Should the execution of Fort Hood gunman be livestreamed?

Executions of criminals rarely receive such publicity. But two recent cases have raised new issues over the use of capital punishment in the US justice system. Christa Pike, aged 50, had been on death row for thirty years for killing a 17-year-old girl in 1995 and she should have been executed by lethal injection on September 30 at a prison in the state of Tennessee. However, after two attempts, she was still alive and is now in hospital recovering. Her lawyers are saying that since the state failed to end her life, she should be spared and kept in prison instead of facing yet another attempt at executing her. For those who support capital punishment – I am not one of them – there may well be a case for completing the punishment approved by the courts, trying a different method of execution. No doubt, the family of the girl she murdered would like to see the death penalty efficiently carried out. However, there must also be an argument that says: the state had its chance to carry out the death sentence and failed, and that it would be inhumane to have a third attempt at some time in the future. What if it failed again? It’s an issue that may have to be resolved by the courts. But it should also raise questions in the state of Tennessee and in other states where the death penalty is part of the legal system, about whether capital punishment is a right and proper form of justice in a modern democracy. The other case raises issues of a different kind. Pete Hegseth, the war secretary, has announced that he plans to livestream the execution by firing squad of the former army major, Nidal Hasan ,who was convicted of shooting dead thirteen unarmed soldiers at the Fort Hood military base in 2009. ”People need to understand that there are serious consequences for these types of things,” Hegseth said. Hasan is due to face a firing squad on December 3. It would be the first public execution in the US for about a hundred years. The announcement has provoked strong opposition from both Republicans and Democrats. It is easy to see why. The idea of livestreaming an execution so that members of the public can watch a man being shot dead is both gruesome and repulsive. There is enough violence on television without having a state-sponsored video of a death by shooting carried out on behalf of the Department of War (or Defence as it used to be called). The public livestreaming has apparently been supported by the president. But in the seven weeks before the execution is due to take place, one hopes that the decision made by the secretary of war will be overturned. It would be a public spectacle no one in their right mind would want to watch.

The message for Iran after the withdrawal of bombers from RAF Fairford

Whichever way you look at it, the decision by the Pentagon to pull out every B1 bomber from RAF Fairford was extraordinary. It sent a message of panic all the way to Tehran. However good the intelligence was that led to the decision, it smacks of retreat, and Tehran will want to exploit the apparent vulnerability of US aircraft stationed overseas. Perhaps the most extraordinary thing is that these hugely expensive long-range bombers were just sitting out in the open at Fairford. Why on earth are there not bomb-hardened shelters for every bomber? It's the same for the mighty B-52s and the B-2 stealth bombers when they fly into Fairford. They sit there like come-and-get-me targets. Hardened shelters are very expensive to build, but rather than spend the money to keep them safe, the bombers are flown home to the safety of the United States. Donald Trump has made little of it, saying it was better to be cautious. But to Tehran it will have been seen as a victory. The mighty superpower withdrawing its bombers for fear of an Iranian plot to launch drones at them. Having already suffered billions of dollars of damage at multiple bases in the Middle East as a result of Iranian attacks by ballistic and cruise missiles and drones, the overal picture is not good vis a vis Washington's confrontation with Iran. Ok, the B1 bombers will be in the safety of the US to fight another day but the empty spaces at RAF Fairford are a lasting reminder that Tehran made America look frightened.

Will Trump be impeached if Democrats win the House?

I think it's almost inevitable that if the Democrats win the House of Representatives in the midterm elections in November, Donald Trump will be facing impeachment. There is already a lot of chit-chat about it in Washington. That doesn't mean Trumnp will be ousted because the Senate is likely to remain in Republican majority hands and will overrule all attempts to get rid of the president. We've been here before. But it does mean that the Democrats will give Trump a really hard time, and there will be headlines which even he won't be able to claim are fake news. With impeachment procedures underway, in the event of a Democratic win in November, it will also electrify the atmosphere in Washington. Trump will be under constant media pressure, even more than he is at the moment. On the other hand, if the Democrats go around telling everyone they are going to try and impeach the president if they win the House, then it might just dissuade some doubting voters amongst Republicans to stick with Trump after all. No one really enjoys impeachment proceedings. They disrupt normal life and make the US look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world. It will also make Trump steeming mad and he would try and take revenge somehow on leading Democrats pushing for his downfall. If the Democrats fail to win the House, it might just be because too many of them have been talking too much about impeaching Trump rather than offering new legislation to help people cope with the rising cost of living.

