Some of this has been a feature since Trump returned to the White House. The handful of American officials seconded to UK government departments are increasingly being asked to leave meetings when sensitive information is discussed, in contrast to a more permissive approach previously, one of the people said.
A more recent element of friction, noted by Washington, is the longer time taken by the UK to approve requests for American aircraft to use British military sites such as RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, the person said.
In the past these requests had been “rubber-stamped” by the UK but now were “stickier” and “there’s that little bit of extra tension in the system”, the person said.
Additionally, at a European level:
One senior official, granted anonymity to disclose details about security policy, told POLITICO's Brussels Playbook that the Council of the EU had guidelines stating that "no electronics are taken to the U.S. or China ... When this is not possible, the electronics that are brought back must be wiped.”
I suppose the real issue is what is left of mutual self interest. Good relations are difficult to protect when having to deal with a country led by someone volatile, inconsistent and noisy, who moves goal posts at the drop of a hat.
A lot of Trump and Hegseth’s whining about lack of help, is totally ignoring the UK forces role in trying to protect UK allies in the gulf from Iranian attacks (and incidentally these are also theoretically US allies).
A lot of Trump and Hegseth’s whining about lack of help, is totally ignoring the UK forces role in trying to protect UK allies in the gulf from Iranian attacks (and incidentally these are also theoretically US allies).
And the UKs role in directly participating in an aggressive war against Iran - contra Starmer's official position - by allowing US long range bombers to stage from Fairford etc.
And the UKs role in directly participating in an aggressive war against Iran - contra Starmer's official position - by allowing US long range bombers to stage from Fairford etc.
Did I mention that over fifty years ago the USA was flying from RAF Akrotiri using their everlasting U-2 spy planes, and has done so to this day. 7am, on the dot. Only the routes have changed.
And the UKs role in directly participating in an aggressive war against Iran - contra Starmer's official position - by allowing US long range bombers to stage from Fairford etc.
Did I mention that over fifty years ago the USA was flying from RAF Akrotiri using their everlasting U-2 spy planes, and has done so to this day. 7am, on the dot. Only the routes have changed.
AFAIR the reason for that is that they are monitoring the old Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel (though they occasionally relocate the U2s to other locations in the Med in order to support additional missions - Libya most recently).
There are reports Trump is sending B52s in. This means he is beginning to carpet bomb certain targets, and the bombs being unleased are likely dumb gravity bombs, meaning they cannot be targeted while falling. B52s are high altitude bombers but anti-aircraft missiles can reach them, though they do have electronic counter measures.
There are reports Trump is sending B52s in. This means he is beginning to carpet bomb certain targets, and the bombs being unleased are likely dumb gravity bombs, meaning they cannot be targeted while falling. B52s are high altitude bombers but anti-aircraft missiles can reach them, though they do have electronic counter measures.
Except the Chinese missile targeting algorithms have quantum code embedded that defeats jamming and spoofing.
B52s are slow moving target practice for the Chinese to prove their systems in realtime. What could possibly go wrong?
There are reports Trump is sending B52s in. This means he is beginning to carpet bomb certain targets, and the bombs being unleased are likely dumb gravity bombs, meaning they cannot be targeted while falling. B52s are high altitude bombers but anti-aircraft missiles can reach them, though they do have electronic counter measures.
Except the Chinese missile targeting algorithms have quantum code embedded that defeats jamming and spoofing.
For the time being I'm inclined to treat any claims about computing involving the word "quantum" with a degree of suspicion that would make a Witchfinder General say "steady on, that's going a bit far".
Answering my own question re US withdrawal from NATO, AI Google tells me this. It’s a bit long!
Legal Constraints on NATO Withdrawal
The 2024 NDAA Provision:
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2024 includes a specific provision designed to prevent a president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without congressional involvement. This law states that the President shall not terminate, withdraw, or suspend United States membership in the North Atlantic Treaty except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
Funding Limitations:
The legislation also prohibits the use of federal funds to support or facilitate a withdrawal from the treaty unless the aforementioned congressional approval is obtained.
Constitutional and Legal Debates
Despite the 2024 NDAA, there are differing legal theories regarding executive power:
Executive Authority: Some legal scholars argue that the President possesses broad "sole organ" authority over foreign affairs and that a treaty, once ratified, falls under the executive's power to manage or terminate. This perspective suggests that a legislative "guardrail" might be challenged in court as an unconstitutional infringement on the President's Article II powers.
