Sir Kim Darroch’s claim – made after Boris Johnson made a doomed trip to the White House to change the President’s mind – is revealed in leaked cables and briefing notes which led to Sir Kim’s resignation last week
Already spoken about the leaks in The Donald thread, but this topic is now much wider than just American politics, especially following the latest revelations in the Mail today.
Lots of topics to discuss here, but lets start with the main topic from the Mail today, which are from this second batch of leaked messages from our ambassador to Washington, who stated in his messages that he believed that Trump axed the Iran deal to spite Obama.
This is his opinion, there is no evidence for this, or at least no evidence given in the article. As the article goes on to say, Trump was against the Iran deal while campaigning to be president, so buy ripping it up, he's simply doing what he said he would do all along. As I said on the Iranian thread, I think it was very wrong for Trump to tear up the deal, but Trump wants a new deal that includes all of Iranian actions in the region, not just the nuclear stuff.
Perhaps Trump is being spiteful and as the article says, the Americans had no plan for what happened after the deal was ripped up, but in my opinion this is a matter of policy difference, but our ambassador said this was all down to Trump's personality traits without providing evidence of this. Is the ripping up of the deal all about Trump being spiteful to Obama?
The second major story, is the intended police action not just against the "leaker in chief" but against the journalist who broke these stories. All of the politicians have today come out in favour of press freedom and said in no way should the police prosecute the journalists, are they right?
The police are inferring that they have come under pressure to prosecute from "on high", which I read as Downing St aka May. Is this May's departing present to the incoming prime minister, Boris?