics by announcing that in reality it's going to be a super stronghold for drones and snipers to protect Washington in particular and the whole country in general. He really does plan to stuff the golden arch with drones and men in boilersuits with fancy rifles. He did the same for his ballroom, after knocking down the whole east wing of the White House. It wasn't going to be just a place for dancing and banquets, no no no, it was going to house underneath a massive new security bunker for his safety and the safety of the nation. So a ballroom and an arch will be just a front for a military power base. The super bunker I can understand but an arch full of drones? For what purpose exactly? According to Trump, he was asked to include a storage place for drones by the Pentagon and so he obliged by offering his planned arch. Of course, it's all about politics. What Trump wants he gets, but to avoid criticism and prevent legal action, he can quote national security, the be-all-and-end-all excuse for getting something past any opposition, whether it be local residents or the courts. It's a smart move but almost laughable.

Donald Trump versus fake news

Ever since he became president the first time round, Donald Trump has raged against the media, claiming they pedal fake news. What he really means is that certain parts of the media don't like him and, therefore, write and report negative stories about him and his administration. There's a huge difference, but Trump sees all these stories as fake, ie made-up, deliberately aimed at harming his presidency and attacking him in person. There is no question that much of the media in Washington, newspapers and TV stations, are generally opposed to Trump and all his works. But then so is an increasing number of politicians and citizens in the US. His poll ratings are wildly unfavourable. Does that mmake opinion polls fake news, too? The latest organisations to be selected for Trump's anger are CNN, Politico and MS Now (a TV channel). Their journalists are all banned from entering the White House which means they can't attend any of his press briefings or other events. The reporting credentials have been axed. This is a sign of Trump's increasing determination to eliminate any stories which are critical of him. It won't work, of course. CNN will carry on doing what it does, whether it has reporters inside the White House or not. It's very easy to shout "Fake News" but I don't think his latest attempt to suppress freedom of speech, enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, will make a blind bit of difference, except make it a lot more challenging for the banned news organisations to do their job.

Trump gets his way in Greenland but only sort of

Well, there's a Greenland deal after months of negotiations, threats and warnings (the latter two by Donald Trump). No one has seen the small print yet and it won't be unveiled until next week at the UN General Assembly in New York. But it looks like it will grant carte blanche for the US to massively extend its military presence on the island, and a clause which stipulates that neither Russia nor China can ever ever put a foot on the place. So, there really isn't much more for the US than it had already under the 1951 treaty which granted the US the right to have a military base in the north of the island for missile-tracking. But Trump wants to develop his Golden Dome anti-missile shield over the US and if it ever goes ahead, Greenland will no doubt have a bigger role to play. So it makes sense both for the US and for American allies if there is a more substantial facility on Greeland. But it could probably have been done under the old treaty which allowed for the US to extend its facilties if it needed to. So all the hooha from Trump about wanting to take over the whole of Greenland - ie snatching its sovereignty from the islanders and extricating overall ownership fromn Denmark - was unnecessary, although Trump no doubt thinks that if he hadn't made such a fuss, neither Greenland nor Denmark would have signed up to the deal to be unveiled next week. Hohum.

Canada going all European is madness

Canada is part of the North American continent. Yet, under new ideas being pushed by the European Union, Canadians are being invited to join the EU as an associate member. It's all because of deteriorating relations betwen Canada and its neighbour, the United States, or more specifically, between Donald Trump and Mark Carney, the very elegant prime minister of Canada. Of course, there is nothing wrong with Canada becoming closer to Europe but this is all about snubbing Trump. And that's stupid. Canada and the US are neighbours, they share an immensely important strategic defence role together, and they trade together, although that is half the problem because of Trump's bitter tariff war. A breakaway from the North American partnership towards a somewhat geographically-stretched alliance with the EU may sound like a good dig at Trump but it rally doesn't make much sense. Trump and Carney need to make up and get on and do proper deals like adults.