A plague on all these dangerous virus laboratories

How unsurprising that now it's Russia which has let loose a potentially mass-killing virus to alarm the world yet again. First, it was a lab in Wuhan in China which appears to have released, in error, the Covid-19 virus in 2019 which spread around the world, killing millions of people, ruining countless lives and giving millions of others life-changing illnesses. China has always denied it was the Wuhan laboratory which leaked Covid but everyone else believes otherwise. Now Russia is trying to deny any problem after a woman died after inhaling pneumonic plague which poured out of a glass test tube she dropped on a laboratory floor in Siberia. Are we about to face another pandemic with everyone wearing masks? It's deja vue all over again! The US which has offered to help Russia, is trying to calm things by saying there is no evidence yet pf mass spreading of the virus, and as Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said, there are very few flights between Russia and the US or to Europe for that matter. But here's a thing. The worst scenario would be if the plague virus spreads in Russia, Russian troops serving in Ukraine get it and spread it, and then Europeans and Americans who constantly go in and out of Ukraine helping the Kyiv government, get infected and when they return home they apread it, and so on. This is alarmist. But this is what happened with Covid, when tens of thousands of Chinese, including from Wuhan, visited friends and relations in Europe to celebrate the Chinese New Year, and Covid-19 took hold everywhere. With the Covid pandemic in mind, let us hope the Russian authorities are sufficiently astute to clamp everything down and stop the plague from spreading anywhere. The omens are not good.

Mystery deepens as Trump orders all bombers home from UK base

The sudden departure of all 12 of the US Air Force's B1-B bombers based at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire is the latest development in one of the most bizarre mysteries of recent times. While the police are still investigating six men, one Iranian-born, allegedly connected to a bomb plot against RAF Fairford, the US has taken fright and ordered every bomber to fly home. Can there really be intelligence that Iran was planning to hit the base and destroy the bombers? What with? Drones? It all seems far-fetched but there has to be something the spooks have uncovered to make the US act in such an extraordinary way. RAF Fairford is already heavily guarded and protected. It's a pretty humiliating admission if the US military and British police cannot keep this base safe from terrorists. No one is telling us what this is about, so it has given rise to mass speculation. The arrested "plotters" were all bailed. So were they just doing a dry run? The exit of the 12 bombers, all of which had previously been used to launch strikes on targets in Iran - so much cheaper and quicker than having to fly all the way from bases in the US - suggests that a real terrorist attack was imminent. I can understand the US wanting to make sure none of the B1s are damaged in any way but flying them all off back to America seems extreme to say the least. It doesn't say much for America's confidence in the British authorities to keep these vital warmaking assets safe.

How can the Iranian economy survive?

Even the top security official in Iran has now admitted that times are tough. The continuing US naval blockade which stops all oil exports, and the heavy sanctions are taking their toll on the Iranian economy. Life for the Iranian people is really bad. The New York Times reports that many people in important jobs like nursing and teaching are giving up because they earn so little or are not paid at all. I assume they mean they are taking more menial jobs which pay netter. But how long can Iran carry on without imploding? This is what Donald Trump is counting on. He wants Iran to die economically, so he can then dictate the terms of surrender.So far, the regime in Tehran has hung on, hoping that the midterm elections in the US will be so bad for Trump and the Republican party that it will give Iran leverage to dictate their own terms for a settlement. The reality is that the "war" - for xhe moment without actual bombing - will just grind on with neither side winning or losing. But if the economy in Iran is really that bad, then there may come a time when the whole population cries out and street protests return. Would the regime dare to kill the protesters again like they did before the US launched its war? I fear for the poor Iranian people.

Sacked Royal Navy chief loses his knighthood. Oh come on!

I can't write Admiral Sir Ben Key anymore because the former head of the Royal Navy who was sacked last year for having an affair with a subordinate, has had his knighthood removed. Plus his CBE and all his medals. Are we really in the 21st century? By all accounts the former admiral served as the First Sea Lord with distinction, vision and commitment. He was also liked and was fair. But he had an affair with a woman of lesser rank - well, obviously every woman in the Royal Navy is of lesser rank because he was the top admiral - and he gets punished not once but three times. Loss of job, loss of medals and honours, loss of knighthood. This seems to me to be cruel and way over the top, especially when you see other public figures who have not served the nation with distinction retaining their knighthoods. I will name no names. Of course, the armed services have rigid conduct standards, and this is right and proper, but not only have the powers-that-be kicked Mr Key out of the Navy, they have then kicked him again and again, removing all the honours and medals which for very good reasons were awarded to reflect his achievements in the service of his country. Had he shoplifted or robbed a bank, the removal of his knighthood would be seen as fully justified. In his case, he made a personal mistake. The treatment he has received has been brutal, although a little mercy was shown because he has been allowed to keep his pension.