Congressional Power: Conversely, many experts maintain that because the Senate must provide advice and consent to enter a treaty, the same level of legislative branch involvement is required to exit one. The 2024 NDAA codifies this requirement into federal law.
The Role of the Courts: If a president were to attempt a withdrawal by Executive Order in defiance of the NDAA, it would likely trigger an immediate legal challenge. The Supreme Court would likely be the final arbiter to determine whether the President has the constitutional authority to override a specific statute passed by Congress regarding treaty obligations.
In summary, while a president might attempt to use executive power, the 2024 NDAA creates a substantial legal barrier that would require either a supermajority in the Senate or an Act of Congress to legally finalize a withdrawal from NATO.
In short, it looks as though he could try by Executive Order but the outcome is problematic.
There may be various actions he can take short of full withdrawal like suspending intelligence sharing, joint training, even withdrawing from European bases.
I think any of those actions are probably in breach of Article 3 of the NATO treaty viz
Article 3
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
But I don’t think that would bother Trump. I’m not sure that any penalties exist for breach of Article 3, nor could they be enforced.
I think any of those actions are probably in breach of Article 3 of the NATO treaty viz
Article 3
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
But I don’t think that would bother Trump. I’m not sure that any penalties exist for breach of Article 3, nor could they be enforced.
Not going to stop him. Remember, Charles de Gaulle withdrew from NATO's integrated command structure in 1966. Trump's loophole will be his foreign policy powers.
As I am watching the utter unwillingness of NATO to learn from the experience of the Ukrainians and the Russians on the battlefield, where 21st century warfare is being solidified and canonized daily, I can't help but say about America that it would be about time the rest of us cut the dead weight of a military that still parks its most valuable assets on the tarmac in full view of any satellite or drone that wants to fly over and drop some ordnance.
I mean come on. Not one, not two, but three strikes on Prince Sultan airbase and the loss of three tankers, a couple of F15s and an all but irreplaceable AWACS on the ground. On. The. Ground.
If we can't fix stupid at least we can contain ourselves against it.
We have 17 E3 AWACS remaining in service. In addition, the Navy has its own E2 AWCs in service. There are four of them on board each aircraft carrier. It was a blow, yes, especially since we know Russia gave the Iranians the intelligence necessary to target it.
Interesting to note the Trump administration cancelled the E3 replacement, the E7, because it would be vulnerable to modern warfare.
Answering my own question re US withdrawal from NATO, AI Google tells me this. It’s a bit long!
Legal Constraints on NATO Withdrawal
The 2024 NDAA Provision:
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2024 includes a specific provision designed to prevent a president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without congressional involvement. This law states that the President shall not terminate, withdraw, or suspend United States membership in the North Atlantic Treaty except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
Funding Limitations:
The legislation also prohibits the use of federal funds to support or facilitate a withdrawal from the treaty unless the aforementioned congressional approval is obtained.
Constitutional and Legal Debates
Despite the 2024 NDAA, there are differing legal theories regarding executive power:
Executive Authority: Some legal scholars argue that the President possesses broad "sole organ" authority over foreign affairs and that a treaty, once ratified, falls under the executive's power to manage or terminate. This perspective suggests that a legislative "guardrail" might be challenged in court as an unconstitutional infringement on the President's Article II powers.
Congressional Power: Conversely, many experts maintain that because the Senate must provide advice and consent to enter a treaty, the same level of legislative branch involvement is required to exit one. The 2024 NDAA codifies this requirement into federal law.
The Role of the Courts: If a president were to attempt a withdrawal by Executive Order in defiance of the NDAA, it would likely trigger an immediate legal challenge. The Supreme Court would likely be the final arbiter to determine whether the President has the constitutional authority to override a specific statute passed by Congress regarding treaty obligations.
In summary, while a president might attempt to use executive power, the 2024 NDAA creates a substantial legal barrier that would require either a supermajority in the Senate or an Act of Congress to legally finalize a withdrawal from NATO.
In short, it looks as though he could try by Executive Order but the outcome is problematic.
As I am watching the utter unwillingness of NATO to learn from the experience of the Ukrainians and the Russians on the battlefield, where 21st century warfare is being solidified and canonized daily, I can't help but say about America that it would be about time the rest of us cut the dead weight of a military that still parks its most valuable assets on the tarmac in full view of any satellite or drone that wants to fly over and drop some ordnance.