Poor King Charles, the barbs keep coming

Every family has its moments of despair, trauma, rifts or just internicene arguments. But the Royal Family headed by King Charles has had more than its share of barbs thrown at it, from both within and without. Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, have caused more angst in the family than anyone in recent years, with Harry's outrageous book called Spare and Meghan's whingeing against the royals and their courtiers on the dreadful Opra Winfrey show way back when the couple first went off to live in California. Now they are back in the UK and still causing problems for Charles and his brother, Prince William. In addition, a new book coming out next week, written by Princess Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, is apparently full of nasty jibes at Charles, the most controversial of which is that he claims that soon after Diana died in the car crash in Paris, Charles (then Prince of Wales), told Charles Spencer that soon everyone would forget about the late Princess of Wales and seemed put out by the outpouring of grief for her death throughout the country. Officials speaking for the king have rejected the accusation and blamed Earl Spencer's recollections on poor memory coloured by grief.The book is being serialised in the Daily Mail and there are bound to be more hurtful passages to come. I would have thought the poor king has had just about enough of being targeted in this way with accusations that may or may not be false. The allegation that he cruelly dismissed Princess Diana as someone who would soon be forgotten (the mother of Charles's two sons for heaven's sake) can be resolved only one way. Either King Charles admits he said it and apologises to the nation or Earl Spencer admits he made it up or at least may have got it wrong and apologises to the nation, and the publisher recalls all the books and removes the alleged quote from the king. Then we can all get on with our lives.

The new Houthi/Saudi war has dangerous possibilities

So far, Saudi Arabia is on its own fighting the Houthis. Despite an appeal to Trump, the Saudi de facto leader, Mohammed bin Salman, was offered no military help from the White House. Trump is stuck with the war against Iran and doesn't want to get involved in Saudi Arabia's current confrontation with the Houthis in Yemen, even though bin Salman is supposed to be his big buddy. Now there's talk of Britain helping out the Saudis. This would be disastrousw and should be rejected by Andy Burnham. The last thing this country needs right now is engagement in a never-ending war in the Middle East. The UK said no to Trump about getting involved in the war with Iran. It should say no to Riyadh now. The Houthis have taken a very aggressive posture towards the Saudis, firing off missiles and drones at Saudi energy plants and blocking oil tankers from going through the Bab el-Mandab chokepoint at the end of the Red Sea which they now control. Today the Houthis claim to have shot down a Saudi jet fighter, and a drone has landed in the vicinity of Mecca, according to Riyadh. It can only get worse. The Saudis, in the past, carried out fairly indiscriminate air raids on the Houthis some years ago and hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians were killed. An all-out war between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis would massively disrupt oil supplies going down the Red Sea from Saudi ports. The economic blows to the world's economies would follow. Inflation is already rising at a rapid rate. Trump says the ecoomic pain will all be worth it when Iran collapses and loses the war with the US. But does anyone, apart from him, believe this?

Is Pete Hegseth out of his depth?