Incredible bravery displayed on the Tel Aviv-bound plane

If the Indian pilot, wounded and losing consciousness, had not managed to flip the key to open the cockpit door to the passenger plane hurtling towards the ground, the story would have been very different. This amazing guy must have been in pain and was bleeding profusely, yet he knew he had to get that door open. Under strict rules, all cockpit doors on every commercial airliner have to be locked to prevent any passenger with murder intent or terrorism or suicide in mind from gaining entry and attacking the pilot and co-pilot. But, in this case, the door had to be unlocked to stop a total disaster. The Indian pilot is, without question, a hero, and the passengers who overwhelmed the co-pilot who had attacked his colleague are also heroes, brave beyond comprehension. It is yet another example of the extraordinary courage that lies dormant in human beings which blasts out when required to resolve a crisis of unprecedented proportions. Nothing can be worse than being stuck in a plane which is hurtling to the ground while the pilots are incapacitated. Also it nwas amazing that there were two other pilots on board who were due to take the plane back after it had landed in Tel Aviv. So they stepped forward and took over the controls. It was truly a miracle for everyone on board. Such a change from all the misery around the world.

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.

US and Iran strike back

A month of relative quiet and now it's back to tit-for-tat strikes. Clearly US Central Command got wind of a plot by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz, so preemptive action was taken and the suspected site for the minelaying was blasted. Then Iran retaliated with strikes on Jordan and the UAE. This is the type of war which can go on for ever. It also shows that the IRGC is going to continue threatening the strait but the military leaders will have learned one lesson. Whenever they plan an attack, the US gets to hear of it. Nothing can be secret. It means it's almost impossible to plan any sort of attack without the US listening in. That should be a considerable deterrent. Yet the IRGC goes ahead with its plans anyway. This demonstrates, not for the first time, that the IRGC is never going to give up, whatever damage is done to Iran's economy through the naval blockade and sanctions. What is perhaps strange is that the US has not focused all its military action on the IRGC itself. I have no idea how many IRGC personnel have been killed in the bombing raids. But it's clear this military organisation feels it can just carry on threatening the strait because it remains and will always remain the best leverage it has against the US.

What is Putin going to do next?

It looks as if Putin is preparing to throw everything - bar nuclear - at Kyiv's energy plants to make sure the winter is a terrible dark experience for the Ukrainian people. There is probably very little Zelensky and the military can do about it. Putin is more desperate than ever because after nearly five years of war against Ukraine, he hasn't got much to show for it. Western experts are warning that in his frustration he might take on a Nato country and launch some form of incursion or mini-offensive to punish the West for backing Ukraine. But if he were to do that, Putin would be in even more trouble. He can't really believe that taking on Nato will improve his situation. So, I think Putin's next move will be to step up attacks on Ukraine by a magnitude, and maybe even send in more troops to restart the ground campaign which has stalemated. What Putin won't do is think about doing a deal with Ukraine. So, any efforts by the US or Europe to fashion some sort of negotiating stance is going to fail. Putin is not interested in peace with Ukraine. He is still determined to see Ukraine, or at least the Zelensky government, collapse. Zelensky has had huge problems, with the continuing evidence of corruption and the dramatic upheavals at the top of his government, after the dismissal of the popular defence minister. He will need to reunite his government and prepare for a tough few months before winter arrives. All the threats from Moscow about attacking Britain for backing Ukraine are just that - threats. Putin is right now in a very weak position and can't afford any more aggressive moves, especially against the Nato alliance.

Will the Venezuelan people benefit from this huge oil deal with the US?

The US is going to have its hands on 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan oil in a huge deal between Caracas and Washington that will bring private American investment into the earthquake-hit country. Ostensibly, this will be good news for the poor country which has been ravaged by corruption and super-corrupt leadership for so long. Ex-President Nicolas Maduro may be in a US jail awaiting trial on drug-trafficking charges. But he left behind the remnants of his power base in charge. The deal has been done with the interim president, Delcy Rodriguez. But will this really be a massive optimism boost for the whole country which is going to suffer from the earthquake damage for years to come? And will all the money be invested in improving the lives of the people or will it get salted away into private bank accounts? It is difficult to predict because the leadership during the Maduro era was awash with corruption. Is Delcy Rodriguez who was Maduro's vice president and therefore must have known what was going on all those years, now going to be the country's saviour? Trump decided that she was a woman he could do business with and this is why we now have this massive oil deal which will provide the US with all the oil reserves it feels it needs for the future. Is there any small print in the deal which offers guarantees that the quid pro quo for the oil will be a much-improved economy in Venezuela and a better standard of living for its people? The people who negotiated the deal were Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, and Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary. A very odd combination unless there is some sort of security guarantee included which we don't know about. The Venezuela story still has an unknown end.