I mean come on. Not one, not two, but three strikes on Prince Sultan airbase and the loss of three tankers, a couple of F15s and an all but irreplaceable AWACS on the ground. On. The. Ground.
If we can't fix stupid at least we can contain ourselves against it.
Do you know what they do? I’d guess it’s classified. Wouldn’t want to give the drone launchers anything to go on. So I wondered if you were guessing that they know stuff and either haven’t passed it on or are being ignored?
The relation between the Ukrainians and the US military is somewhat ambiguous. Communication between them is compromised by trust issues caused by politics.
Of course it’s stupid to have big planes easily accessible to drone attacks. But I doubt it’s that easy to conceal them. And they need to be near big launch and land runways. Maybe the Ukrainians know better? I’m not sure if they think it’s safe to share all their secrets with the US military. I wouldn’t blame them for being cautious.
Separate topic. I note without surprise that Trump’s latest statement did not reassure the markets. Nor did he mention leaving NATO.
Despite the enormous damage inflicted on their resources, Iran is laughing at his assertions re negotiations.
Well, I suppose that's deserved, given that the US and Israel reportedly tried to assassinate another person trying to open back channels between Iran and the US (by bombing residential buildings and in the process killing his wife and very probably others):
Do you know what they do? I’d guess it’s classified. Wouldn’t want to give the drone launchers anything to go on. So I wondered if you were guessing that they know stuff and either haven’t passed it on or are being ignored?
The relation between the Ukrainians and the US military is somewhat ambiguous. Communication between them is compromised by trust issues caused by politics.
Of course it’s stupid to have big planes easily accessible to drone attacks. But I doubt it’s that easy to conceal them. And they need to be near big launch and land runways. Maybe the Ukrainians know better? I’m not sure if they think it’s safe to share all their secrets with the US military. I wouldn’t blame them for being cautious.
If the Ukrainians parked their air force on the tarmac out in the open it would have been completely demolished in the first days of the conflict.
Just google reinforced concrete hangars. There are plans for them all over the internet. It's not a secret. Build them and camouflage them with sand. Or turf.
Which makes the fact that the Americans didn't even do this much even more stupid.
I doubt whether they are foolproof e.g an attack through the hanger doors and even with a roof cover any new construction would stick out. But a lot better than e.g just leaving an AWACS on the runway.
Hegseth should have realized if the Ukrainians could attack Russian strategic bombers up to 3,000 miles away, the Iranians could attack an American AWACS plane 750 miles away.
Hegseth should have realized if the Ukrainians could attack Russian strategic bombers up to 3,000 miles away, the Iranians could attack an American AWACS plane 750 miles away.
Yes. This is my point. The intransigent unwillingness and dare I say the arrogance to refuse to learn from the realtime experience of the Ukrainians and the Russians who are canonizing the rules of 21st century warfare on the daily, is crippling the west. This overdependence on anti missile systems that were calibrated to intercept twenty year old incoming ordnance is disastrously outdated hubris. The age of hypersonic and cheap saturation munitions is here, has been here for over three years now, and we're standing around holding our private parts.
A very recent NATO wargame exercise showed NATO troops being wiped clean off the map in the first few minutes of engagement by Ukrainian drone operators. Meaning NATO military doctrine needs an urgent update that can't wait for Pentagon middle managers and four star money launderers to implement.
Hegseth should have realized if the Ukrainians could attack Russian strategic bombers up to 3,000 miles away, the Iranians could attack an American AWACS plane 750 miles away.
A very recent NATO wargame exercise showed NATO troops being wiped clean off the map in the first few minutes of engagement by Ukrainian drone operators. Meaning NATO military doctrine needs an urgent update that can't wait for Pentagon middle managers and four star money launderers to implement.
AFF
And that's what scares me about an invasion of any part of Iran, including the islands. Iran would rain down all sorts of drones and missiles on the landing force and obliterate them. That would be very bad for what's left of the prestige of the United States.
Hegseth should have realized if the Ukrainians could attack Russian strategic bombers up to 3,000 miles away, the Iranians could attack an American AWACS plane 750 miles away.
A very recent NATO wargame exercise showed NATO troops being wiped clean off the map in the first few minutes of engagement by Ukrainian drone operators. Meaning NATO military doctrine needs an urgent update that can't wait for Pentagon middle managers and four star money launderers to implement.