Back when Pete Hegseth was still just a television presenter, the former Army National Guard officer who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan explained how he returned to civvy street. “I separated from an Army that didn’t want me anymore,” Hegseth wrote in his book, The War on Warriors. “The feeling was mutual. I didn’t want this Army anymore either.” Fast forward two years and Hegseth finds himself at the Pentagon, trusted by President Trump to overhaul America's armed forces, the leadership of which he still does not seem to want. Twenty months after he was named as defence (now war) secretary, he undertaken a purge of top commanders that shows no sign of slowing, causing turmoil, anger and resentment among the US armed forces. Hegseth appears to be a man on a mission: to eliminate wokery and what he views as an obsession recruiting and promoting military personnel to meet cultural trends that have no place in the armed forces. The 46-year-old who is loyal to a fault to President Trump has sacked more top commanders than the combined total of his seven predecessors. More than 80 rising stars have had their promotions blocked, many of them black or women. The disruption to the leadership of the military has been so dramatic that some of the key appointments, including the chief of staff of the army, remain vacant, after the then incumbent, General Randy George, an officer with an impressive pedigree, was summarily fired after clashes with Hegseth. On September 1, Dan Driscoll, the highly regarded army secretary, the top civilian job in the service, resigned and went to see Trump to complain of the damage being done by his war secretary. At a time when the United States is at war with Iran and the two big-power rivals, China and Russia, are making their moves to exploit perceived American military weaknesses, the Hegseth revolution at the Pentagon has turned the second largest office building in the world upside down. Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina has urged Trump to sack Hegseth. “I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country,” he said in a social media post. Eric Edelman, defence policy chief at the Pentagon in the George W Bush administration, warned in a recent subscription-only podcast called Shield of the Republic of “the potential institutional damage that the poseur who claims he is the secretary of war is doing to both the uniformed military services and the department of defence more broadly”. “Much but not all of this personnel churn has been directed at the US army and so it was not surprising when the secretary of the army, Dan Driscoll, in the wake of all these acts of self-harm to the officer corps, resigned after warning the president about the damage being done to the fabulous military that he likes to tout which has left the army rudderless in the midst of a war,” he said. Despite the turmoil in the Pentagon, no one in the military can claim they weren’t given early warning. Hegseth’s personal mission was laid out in his 6,000-word address to more than 800 generals and admirals, summoned to hear what he wanted from them during an unprecedented gathering of top brass at the Marine Corps’ Quantico Bay base in Virginia on September 30. Overweight generals padding around the Pentagon corridors, fat troops struggling to train to the proper standards, gender-changing military personnel, beards and women in combat roles, all emerged as his pet hates. “We became the woke department, but not anymore. No more identity months, DEI [diversity, equity, inclusion] offices, dudes in dresses, no more climate change worship, no more division, distraction, or gender delusions, no more debris.” Hegseth told his stunned audience. Since then, Hegseth, the 29th defence secretary, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan as an infantry officer in the US Army National Guard, has sought out commanders who remind him of his wartime heroes, General Norman Schwarkopf who led the US and allies to victory in the 1991 Gulf War – the only US military victory in nearly 50 years – and General George Patton. of Second World War fame. However, General Chris Donahue, a commander who would appear to fit that bill, fell foul of Hegseth for reasons that have not been fully explained, and he was forced into premature retirement. Donahue who had spent much of his army career in the dark world of special forces missions had been put forward as the next supreme allied commander Europe (Saceur). But Hegseth blocked it. By all accounts Donahue was punished for being the last man to leave Kabul when all US troops were evacuated in a shambolic end to the war in Afghanistan. Trump who described the troop evacuation as “the most embarrassing moment in the history of the United States”, wanted heads to roll. Unlike two of his predecessors, Robert Gates and Leon Panetta, both regarded as distinguished secretaries of defence, Hegseth has had no experience of managing a large government department, let alone one the size of the Pentagon which is responsible for 2.8 million people, uniformed and civilian, and has a budget of nearly $1 trillion. Gates, 22nd defence secretary, and Panetta, the 23rd, were both formerly directors of the CIA. Panetta also served as the director of management and budget in the Clinton administration. However, Trump thinks Hegseth is “one of my best”. When the president secretly swapped planes in July from Air Force One via a catering truck at Ankara airport after a Nato summit following warnings of a suspected plot to assassinate him, he took only one cabinet minister with him: Pete Hegseth.

Putin's most outrageous plot

While he was gathering with fellow leaders at the bizarre summit with the leaders of China, India, Iran and others in New Delhi, Vladimir Putin must have given the go ahead for one of his more outrageous acts against the West at a railway station close to the Ukraine/Poland border. A jet-powered drone with a 90-kilogram high-explosive payload crashed into a locomotive at the railway station only a short time after a train had left for the Polish border carrying VIPs, including Boris Johnson, all of whom had been attending a summit of officials in Kyiv with President Zelensky. Everyone knows, including Putin of course, that the Ukrainian government runs a train shuttle between Kyiv and Poland, and the "diplomatic train", the one that ferries important visitors very regularly, must have been on Moscow's mind for a hit for a long time. The drone didn't attack the train with the former British prime minister on board because, it seems, it left earlier than the timetable planned. The drone struck a train which had been emptied of its passengers fifteen minutes earlier after word got through that a drone was on the way. Russia has begun attacking railway stations and railway lines in Ukraine but this looked like a deliberate attempt to strike at Zelensky's latest visitors. If the drone had hit the diplomatic train and people had died, what would have happened? It doesn't bear thinking about. But it seems Putin was prepared to take the risk.