Trump will never be able to declare victory in Iran

The first six months of the war with Iran have been a sombre lesson for the United States and for its commander-in-chief. President Trump’s Operation Epic Fury has failed to bring down the regime in Tehran because the White House and military planners underestimated their enemy. After months of bombing destruction, a naval blockade and unprecedented economic sanctions, the mullahs and generals in Iran have adapted their warfare response to undermine and eventually thwart America’s vast superiority in firepower. “Iran’s strongest strategy was not to win a conventional military contest against the United States or Israel. It was to make the war harder to contain,” Neda Bolourchi, a national security analyst, concluded in an assessment of the conflict for the prestigious Modern War Institute at West Point in New York state. “Persian Gulf capitals, shipping insurers, energy markets, fertiliser markets, data centres, US allies and domestic political audiences all became part of the battlefield,” she wrote. The US military planners knew there was a risk Iran would try to close the Strait of Hormuz as one of its main leverages against the armada of warships and missiles assembled by Central Command in the region. However, the aim of Operation Epic Fury was to cause such damage to Iran’s military infrastructure that one of two consequences would follow: the collapse of the regime or a peace deal weighted heavily in favour of Trump’s demands for an end to the nuclear programme, a huge reduction in Iran’s ballistic missile inventory, and a pledge by Tehran to stop funding its proxy militia, including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Houthis in Yemen. “As in Vietnam, we simply did not understand our enemy in Iran. The assumption that the leadership that succeeded Ayatollah Ali Khomeini would fold like an old tent proved fundamentally wrong,” a former senior Pentagon official said. “Strategy matters. We apparently had no Plan B if the initial air campaign failed to produce the desired results,” the former official said. “There are numerous options we could have put in place before going to war, such as a blockade [imposed more than a month after Operation Epic Fury began], support for resistance groups, or ground-force operations.,” he said. “We are also at the wrong end of the cost equation. We are defending ourselves with weapons costing an order-of-magnitude or more than those they intercept [a Patriot interceptor missile costs $3.9 million as opposed to an Iranian Shahed-136 drone at between $20,000 and $50,000} . Nor can we produce them at scale. And our national deficit just hit $40 trillion. We are pricing ourselves out of the market,” he said. The ground-troops option was never realistically on the cards because of America’s aversion to battlefield casualties. The decision to go for air and naval power, rather than boots on the ground, was to avoid American fatalities, although 18 US personnel have been killed in Iranian retaliatory strikes. Central Command still sent 2,200 marines and later more than 2,000 paratroopers from 82nd Airborne Division to the Gulf, in addition to the 50,000 troops already in the region.. All of them have been kicking their heels ever since. Trump’s threats to invade Kharg Island, which manages up to 90 per cent of Iran’s crude oil exports, never materialised into action by the marines or paratroopers, whose numbers were insufficient for even a short-term ground operation. The biggest lesson for the US is one that should have been learned a long time ago: that air power alone, even on the scale the American military can provide, rarely leads to a long-lasting and satisfactory political outcome. If the confrontation with Iran escalates into a new round of US military strikes, that basic lesson will still be valid which means Trump will never be able to declare victory. ends

Looking back at the Iran war with frustration

Donald Trump had every expectation that a mighty show of American firepower from the air and from the sea would make Iran tremble and plead for mercy. He was wrong. The one thing learned is that the regime in Tehran has an infinite capacity to absorb pain and survive in power. There seems to be no likelihood that this situation will change now or ever. The first six months of the confrontation have proved that the Tehran regime is so intent on staying in power, never mind the consequences for the 90 million Iranian people, that it doesn't seem to matter what Trump throws at them, whether it be bombs and missiles or economic sanctions. Iran also knows that it has China's back, and Russia's. So with these two big beasts on their side, the Iranian generals who are largely in charge, will battle on. This is seriously bad news for Trump who has tried everything and ultimately has failed to get the regime in Tehran to bow down to his demands. There would seem to be no prospects for any kind of peace settlement. So the confrontation, whether military or not, will just keep going. Perhaps for years. In other words, beyond Trump's presidency into the next one, whoever succeeds him.

China won't help Trump's economic war against Iran

Donald Trump needs China to play ball if his economic D-Day operation against Iran is going to work and drive the Tehran regime to the negotiating table. China is Iran's biggest trading partner, buying a huge proportion of Iranian oil. But China is not going to play ball. China never plays ball unless it's in its interest. I assume Trump was warned about this before he got his Treasury Secretary to announce the new sanctions against Iran and ordered all of Iran's trading partners to obey the new economic measures. China, I'm sure, will continue to trade with Iran. Other countries, too, will also risk Trump's sanctions and back Iran. So, like the military campaign, the economic campaign is not going to make such a difference if China and others just carry on as usual. Trade wars and tit-for-tat trade wars invariably make things worse, not better. Trump is due to see the Chinese leader, Xi Zinping, next month, and he won't want to screw that up before he even gets to Beijing. So D-Day might be a flop, although Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary, seems pretty confident it will bring the mullahs and generals to their knees. But after years of international sanctions, Iran has learned how to get round them, just as North Korea has done all these years.

