Who is Trump listening to on Isis?

Donald Trump has got it into his head that Isis in Syria is going to be finally annihilated by next week. I just wonder where he gets his information from: not from the CIA or other US intelligence agencies because they all seem to agree that Isis remains a threat in Syria and could resurge and reawaken if the US pulls out its 2,000 troops, most of whom are special operations soldiers and commandos; and not from the military because they know first hand that the remaining Isis fighters in eastern Syria still pose a deadly threat. Four Americans were killed recently in a suicide bomb explosion in Manbij, a place supposedly freed of Isis. So did Trump get his information after talking to someone like President Erdogan of Turkey, a man desperate to be allowed to let loose in north-eastern Syria without Americans troops in the way; or perhaps he misheard a report from Fox News. I cannot imagine anyone in the know telling Trump that it would be perfectly ok for him to boast that Isis will all be dead and buried in Syria next week. The man who probably knows more about what is actually happening in Syria is General Joseph Votel, commander of US Central Command which is in charge of the whole US-led operation in Syria. He said recently that Isis still had leaders, fighters, resources and the "profane ideology" which had kept them lethal ever since they were formed. General Votel reckons there are between 1,000 and 1,500 Isis fighters in the last mini-stronghold in the eastern province of Deir el-Zour, although a lot more have slipped away and are in hiding all over the eastern Syrian desert. Can all this lot be killed off by next week? There isn't a single US military commander who would dare predict this fanciful belief. So who told Trump he could say this? General Votel has already revealed the president didn't bother to consult him before he announced his shock decision to withdraw the US troops from Syria. He is the big chief of Central Command, yet there was no phone call from the White House to give him advance notice or to ask whether it was a good idea right now. So, again, I have to ask, who told Trump Isis was going to be finished in Syria by next week? I have no doubt that having announced it already, Trump will sometime next week declare that the anti-Isis campaign in Syria is now "Mission Accomplished". Now where have I heard that before?

Will Joe Biden run for president?

After Donald Trump's whizz-bang State of the Union address which, if nothing else, dramatically marked out his potential for continuing to divide the country rather than unify it as he urged, the focus is going to increasingly switch to Democratic candidates who could genuinely pose a threat to his wish to serve for another four years after 2020. With the Robert Mueller report on Russian collusion perhaps a month or so away, Trump can expect 2019 to be filled with dangerous pitfalls, giving his Democratic presidential rivals plenty of ammunition to attack him. So who is going to take the lead in the Democratic Party? Is Joe Biden finally going to put his name in the ring? If he does, I think it will force a lot of the potential candidates to opt out and leave it to Joe. But could this be a big mistake? Joe Biden is a good guy with a lot of support in the Democratic Party and as a former vice-president has the experience of the White House pressures. But in this new era of megaphone politics, Joe Biden's niceness could either be his greatest asset or his greatest weakness. Trump could devour him very quickly. Perhaps this is why Biden is taking so long to make up his mind. His family I would imagine will be warning him that taking on Trump could be a dangerous business. He would need to be seen as being as tough as Trump but without the divisive rhetoric. I suspect that Biden, if he does decide to run, will soon fall by the wayside. Another younger candidate will have to emerge into the frontline. It's difficult at this stage - too early - to see who that will be. Not Elizabeth Warren I suspect. Not Tulsi Gabbard, not Julian Castro, not Kirsten Gillibrand, and not many of the others who have either suggested, hinted at or announced their candidature. My money at this stage is on Kamala Harris who looks and sounds good and would be a wonderful opposite to Trump, or glamour boy Beto O'Rourke who has yet to make up his mind whether to run. He's a long-odds possible because he has obvious charisma. But I truly think a woman is going to outdo Trump and be the next president. It's time. Sorry Hillary, definitely not you.

Iran remains a barrier between the US and Europe

The United States and Europe have failed to make up their differences over Iran and the country’s potential for developing nuclear weapons. It is a sad reflection of the current relationship between the US and Europe that the European nations which signed the historic July 2015 nuclear deal with Iran are still doing everything they can to trade with Tehran to honour the agreement which the American administration withdrew from last year. The US and Europe share one of the most important diplomatic, cultural and military alliances on the planet. Yet on Iran the two continents are as far apart as ever. Europe remains determined to stick to the 2015 agreement because they are convinced it has prevented Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. As part of the deal, the signatories – the US. China, Russia, Britain, France, Germany and the European Union - were supposed to start lifting economic sanctions against Iran. After the US announced it was opting out of the deal last year, European leaders said they would continue to honour the agreement and set up a mechanism under which Europe could trade with Iran without being penalised by Washington. European countries are still pursuing that objective today. The big question is this: can Tehran be trusted to give up its suspected nuclear weapons ambition? Will the continuing trade deals with Europe be enough to keep the 2015 deal alive, or will action by the US against European companies doing business with Iran eventually kill the deal altogether? The US intelligence community concluded in its latest report published recently that there was no sign of Iran trying secretly to develop a nuclear weapons programme. Trump dismissed this as child-like naivety but actually it was a statement of fact. There IS no satellite evidence of a clandestine nuclear programme underway in Iran. However, two of the most prominent figures in Washington remain adamantly opposed to the 2015 nuclear deal and have in the past accused Iran of cheating. Mike Pompeo, secretary of state, and John Bolton, national security adviser, both support Trump in their hostility towards the Iranian regime. So the split between the US and Europe over Iran is never going to be resolved. The US will continue to do its best to destroy the deal and Europe will continue to try and thwart Trump. So much for the Tran-Atlantic alliance.