The European Union still reliant on Russia for gas supplies

After all the sanctions and bans imposed on Russia since the invasion of Ukraine nearly five years ago, it is staggering that the European Union still relies on Russia for 12 per cent of its gas requirements. The EU promises to bring this to an end in January but the way the world is going right now and the shortages everywhere in oil and natural gas because of the disruption of the energy market since the war with Iran began, it's likely this partial dependence on Russian gas will continue for longer. It's one of the gravest lessons learned by the West, that it became too sucked into cheaper Russian oil and gas when relations with Moscow were relatively stable It is true that Europe has become far less reliant on Russian energy but the fact that nearly five years later, the EU still can't fully shake off the Russian connection when it comes to energy supplies is sobering. Vladimir Putin presumably knew for certain that the West would not be able to shut off all supplies from Russia and has benefited hugely as a result, helping him to fight his war with Ukraine. Things have gone badly for Putin since the invasion but thanks to the world's demands for oil and gas he has managed to keep going and build better and more powerful weapons to hit Ukraine. It is a sad commentary on the state of affairs we see in the world today.

Everyone has underestimated the Houthis

When they started becoming a nuisance way back, the Houthi rebels as they were then called were a pain in the neck, like a cloud of mosquitos buzzing away in the wrong places. Now, they are a force to be reckoned with and are always known just by the name, Houthis. The world knows who the Houthis are because they pop up whenever they want and cause trouble. Today, they are playing a leading role in forcing oil prices up beyond $100 a barrel. They have taken control of the whole coastline of Yemen, effectively putting them in charge of the Bab al-Mandab Strait, another one of those wretched maritime choke points through which Saudi Arabia, in particular, transits its crude oil to Asia. The Houthis are saying that after their lightning military advance to grab the Red Sea coastline and key coastal towns,such as Mokha, as well as an island in the middle of the strait called Perim Island, they can dictate which tankers can transit and which can't. So far they have said their focus is to stop all Saudi tankers going through the strait. How the Houthis have managed to build themselves into such a major strike force is hard to comprehend. Of course they have had help from Iran but the Houthis are also a fiercely independent organisation and they clearly have effective leadership. Literally, no one, not the United States, not Saudi Arabia, not the Gulf states, know what to do about the Houthis. They are running rampant and getting away with it.

AI is beginning to sound truly scary

Progress in developing artificial intelligence (AI) systems has reached a level where experts are warning AI could destroy the human race within ten years. Most people would have seen that prediction and laughed because it seems more fantasy than reality. However, the warning came from someone in the AI industry who can see how the rapid developments could be turned against us if the new super AI systems end up in the wrong hands. The apocalyptic warning suggested that evil people might use AI to produce biological weapons which could wipe out the human race. It’s bad enough that the world is facing dramatic climate change, producing dangerous heatwaves in many countries, widespread fires and flooding from glaciers melting. There is no easy way for the world to combat these growing threats but a consensus for action among all politicians in the United States and among US allies would go at least some of the way towards finding solutions. Unfortunately, there are so many other threats and dangers, such as the war between the US and Iran, the war between Russia and Ukraine and the negative effects they are having on the world economy that the dramatic warning of AI’s capacity to ruin all our lives has not really had the impact on public opinion it deserves. When AI was first developed the focus initially was on the good it would do for humanity, particularly in medical research. But now, because the big players in developing AI, such as Anthropic, OpenAI, Nvidia, Microsoft and Google, have made such rapid advances it seems it is almost too late to stop the technological momentum. Every government in the western world now has AI experts as part of its administration. But do they have sufficient influence to bring some common sense into this new technological era? The trouble is, potential adversaries of the United States are pursuing the same dream of producing AI-controlled weapons that will, like the armed drone today, transform conflicts of the future, with robots replacing humans. China, a big-power rival of the United States, has recently demonstrated its success in producing robots that can run faster than any human being. The omens for persuading the world to step back from developing advanced super-intelligent AI systems that will replace humans – advocated last week by Senator Bernie Sanders - are not good. The world has failed to take adequate measures to stop global warming. Whatever steps are taken in the future will only help to reduce the impact of climate change on our lives, they won’t be able to stop the damage already done. It could be the same with AI. Unless measures are taken to forge an international agreement on limiting the potential threat of AI, the momentum will just carry one. Then, the warning of a threat to the human race might just be facing us all in the next decade or so.