AFF
And that's what scares me about an invasion of any part of Iran, including the islands. Iran would rain down all sorts of drones and missiles on the landing force and obliterate them. That would be very bad for what's left of the prestige of the United States.
Don't do it, Trump.
I think those men are afraid of the same thing and with every good reason to be. I think of the Dieppe disater of WWII where the Germans sat on the cliffs and rained a hail of bullets and bombs down on the landing forces from a safe and strategic height.
I hope and pray that this is not the fate of our young men.
I read a powerful piece earlier today by James Birmingham, who is a historian and veteran, likening this campaign to that of Crassus against the Parthians in much the same part of the world back in the day.
Sadly this Crassus is staying well behind the lines, so others will be the "beneficiaries" of his folly.
I cannot understand why the US military seem to completely ignore surprise so often (their supreme leader... different ball game!); and let everyone including the enemy know just what they are doing next. Especially when they constantly seem to underestimate - remember when Zelensky was effectively ambushed and told he didn't have the cards? Though that was a political rather than military ambush, it was still the people driving the US narrative.
Isn't the US tied into international oil markets? So surely the closure of the Hormuz straight to shipping will affect the US and trump's assertion'we don't need it' is a moot point?
Indeed, we're all in a global market. My understanding is that the UK and US use relatively small amounts of oil from the Persian Gulf, and so our oil and gas supplies aren't directly affected. But, being in a global market means that we're all impacted by rises in prices (which are fixed, so when prices go up without any increasing in production costs the winners are the oil companies still able to sell), and also the supplies we do rely on may be diverted to places more dependent on supplies through Hormuz. That's simply how global trade works - I'm sure any successful business person will understand that, but Trump might not.
When the USA was bombing Iraq and Afghanistan they used the base on Diego Garcia which is about 3,000 miles from Iran, which is out of the reported range of Iran’s missiles. That’s fine for a bombing mission, with refuelling, but AWACS needs a closer base to be effective and efficient.
I see they've sacked the General in command of the army. Presumably because he objected to sending his troops on what is effectively a suicide mission, purely to massage Trump and Hegseth's egos.
I see they've sacked the General in command of the army. Presumably because he objected to sending his troops on what is effectively a suicide mission, purely to massage Trump and Hegseth's egos.
The Iranians have apparently shot down a U.S. fighter jet over Iran. The Iranians claim it was an F-35, but people more knowledgeable than I say that the photos released (assuming they're authentic) look more like the wreckage of an F-15E.
News reports confirm a F15. Coupled with the US military report that Iran has retained about half its missile/drone launch capacity I guess it’s a pointer to the likelihood that Trump had been exaggerating again.
News reports confirm a F15. Coupled with the US military report that Iran has retained about half its missile/drone launch capacity I guess it’s a pointer to the likelihood that Trump had been exaggerating again.
If the MSM is saying Iran retains half its missile launchers, my money is on 75%.
Comments
Via the FT: https://www.ft.com/content/7b964e41-4f79-4607-af25-1ee637ba6f12?syn-25a6b1a6=1
Additionally, at a European level:
And the UKs role in directly participating in an aggressive war against Iran - contra Starmer's official position - by allowing US long range bombers to stage from Fairford etc.
Did I mention that over fifty years ago the USA was flying from RAF Akrotiri using their everlasting U-2 spy planes, and has done so to this day. 7am, on the dot. Only the routes have changed.
AFAIR the reason for that is that they are monitoring the old Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel (though they occasionally relocate the U2s to other locations in the Med in order to support additional missions - Libya most recently).
Except the Chinese missile targeting algorithms have quantum code embedded that defeats jamming and spoofing.
B52s are slow moving target practice for the Chinese to prove their systems in realtime. What could possibly go wrong?
AFF
For the time being I'm inclined to treat any claims about computing involving the word "quantum" with a degree of suspicion that would make a Witchfinder General say "steady on, that's going a bit far".
Plus it looks like yet another Press Secretary will be biting the dust. Looks as though he blames her for his unpopularity.
In short, it looks as though he could try by Executive Order but the outcome is problematic.
I think any of those actions are probably in breach of Article 3 of the NATO treaty viz
But I don’t think that would bother Trump. I’m not sure that any penalties exist for breach of Article 3, nor could they be enforced.