Why tell the world the UK is giving missile blueprints to Ukraine?

Why on earth has Andy Burnham, newish UK prime minister, announced to the world that he has approved giving missile blueprints to Ukraine so that Kyiv can make its own version of the weapon? Sure, it's good to remind Vladimir Putin that the West is on Ukraine's side. But something which should have been kept secret has been blurted out like it's intended as a slap in the face for the Kremlin. Good on yer, some might say. But the most important responsibility for Burnham is to keep this country safe, not Ukraine's, and telling Putin that the UK is handing classified blueprints to Kyiv seems to me to be foolish at the very least. Putin is already targeting Britain with cyber warfare, close-in submarines and warships. Why invite mnore aggression from Moscow? The blueprints are for components of the UK's Storm Shadow cruise missile which was jointly developed with the French who call it Scalp Mrk 2. It's a pretty fancy piece of kit which has been used by Ukraine since 2023 anbd is now regularly fired at targets inside Russia. The plan is for Kyiv to have its own factory churning out Storm Shadow/Scalps. But why the huge publicity? The first thing Russia will do is start hitting the factory. There are occasions when secrecy is justified. This is one of them.

US and Iran should do a deal

It's time for Washington and Tehran to stop threatening each other with military and economic action. Everyone in the world is fed up with the bickering and warnings and blackmail. It's all about ego and power abd status and money. Enough! Negotiators should get together and talk talk talk until a deal is done. The way things are going, the military bit of the war is going to start all over again and will make a deal that much more difficult. There is stillhuge US firepower in the region and Donald Trump might just have another bash but we know for sure that Iran will respond in kind by attacking US bases in the region and targeting energy plants in the Gulf. All pointless destruction for no reason other than to prove to Trump that the new regime in Tehran is not going to back down. Basically, the war was avoidable. There was a kind of deal on the table but Trump ignored it. Now he is stuck in an unholy mess and talking of an economic D-Day against Iran. The poor Iranian people, none of whom want this war to continue ruining their lives, will suffer even more. But they have leaders, both clerical and military, who don't care a fig for their personal suffering. All they want is to survive as a regime and mastermind hatred towards the US and the West. It really is time for all this hatred and revenge to be brought to a close. But I fear the presence of Trump in the White House and the bullies of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Tehran are going to make a deal impossible. This is a catastrophe for the world.

Prince Harry and Prince William are like non-brothers

Harry and Meghan are hoping that their return to Britain to live and educate their children will bring them back into the royal family fold. But there is one huge obstacle in the way. Harry apparently hasn't spoken to his brother, William, for years. William is so angry with his brother for breaching every royal protocol going that he has cut himself off from his exiled sibling. Once Harry is back, will William make any effort to reunite with his brother or will he cold-shoulder him and Meghan for ever? King Charles will probably try to intervene between his two sons to stop this huge divide, but the Prince of Wales is his own man and he might fight against his father's efforts. Also, Katherine and Meghan cannot endure each other, judging by what has happened in the past between the two sisters-in-law. Meghan and Kate are totally different human beings and I think it's fair to say that while Kate is loved by the public, Meghan is not. This is going to make life very difficult for both Harry and Meghan when they set up home in the countryside outside London, probably near where Charles has his beloved home in Gloucestershire. Could they even be sort of neighbours? But even if their change in geography makes it possible for the King to get to know his two grandchildren - the son and daughter of Harry and Meghan - it looks highly unlikely that Prince William and Kate will be making trips to the H and M new home for fun get-togethers. I fear it's all too late. There's too much animosity between the two brothers.

Prince Harry has to pay his share of legal damages

The troubles for Prince Harry just keep on coming. Having lost his case against Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail, failing to impress the judge that the newspaper had used criminal and devious ways to breach his private life and that of his family, he now has to pay his share of more than £9 million in legal costs. Harry is a wealthy man but this will be a huge blow to his finances, just when he is in the process of buying or renting a mansion somewhere in the countryside back in England while apparently continuing to pay for his and Meghan's posh estate in California and their holiday home in Portugal. Harry was left a lot of money by his mother, Princess Diana, and by his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, so his bank balance is not exactly empty. Nevertheless, with no regular income from employment, apart from Meghan's housewifery television programmes, things could get a little tight for the couple. Perhaps he hopes that by moving to England, King Charles will give him a bob or two to help him along. I somehow doubt it.