Iran is literally asking for trouble

For reasons that only the generals of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps can explain, Iran has taken it into its head to start firing ballistic missiles at US warships. In response, US Central Command, ready round-the-clock for retaliatory strikes, struck back at five Iranian oil tankers, putting them out of action. This may make Iran think again but somehow I doubt it. If the IRGC generals could actually hit a US warship and cause damage and casualties that would be a big feather in their cap and give them motivation to try again. Every missile fired at an American ship has been brought down, and it goes without saying that if the IRGC did manage to get a missile through the defences, that would be a huge blow to the US military. Donald Trump would demand huge revenge. Trump has said this is not a war at the moment. But any damage to a US warship and the gloves would be off. The IRGC generals know this but they seem to believe that it's still worth having a go. Trump has said the confrontation is likely to continue until after the American midterm elections on November 3. In other words, these strikes and counter-strikes are going to continue until then, with Iran hoping that the midterm elections will go badly for the Republicans, and therefore badly for Trump. Sounds like a war to me.

Violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinian communities is appalling

Ed Milliband, the foreign secretary, has been condemned by Israel for accusing Jewish settlers of ethnic cleansing in their attempt to drive out Palestinian communities from their homes on the West Bank. The only experience I have had of witnessing ethnic cleansing was during the war in Bosnia when all three ethnic communities, the Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims committed atrocities in efforts to expel ethnic groupings not matched with theirs. It was frightening, brutal and criminal, and up to 100,000 people were murdered, at least 65 per cent of them Muslims, and tens of thousands of women and girls were raped, again, mostly Muslims, over a period of three years from 1992 to 1995. This was ethnic cleansing on a vast scale, although not by comparison with the atrocities caused by the Nazis in the Second World War. What we have on the West Bank is an attempt by far right Jewish settlers to brutalise the local Palestinians out of their homes to make way for more settlements and to extend the territory of Israel itself. For the Palestinians driven from their homes and olive groves, it must seem like ethnic cleasing. Nevertheless, one should always be cautious about using phrases which have such terrifyingly apocalyptic historical connotations. Comparing the excessive violence shown by the Jewish settlers to the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and, more significantly, to Nazi Germany, is, therefore, unwise, inaccurate and dangerous. That does not undermine the argument, however, that what is going on in the West Bank every day is wrong and hateful and should be condemned by everyone, including and especially by the Israeli government.

Trump's envoys thank Putin for wonderful memories

Clearly Putin laid out the red carpet for his two American visitors. So enthused were Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner that they told the wqorld they left Moscow with wonderful memories. Presumably they were talking about the exceptional food and drink, the plushness of their hotel bedrooms and the charming people they spoke to during their 24-hour visit. Never mind whether they actually achieved any breakthrough over ending the war in Ukraine - no sign of that. In fact, it seemed the only message they came away with was Putin's pronouncement that Russia was winning the war and wanted to finish it off. Putin's analysis of the war doesn't really bear any serious scrutiny. The ground element of the war has been in a stalemate for as long as one can remember. The drones and missiles keep flying, but Ukraine has caused so much damage to targets, especially Russia's navy, inside Russia, that most observers would say Kyiv has achieved more than Moscow and has more leverage than Putin has to persuade Witkoff and Kushner that actually Ukraine is winning the war. The Ukrainian military certainly hasn't lost it. But perhaps during his three or four hour chat with the two US envoys, Putin showed them a map of Ukraine to prove his claim that the Russians are marching on to victory. Neither envoy has a military background but they will have been briefed before they flew to Moscow that the amount of territory seized by Russia in the last year has amounted to a few dozen square kilometres. Nothing to write home about. Still, Witkoff and Kushner had a wonderful time in Moscow. Perhaps they will also have a wonderful memory of their visit to Kyiv today.

Putin orders weekend ceasefire

Putin has made a smart move by announcing a ceasefire while Trump's two envoys are around to talk about ending the war in Ukraine. Obviously it makes practical sense because the two message-carriers, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, are due in Kyiv tomorrow and it would be bit of a slap in Trump's face if missiles started landing in the Ukrainian capital while they are chatting to Zelensky. On the other hand, Putin could have ordered a missile strike elsewhere in Ukraine to remind Washington that he can do that whenever he likes. However, he chose the sensible option because he wants to demonstrate that he is in control and if he orders a ceasefire then the Russian military get a couple of days off. Zelensky would be wise to stop attacks on Russia for the weekend, so everyone gets a breather, and Witkoff and Kushner can gop about their business without having to pop into a bunker every half an hour. If these latest talks fail to deliver anything, then I think all bets are off and the war will rage on through the coming winter and another year will go by.