Turkey is increasingly becoming a wayward ally of the West

Turkey used to be a stalwart member of Nato and a trusted ally of the West which, for years, wanted to be accepted into the European Union family. But President Erdogan, having destroyed the coup against him, is now a wayward, unreliable, slightly scary partner who seems to spend more time shaking hands with the likes of Vladimir Putin than getting on the phone to the US or to leaders in Europe. The latest snub by the Turkish leader is to do with Venezuela. The US and Europe have, somewhat bizarrely, rejected the presidency of Nicolas Maduro (that's good) and hailed as the real president the young Juan Guaido (that's good too, although not exactly "legal" and a bit ad hoc). It's a strange way of doing diplomatic business, a bit like saying "Hey we don't like Putin so we no longer recognise him as the legitimate leader and from now on will deal only with Alexei Navalny (anti-Putin opposition leader)". However, it's a brilliant way of getting the message across to Maduro that it's time he stepped down and lived in exile in Outer Mongolia, never to be heard of again. But Turkey has instantly sided with Russia and China, dissing its friends in the West. Russia and China actually support Maduro and his brutal repressive regime because it suits their game plan for the world. They don't care about the ravages Maduro has caused to his country, they don't care about the billions of dollars he has stolen from the country's coffers and handed out to his family, all they care about is that Venezuela is nicely placed on the map to give them political leverage vis a vis the United States. But Turkey? Why is Erdogan supporting Maduro? Erdogan is a political manipulator and autocratic by nature and instinct and he probably has a sneaking regard for the oversized Venezuelan leader. Whatever the reason, Turkey, Russia and China are lined up against the US and Europe and will no doubt do whatever is required to keep the nice Maduro in power. I hope they're all proud of their support for a man who has literally destroyed the lives of every single Venezuelan who isn't wearing a military uniform. Will this help Turkey to join the EU? I think not. Even Boris Johnson who has been espousing Turkey's EU cause for years, is probably now thinking again. Although once we leave the EU under whatever Brexit fix is agreed between now and March 29, we Brits won't have a say in whether the Turks should be allowed to join or not.

Trump seems to be rushing for a deal with the Taliban

In the 18th year of the war in Aghanistan between the Taliban/al Qaeda/Isis and dozens of other terrorist groups and the US and coalition partners, there now seems to be an unhealthy rush to get a peace settlement and get the hell out before the 2020 presidential election campaign starts. The Taliban have always worked on the basis that they have the luxury of feeling no pressure to end the war, even though they have lost hundreds of fighters, and millions, if not billions, of dollars in destroyed heroin stocks and laboratories. They still have their fighting spirit and their ideology, they still want a full Islamic Taliban republic in Afghanistan, and the way things are going, they will probably get at least part of what they have been fighting for since 2001. Trump is desperate to get the 14,000 US troops home from Afghanistan, and has set a timetable for his negotiating team, led by Zalmay Khalilzad, the eminently capable Afghan-born American diplomat. But is the timetable too hasty? Is Khalilzad working to a Trump agenda which requires huge concessions? Could the Taliban be smiling behind their beards because at last here is an administration in Washington which actually wants to leave and leave fast? The huge danger is that the Taliban, probably among the toughest negotiators in the world will cunningly promise much but deliver nothing. This draft agreement under which the US would withdraw its troops in return for the Taliban pledging never to give sanctuary to al-Qaeda and other terrorist hoodlums is pretty worthless. Why on earth would anyone believe what they promise? Even if it's in writing, so what? This is not a trade union negotiating a better deal for its members. This is the toughest insurgency force in the world seeking to get rid of all foreign troops from its land. They can promise all kinds of things to get what they want and then just renege as soon as the last US soldier has climbed on the plane to go back home. And they won't care about international outrage. The only thing that might stop them inviting al-Qaeda back into Afghanistan would be the knowledge that Trump and any future US president might send back the bombers and Tomahawks to hit them. So it would be a gamble, but the Taliban might think to themselves, the last thing Trump would want to do, after pulling all the US troops out, would be to have to spend more money on bombing targets. But let's say the Taliban does stick to its promise to keep out al-Qaeda, is that good enough for Washington to say, "Hey this is a victory for us, we have achieved what we wanted after 18 years, there is no one anymore plotting terrorist attacks against the US in Afghanistan. Triumph, victory, success". BUT whatever Trump says, this is not what the war has been solely about. If that was the case, an end to the war could have been negotiated years ago. No the war was also about saving the country from savagery, reducing if not destroying the heroin trade, returning democracy, freedom of expression and human rights to the nation and bringing it out of the 14th century. Right now there is a democratically-elected government, although as corrupt as ever, women have emerged into public life, girls can go to school, health clinics have grown up all over the place and infrastructure has been improved albeit not transformed. But of course the heroin business has not just survived but is thriving. A real and total failure on the part of the West and the Afghan government. So what will happen if the Taliban regain power or at least shared power? Will all the gains achieved with so much sacrifice, human and financial, be wasted in a surge of militant Islamism? It's not a reason to stop negotiating peace, but it's a damned good reason to take this steadily and not rush to a settlement in six months.