Harry and Meghan are coming home

Most newspapers in the UK today splashed on the most dramatic, extraordinary story of all time: Prince Harry and his wife, the Duchess of Sussex, are to leave their multi-million-dollar home in California and return to the UK to live with their two children. TV presenters were aghast with the news which broke last night. The papers are full of analysis. It's huge. Where will they live, will they get cosy with the King and Camilla, will they actually talk to the Prince of Wales and the lovely Katherine? It's mindboggling, except that it's not, of course. But it certainly shocked all the royal correspondents. This is the couple who used to be a Royal Couple who left Britain to live in California and drop all idea of being working members of the royal family. Now, they want to come home and live a life like everyone else. For this reason, I feel sorry for them because as soon as it is discovered where they are living there is going to be a mad stampede to follow their every move. Life will not be normal, like it was in California where the local people, used to celebrities, largely left them alone to get on with their Netflix lives. Back here, it's going to be drama every day, particularly for Meghan who has made it clear she wants to be left alone while at the same time enjoy as nuch publicity as possible. It's a contradiction that doesn't really work, not here anyway. I wish them luck, especially their children at school and I hope for their sake they are not "doorstepped" wherever they go, day and night. But the likelihood is that even now every photographic agency is planning ahead for the first big image scoop. Good luck, Harry and Meghan. I mean it.

Trump's threat to bomb Oman is bonkers

Bombing Iran hasn't got the result he wanted, so threatening to bomb Oman, an ally of the United States and, incidentally, a centuries-old partner with Britain, particularly to do with military, intelligence and security issues, would be madness. In fact, bonkers. Donald Trump can't have meant it, he just says these things without thinking and then starts to row back when questioned by reporters. He is angry because it looks like Oman and Iran will do a deal together which will allow/enable Oman on the south side of the Strait of Hormuz to take charge of shipping passing through their designated channel, while Iran on the north side will administrate the other channel. Whether it will involve tolls or service charges or some other clever financial penalty, is not yet clear. But Trump doesn't like it and posted that he would bomb Oman if it dared to do such a deal with Iran. Oman is a wonderful country with very friendly and very pro-British people, excellent hospitals, largely thanks to British doctors, and a famous beach where turtles come every year to lay their eggs. So, please, Mr Trump, no bombing. The questions is, will this threat change the relationship Oman has with the West? Will it do a deal with Iran under pressure from Tehran? What will Trump actually do if this deal is signed without US approval? The reality is, there is very little Trump can do to stop this Strait of Hormuz deal from going ahead. He'll rave and complain but Tehran is basically getting what it wants, at least as far as the strait is concerned. Bombing Oman is not an option!

Putin warns Britain

The British government, both under Conservatives and Labour, has been one of the most stalwart of supporters of Ukraine and its leader President Zelensky. Zelensky has been to 10 Downing Street more than any other leader for the last four years. The key difference today is that there seem to be no red lines as far as the UK is concerned about British-supplied weapons being used by Ukrainian against targets inside Russia. Everything supplied, from drones to cruise missiles, are now being launched against Russia, and London seems to be happy about it. Putin has noticed and he keeps up with everything that the UK does for Ukraine and against Russia, and he has warned of consequences. Two UK companies are known to be supplying Ukraine with medium-range drones which have been used against targets inside Russia. What is Putin planning to do? Well, he is already doing it, he is sending warships to frolic around in the English channel, and he is sending submarines to map all the super-sensitive cables running under the Channel, and his cyber-warfare specialist teams are attacking every aspect of British life every day. But could he do more? In other words, might he actually fire something at a target in the UK? This, of course, would be viewed as a direct aggressive move and could lead to an outright war between Russia and the UK (and thus Nato). Putin is far more likely to be somewhat more cunning than that. Cyber attacks could proliferate. When Putin is angry he tends to lash out. We will all have to be on our guard.

Jared Kushner, Trump's everywhere envoy

Jared Kushner never seems to stop. Today he is in Jerusalem seeing Benjamin Netanyahu, yesterday he was in Egypt talking to Hamas leader, Khalil al-Hayya and to the Egyptian President al-Sisi. The question is, how good an envoy is he? Is he a tough talker and negotiator or is he just a message carrier for his father-in-law? By now, after two years of being a Trump special envoy for everywhere, he must have acquired negotiating skills but will he persuade Netanyahu, for example, to row back on his rejection of Trump's 20-point peace plan for Gaza or will he come away as frustrated as Trump has become with the Israeli leader? Netanyahu has a huge amount at stake. He is due to stand for reelection in October and he dare not do or say anything which could look as if he is backing down vis a vis Hamas. He wants Hamas to totally disarm before he orders any Israeli troop withdrawals. That's presumably what he will tell Kushner. But what Trump wants to hear is that Israel will withdraw from Gaza at the same time as Hamas starts handing over its weapons. In other words, choreography. So far, Netanyahu says NO to that. Let's see whether Kushner has the balls and clout to get Netanyahu to show more of a compromise. It seems unlikely.