Trump's envoys off to Moscow

Whenever Donald Trump's two travelling envoys, Steve Whitkoff and Jared Kushner, go off to see Putin there is a sudden revival of optimism that perhaps this time the Russian president really will want to talk peace and not carry on destroying Ukraine. But can there really be an hope that the visit planned for tomorrow will make any difference? Putin says he likes having these two around. But that may mean he doesn't mind their vists because he is so good at winding them round his finger, as it were. He knows what he wants and he knows that the two envoys know what he wants. So there is little room for manouevre. Putin will talk about territory. He'll say he wants the whole of the Donbas region before he will negotiate seriously, and the two envoys will come away from Moscow with this meassage and pass it on to Zelensky who they are going to see on Sunday. But Zelensky has heard this message a million times. So it will make no difference. Swings and roundabouts.

Putin promises to continue helping Iran against the US

Puitn has reminded the world and in particular the United States that he is helping Iran to fight the Americans. Them about three minutes later, during a press conference, he said he remained "comfortable" with having visits from Trump's two main envoys, Steve Whitkoff and Jared Kushner, to talk about the war in Ukraine and possible peace negoatiations. He can't really have it both ways. If he's so happy with Trump's envoys why does he then tell everyone that he is helping Iran which is right now giving Trump more grief than anything else. Well, the answer is that this is the way Putin plays the game. He likes to keep all his options open and in play. He is obviously not interested in a peace deal with Zelensky. I don't think he will ever agree to meet him face to face. But he still wants to have the occasional visit from Witkoff and Kushner to sort of keep the ball rolling on a negotiated end to the war. It's play-acting, but it serves Putin well.

The Pentagon is in a permanent state of topsy-turvyness

There is about as much unity in the Pentagon right now as there is in the Royal Family in Britain. Many officials are either not talking to each other or when they do talk, they shout. The latest victim of this idiotic state of affairs is Dan Driscoll, the now former but extremely capable US Army secretary, the top civilian job in this service. He had just had enough of bashing his head against the brick wall, while trying to persuade Pete Hegseth, the ex-Fox News US War Secretary, to approve his plan to rebuild the army, make it more streamlined and better eqipped, not with tanks and heavy artillery but the latest high-tech stuff, such as drones, bought off the shelf. It all seemed eminently sensible the way wars are now being prosecuted. But Hegseth is obsessed with developing a warrior force that doesn't have women in it or anyone else who isn't a full-grown male, sure of his masculinity and sexuality. Whole layers of experienced army officers have been fired, including the top dog, General Randy George. He was kicked out with no notice and he has yet to be replaced. Tp say that the top echelons of the army, and the other services, are walking on eggshells gives a pretty good idea of the fear and anxiety that Hegseth has caused. Hegseth may be His Master's Voice, but he is causing such outrage in the higher ranks, it's no wonder everyone is fearful of their jobs. Dan Driscoll will be sorely missed. There was a time when his name was being put forward as the next war/defence secretary. Not surprising, perhaps, that Hegseth did everything he could to get rid of him.