Not going to stop him. Remember, Charles de Gaulle withdrew from NATO's integrated command structure in 1966. Trump's loophole will be his foreign policy powers.
I mean come on. Not one, not two, but three strikes on Prince Sultan airbase and the loss of three tankers, a couple of F15s and an all but irreplaceable AWACS on the ground. On. The. Ground.
If we can't fix stupid at least we can contain ourselves against it.
AFF
Interesting to note the Trump administration cancelled the E3 replacement, the E7, because it would be vulnerable to modern warfare.
You can’t really hide big aeroplanes.
Thanks for this
Yes you can. Ask the Ukrainians how they do it.
AFF
Make America Go Away?
Not so simple, of course, but one can dream...
Do you know what they do? I’d guess it’s classified. Wouldn’t want to give the drone launchers anything to go on. So I wondered if you were guessing that they know stuff and either haven’t passed it on or are being ignored?
The relation between the Ukrainians and the US military is somewhat ambiguous. Communication between them is compromised by trust issues caused by politics.
Of course it’s stupid to have big planes easily accessible to drone attacks. But I doubt it’s that easy to conceal them. And they need to be near big launch and land runways. Maybe the Ukrainians know better? I’m not sure if they think it’s safe to share all their secrets with the US military. I wouldn’t blame them for being cautious.
Despite the enormous damage inflicted on their resources, Iran is laughing at his assertions re negotiations.
News Link.
Well, I suppose that's deserved, given that the US and Israel reportedly tried to assassinate another person trying to open back channels between Iran and the US (by bombing residential buildings and in the process killing his wife and very probably others):
https://bsky.app/profile/adhaque.bsky.social/post/3mihme7ykdc2k (links to an nytimes report extract)
If the Ukrainians parked their air force on the tarmac out in the open it would have been completely demolished in the first days of the conflict.
Just google reinforced concrete hangars. There are plans for them all over the internet. It's not a secret. Build them and camouflage them with sand. Or turf.
Which makes the fact that the Americans didn't even do this much even more stupid.
AFF
Talk about closing the barn door after the horse has gone. But better late than never I guess.
AFF
@Barnabas62 as per the Admin ruling here, please don't use AI as a source.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Something else I didn’t know. Thanks.
I doubt whether they are foolproof e.g an attack through the hanger doors and even with a roof cover any new construction would stick out. But a lot better than e.g just leaving an AWACS on the runway.
Yes. This is my point. The intransigent unwillingness and dare I say the arrogance to refuse to learn from the realtime experience of the Ukrainians and the Russians who are canonizing the rules of 21st century warfare on the daily, is crippling the west. This overdependence on anti missile systems that were calibrated to intercept twenty year old incoming ordnance is disastrously outdated hubris. The age of hypersonic and cheap saturation munitions is here, has been here for over three years now, and we're standing around holding our private parts.
A very recent NATO wargame exercise showed NATO troops being wiped clean off the map in the first few minutes of engagement by Ukrainian drone operators. Meaning NATO military doctrine needs an urgent update that can't wait for Pentagon middle managers and four star money launderers to implement.
AFF
And that's what scares me about an invasion of any part of Iran, including the islands. Iran would rain down all sorts of drones and missiles on the landing force and obliterate them. That would be very bad for what's left of the prestige of the United States.
Don't do it, Trump.
I think those men are afraid of the same thing and with every good reason to be. I think of the Dieppe disater of WWII where the Germans sat on the cliffs and rained a hail of bullets and bombs down on the landing forces from a safe and strategic height.
I hope and pray that this is not the fate of our young men.
AFF
You got that right.
Sadly this Crassus is staying well behind the lines, so others will be the "beneficiaries" of his folly.
I cannot understand why the US military seem to completely ignore surprise so often (their supreme leader... different ball game!); and let everyone including the enemy know just what they are doing next. Especially when they constantly seem to underestimate - remember when Zelensky was effectively ambushed and told he didn't have the cards? Though that was a political rather than military ambush, it was still the people driving the US narrative.
God have mercy on us.
God have mercy on the poor bloody infantry.
If the MSM is saying Iran retains half its missile launchers, my money is on 75%.
AFF
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/apr/03/middle-east-crisis-live-trump-urges-iran-to-make-deal-after-bridge-strike?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-69d00a998f080da25b48ac36#block-69d00a998f080da25b48ac36
(This is a link to a live blog, being updated from time to time)