Has Trump lost his global clout?

Like the bee or butterfly flapping its wings can have an effect on the world's environment, so the words of Donald Trump used to shake every capital on the planet. But is that still the case? Does everyone jump when Trump comes out with one of his bold statements, like when he threatened to destroy Iran's civilisation? He still has the power to shock and surprise, but after so many U-turns and changes of mind, I would say the Trump Effect has now dwindled. Is Iran terrified at the thought of Trump reordering military strikes? I somehow doubt it. The Tehran regime has learned to treat some of his warnings and threats with a pinch of salt or a shrug of the shoulders. Does Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, jump to attention every time Trump barks at him? Not any more. Netanyahu rejected Trump's peace plan for Gaza because it didn't say that Hamas had to totally disarm BEFORE Israel start to withdraw its troops from the territory. Does Europe quiver at the thought of a Trump phone call, demanding this or that? No longer, I suspect. This must mean that for his final two years in Office, Trump is going to struggle to get his own way. This will make him increasingly frustrated which is probably not a good thpught.

Why Trump is on Iran's hitlist

The assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on February 28 has placed President Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, on a forever revenge hit list carried by Iran’s world network of militant Shia activists, a former Mossad official has told The Times. It was this revenge motivation which persuaded the US Secret Service to orchestrate the elaborate subterfuge which led to Trump being evacuated from Air Force One through a catering container truck to another plane at Ankara international airport for his flight home, following the end of the Nato summit in the Turkish capital on July 8. Among the mass of intelligence pouring in from all quarters over recent months, it is believed an intercepted conversation or directive from Tehran may have made reference to the option of using a man-portable missile launcher close to the airport when Trump was due to take off on Air Force One. There was a suspected sighting of such a weapon system on that day, according to the New York Times. “The Americans are looking at an enormous amount of information, and if there’s intelligence that suggests somebody, whether the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC] or the Iranian intelligence service or a terrorist group is seeking revenge on Trump for the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, then it has to be taken seriously,” Rami Igra, former Mossad official, said. “Ali Khamenei was a religious leader, the most important personality in the Shia world. There are 250 million people in this world who are Shia Muslim. So there is a huge religious incentive for seeking revenge for the death of their leader,” he said. “It’s most likely that it ws a technological source, rather than a human source, which provided the intelligence. Technological sources are hardcore evidence which would have come from an interception of a conversation or a directive about where someone should be and at what place and time,” said Igra who was head of Mossad’s hostage and missing-in-action (MIA) department. “The US Secret Service never takes chances. They’re not allowed to take chances. Their job is to imagine the worst all the time. Israel always passes on the intelligence it gets, even to unfriendly nations, if it will save peoples’ lives,” he said. He said Iran had a history of carrying out assassinations. “But the only assassination involving the Iranian intelligence service specifically was the attack on the Mykonos restaurant in Berlin against anti-Iranian activists in the 1990s [on September 17, 1992, four exiled Kurdish-Iranian individuals were killed. A German court ruled that top leaders of the Iranian government were involved].” “On the whole, the Iranian intelligence service is not in the business of assassinations. Its speciality is espionage. Israel’s Shin Bet counter-espionage organisation has picked up 30 Israeli spies, recruited by the Iranian intelligence service,” Igra said. Iran has two overlapping intelligence services, the Ministry of Intelligence (MOI), and the IRGC’s own organisation, both of which come under the aegis of the supreme leader. In addition, there is the IRGC’s Quds Force, the overseas operations branch which carries out intelligence-gathering, sabotage and support for Iran’s proxy militia forces throughout the Middle East. Major-General Qasem Soleimani was the head of the Quds Force when he was assassinated by a US armed drone outside Baghdad airport on January 3, 2020. he IRGC intelligence branch has been specially active in recent years, kidnapping Iranian dissidents and attempted abductions of Israeli businessmen. Both the MOI and IRGC are known to be active in Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. The US Justice Department revealed that the IRGC was behind an assassination attempt against Trump when he was on the presidential campaign trail in 2024. “It’s no secret that the Iranians have wanted to assassinate Trump and other figures from this first term like Mike Pompeo [then secretary of state], John Bolton [national security adviser], and Brian Hook [special representative for Iran] who were involved in the drone strike that killed Soleimani in 2020,” a former senior US diplomatic official said. “This desire for revenge has been quickened by the Israeli pager assassination plot that decapitated Hezbollah [in 2024], strikes against IRGC figures in Syria before the fall of [President Bashar al-] Assad and the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas in Tehran in 2024, not to mention the decapitation strikes that began the current war with Iran, including the killing of the supreme leader, and many senior leaders of the security elements,” the former official said. “Iran has not had much success, so far, with assassinating western senior leaders, as opposed to regime opponents, but they have demonstrated their reach by going after soft targets like the Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires [which killed 85 people in 1994] and [the US air base barracks at] Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996 [when a truck bomb killed 19 American airmen].” “The fact that they have, so far, failed to take out western leaders doesn't mean they will stop trying or that at some point they might not succeed.” The now-confirmed switch in planes at Ankara via the catering truck was not the first time that the US Secret Service has had to use deception to protect the life of the president. President Bill Clinton flew secretly to India and Pakistan in 2000 when a crisis was building over Kashmir between the two nuclear powers. He, too, switched from Air Force One to an unmarked aircraft. Both President George W Bush and President Barack Obama, used decoys and deception to visit, respectively, Baghdad in 2003 eight months after the start of the Iraq war, and Afghanistan to meet US troops in 2010.