Pentagon planning warfare at the speed of light

The drones were seen flying low near the Rio Grande Valley in Texas last week when the Locust shot them from the sky. It was the first time the US Army had used its new laser weapon in anger, destroying targets it claimed were flying in support of Mexican drug cartels. While previously the idea of laser beams replacing surface-to-air missile interceptors was considered to be a science fiction fantasy, laser warfare is becoming a reality. The Pentagon is spending about $1 billion this year on developing a variety of “directed-energy” systems, and several are already operational after more than two decades of research. The relatively low cost of laser defences is the driving factor. The Locust, whose name stands for “Low-Cost UAV Simulation Testing,” was recently sent to Texas to arm the 8,000-strong, Joint Task Force Southern Border, with a “Multipurpose High Energy Laser.” Built by AeroVironment, a defence company based in Arlington, Virginia, the vehicle-mounted weapon is capable of firing 20-kilowatt beams that can physically burn through targets. “Neutralising threats at the speed of light” is how AeroVironment promotes the weapon in a video on its website, showing animated quadcopters tumbling from the sky. The military did not reveal details about its use last week, or whether the drones were shot down over American or Mexican territory. But it stated that the unmanned aircraft had presented “a physical threat” to US military and US Customs and Border Protection personnel. The US Marine Corps has acquired the same mobile Locust system for operational use against small drones, and it has also been mounted on the aircraft carrier, USS George HW Bush, which conducted a successful sea test in October last year. “Using directed-energy weapons, such as this, is part of the future of warfare, and it’s better than us firing a $2 million missile at a [cheap] drone,” a Pentagon official said. Dozens of countries are trying to develop similar directed-energy weapons. The UK has a laser weapon called DragonFire which could be on Royal Navy warships by 2027. China has deployed a truck-mounted laser system and has also put laser weapons on amphibious warships. Russia has a portable anti-drone laser weapon which has been tested in combat conditions. Israel’s 100-kilowatt Iron Beam laser weapon is known to have shot down drones launched by Hezbollah in Lebanon during the current crisis in the Middle East.For the Pentagon, which has used a large proportion of its most expensive weapon systems in the war with Iran, in particular its stocks of anti-missile and anti-drone interceptors, the availability of directed energy weapons has become a priority. Instead of shooting down a $30,000 long-range armed drone with a multi-million-dollar, top-end interceptor like the army’s Patriot system or the navy’s Standard SM-3 missile, one shot from a laser weapon could theoretically cost a few dollars. In its overview of the last defence budget, the Department of War admitted that “peer adversaries” had succeeded in outpacing the US “kinetic weapon magazine depth and production capability with UAS [unmanned aerial systems], missiles, and advanced sensors”. “As threat vectors evolve, directed energy technologies redefine defence, delivering scalable precision and unmatched cost efficiency to secure the battlespace of tomorrow,” the Pentagon said. As well as testing the high-power Locust, the US Navy is already equipping its Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with ODIN (optical dazzling interdictor) and HELIOS (high-energy laser with integrated optical dazzler and surveillance) low-energy weapons, which are designed to blind the sensors and cameras of a drone rather than destroying it. But the ambition is for more power - of a kind that could quickly take out a cruise missile, a large drone or anti-ship missile. The Pentagon’s SCADE CTA (scaled directed energy critical technology areas) programme is aiming to develop a laser of 150 to 500 kilowatts in strength. Admiral Daryl Caudle, US Chief of Naval Operations, said recently he envisaged a megawatt-sized (1,000 kilowatts) laser weapon for the new Trump-class warships announced by the president in December last year. “I don’t think a one-megawatt laser is beyond what should be on that battery,” he said, referring to the battleships. In May, Trump himself posted an AI-generated image of a warship painted with a US flag lasering a drone with an Iranian flag, with the caption: “Lasers: Bing, Bing, GONE!!!” - although there is no such confirmed use of the technology this year. The potential for powerful laser beams to burn through fast-moving targets also poses new challenges, however, including how that power can be focussed and sustained. “One big problem is that weather patterns, such as fog and mist, can affect the tracking and the laser accuracy, and there’s nothing you can do about that,” said Mark Cancian, a former colonel who served three decades in the US Marine Corps and is a senior adviser to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “It’s basic physics. Fog and mist and dust can physically interfere with the beam. Lasers are seen as the long-term solution for counter-drone warfare because the price per shot is so low, compared with the huge cost of the systems we currently use to shoot them down. But it has been difficult to operationalise,” he said. “The other challenge is power. The army has a mobile power system but the navy would face a greater demand for power to keep the laser stable over a longer period,” Cancian said. “It’s harder to have an effective laser on a ship because it’s more often the case that the navy would be dealing with a larger missile which means they have to track over an extended time. The laser beam has to be spot on for a long time, whereas the army, for example, might be tracking a quadcopter which can be taken down quickly [like the three drug cartel drones],” he said. Trump is not the first president to enthuse about laser technology. In his famous “Star Wars” speech on March 23, 1983, President Ronald Reagan appealed to America’s scientists to come up with an anti-missile shield in space and on the ground to protect the US from a Soviet nuclear attack. His vision was to have exotic systems, including X-ray and chemical lasers and neutral particle beams positioned on space platforms, to target and burn up incoming nuclear warheads. Ultimately that vision was unaffordable. Trump breathed new life into Reagan’s dream, however, when he ordered the Pentagon to devise a “Golden Dome” missile shield over the US, including the the idea of space-based interceptors. Cost estimates of the Golden Dome have varied from $185 billion over ten years, according to the Pentagon, to $1 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.