Why is everyone still talking about a no-deal Brexit?

If there was decent proper political leadership in the United Kingdom, he or she would stand up in the House of Commons and with eloquence and passion and Churchill-like phrases tell every MP, male, female, Brexiteer or Remainer, "There is only one way forward and that is to stay in the EU. That would be in this great nation's best interest. I care not a fig (very Shakespearean) for the Conservative Party's future nor the Labour Party's, I only care about the future of this country and therefore let us give up this idea that there is a better world outside the EU. Let us stay in the European Union and be great Europeans and change what we don't like from within the EU. The 2016 referendum was a mistake, a stupid mistake carried out by my own party and we sincerely regret the upheaval it has created. But I, as leader, have decided for the sake of all our futures to stay as we are. It will be better for all of us. I'm sorry for those who want to leave the EU but it is not going to happen." To rousing cheers, she or he will raise the Union Jack in the air and cry: "Let us end this division and follow me." More rousing cheers and every MP follows him or her out of the Commons chamber and out into the sunlight. This is the sort of scenario I dream about. But we don't have that sort of leader, we have MPs who don't agree on anything, we have a confused public who have stopped trying to understand what it is all about, we have Leavers who now want to remain and Remainers who now want to leave. We are all angry and scared and fed up with the lack of leadership. More and more planning is going ahead in anticipation of leaving the EU without any deal. How can this be? Why is all this money being wasted on something which CANNOT and MUST NOT happen? Why can't our leader say, "We cannot afford to leave without a deal, and that's final". But our leader, Theresa May, wants the no-deal option to be in place to blackmail everyone including the EU, into a deal that will make sense for everyone. OK, that may work, but my God if it doesn't then we WILL leave without a deal. We will crash out into a future that is unplannable and unpredictable. Politicians squabbling like children is never going to get us anywhere. March 29 is NEXT MONTH.

An historic arms control treaty scrapped in the new-era Cold War

How desperately sad that the US feels it has to withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), signed by Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev. The INF treaty will formally be scrapped by the US tomorrow (Saturday February 2 2019). The US insists that the Russians are in breach of the treaty by fielding a new ground-launched cruise missile called Novator 9M729 (also known as SSC-8). Intelligence reports state that this missile can go further than the allowed INF range of 500 kilometres. The treaty bans all ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometres. The Russians have dismissed America's accusation, saying the cruise missile can only go 480 kilometres!! So, just 20 kilometres short of the banned range. Very convenient. The US simply doesn't believe them. If Putin told you that his latest missile had a range of only 480 kilometres, would you believe him? No, I didn't think so. But the US is not just worried about Putin's missile game. After all, the INF Treaty only covers ground-launched missiles, and America has plenty of air-launched and sea-launched ones. No, the real reason for the US jumping out of the INF Treaty is that it only embraces missiles owned by the US and Russia. That's because it was a Cold War weapon when the Soviet Union and the US relied on mutual assured destruction as a deterrent to either side going to war with the other. Today the even bigger worry is China. The Chinese military have developed and deployed thousands of land-based medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles which threaten America's aircraft carrier strike forces whenever they are in the area that China wants to dominate. So now, with INF dead, the Pentagon can start developing a whole new range of ground-based missiles, ostensibly to match Putin's new missile, but also to keep pace with China. But it's still a sad day. The INF Treaty was a great coup. Russia was forced to back down, having deployed its SS-20 land-based missiles to target Europe. When the US sent cruise missiles to Britain and elsewhere and Pershing 2 missiles to Germany, the deterrent status quo was back in business. It took Ronnie and Mikhail to realise it was all rather pointless, and so all the missiles were destroyed. So February 2 2019 is a bad day. Thanks Putin.