Europe having to get used to extreme heat

This is the future and it doesn't look or feel good. Temperatures heading for 40C across the continent and in the United Kingdom, a summer of hot, hot, steamy weather and, in the UK at least, no air conditioning in homes. Outside, there is no wind, just oppressive hotness. This is not the future any of us wants but as the politicians throughout Europe and the rest of the world have failed, failed, failed to do anything serious about climate change, it is now hitting us very severely and there is very little we simple folk can do about it. The terrifying fact is that even if world leaders, including and especially Donald Trump and Xi Zinping, suddenly realise they have to do something, it's all too late. Temperatures have risen this year and will do so again next year and the following year. Green grass will vanish, trees will die, people will die, jobs will go, the world will creak and groan. and yet, still, the wars we now have will carry on as normal. What a future for our children and grandchildren.

Secret Service caters for Donald Trump

Donald Trump is a big guy, so being shuffled into a catering container for his switch to another plane for a getaway from Ankara the other week must have seemed somewhat undignified. But he was under orders from the Secret Service. They wanted him to leave the Nato summit in Ankara by a method that at all costs evaded the possible threat of an Iranian missile hitting his normal plane, Air Force One. Of course it's the responsibility of the president's Secret Service detail to decide what's best for him, but it was certainly unusual for the president of the United States to be exited by subterfuge from a Nato country to return home. But this is the world we live in, or to be more precise, this is the world western leaders have to face when there are malign states intent on targeting them. It is true, of course, that Iran's own leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed on the first day of the US/Israel war which began on February 28th, and targeting Trump in revenge is something which the US intelligence services have been aware of since that decapitation strike. It's another reason why any peace deal between the US and Iran is highly unlikely while Trump is in the White House. Trump's "catering" experience at Ankara airpoprt will go down in history as one of the more quixotic evacuation procedures used to keep the president safe.

Is Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei in charge after all?

Despite facial disfigurements and other injuries to his body and his hideaway never-seen existence, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei who took over as Iran's supreme leader when his father was killed on the first day of the US/Israel war with Iran, seems actually to be in charge and making decisions which others are obeying. He seems to have taken the hardest-possible line on doing any sort of deal with the US and appears determined to put his stamp on the future of Iran. While the military in the shape of the commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, are the visible leaders of the country, the disabled supreme leader is still issuing orders. How it is being done is difficult to guage but clearly the courier system he is suspected of using from his command bunker is working effectively. Mojtaba, I am sure, has one driving motivation for taking the toughest line with the US. He blames Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, for the assassination of his father, the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He no doubt wants revenge and the best way, I giess, is for him to put so much pressure on Trump by hanging on to the Strait of Hormuz, that the US will just give up. Whatever happens in the next few weeks, Iran's control of the strait is not going to be conceded in any future deal, if there is ever a deal. Mojtaba may have vanished into his bunker somewhere, but he is alive and dictating the terms for what he will see as Trump's surrender.

Will Venezuela be Trump's only triumph?

The way things are going wrong for Trump in Iran, Gaza and Ukraine, it may turn out that when he leaves office in January 2029 he will have only one foreign success story to his name and for his legacy. Mind you, even the Venezuela venture hasn't exactly worked out well for the people. American Delta Force commandos swept in by heliopter in the dead of night and captured the dreadful President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in their pyjamas and took them back to the US for trial on drugs charges. But has that meant a transformation for the Venezuelan people, with oil money back in the treasury coffers to be spent on housing and social welfare and better living standards? Definitely not. And quite what the arrangement now is between Washington and Caracas over how the country is to be run remains somewhat cloudy. Anyway, the whizzo military operation to seize Maduro was without question a coup for Trump. But that's all he has to boast about. Everything else has gone wrong. Gaza is still in a mess with Israel and Hamas locked in anger and retribution, Iran is a hopeless case with no end in sight to an intractable impasse over the Strait of Hormuz and everything else, and the war in Ukraine is a for-ever conflict. Not much to write home about for a president who vowed to end all wars.