Daniel Korski

The Prime Minister, we are told, has been trying to reach the King of Jordan to see if some kind of arrangement can be made so that Abu Qatada can be deported legally and that no forms of torture-gained evidence will used against him in a Jordanian court. This seems like a sensible thing to do. But it is important that the government balances its counter-terrorism policy with its foreign policy.   Here is what I mean. Jordan is a friend of Britain, but the King is under tremendous pressure to reform. There are daily demonstrations against his rule and the protests are gathering pace. His reforms, meanwhile, have been limited and the country is running out of money. It is no longer unfeasible that Jordan could face what many other countries in the region has seen.

The situation in Syria grows worse by the minute. President Assad seems to have taken the UN Security Council’s deadlock as carte blanche to launch an all-out attack on Homs. Russia looks like she wants to mediate, while Turkey is preparing a new initiative with countries who oppose the Syrian government, a sort of anti-Assad group. Meanwhile, the Gulf States have expelled all Syrian ambassadors.   The chances of a ceasefire are low, as are the prospects of a military intervention. Russia has an interest in persuading Assad to abdicate, but can Assad be persuaded? Syria still has friends in Iraq and Iran, where the governments are supporting the regime both materially and financially.

Every day things are getting worse in Syria. Today the Syrian regime started what looks like an all-out assault on the key city of Homs, reportedly killing at least 55 people. The attack took place as the UN Security Council prepares to vote on a draft resolution backing an Arab call for President Bashar al-Assad to give up power. The problem has been the lack of information about events on the ground. Though the Syrian government has failed to quell the uprising, it has succeeded in limiting access to information by the outside world. So a lot remains unknown, unreported or clouded in pro-regime propaganda. But speaking to people in Syria, some things appear clear. First, there is now a guerrilla war of popular resistance against the Syrian regime.

Will they or won’t they? Most political parlour games involve a question of this kind and the one about whether Israel will strike Iran – played out regularly in Washington, London and Paris – is no exception. The last couple of days have seen more sabre-rattling than before. Israeli Vice Premier Moshe Yaalon, who heads the Strategic Affairs Ministry, and is a former commander of the Israeli military, said all of Iran’s nuclear installations are vulnerable to military strikes while the US defence secretary was quoted as saying he thought Israel was likely to bomb Iran within months. They may or may not, but it is unlikely they will communicate through the voice of Leon Panetta or even in the pages of US newspapers.

If Muhammad won't come to the mountain, the mountain must come to Muhammad. Or so goes a saying popularised by Francis Bacon. It seems Andrew Mitchell, the Development Secretary, has taken this to heart and decided to move his entire Department — DfID — closer to the Foreign Office, MoD and, of course, No 10. After years of relishing its location — both geographically and functionally — a distance away from Whitehall, where all the other government departments are located, DfID will, I'm told, move to 22-26 Whitehall, next to Horse Guard's Parade. The key point is the cost saving involved — at the moment DfID's current building at 1 Palace St costs around £10m a year whereas 22-26 Whitehall will cost around £3.

The Syrian situation is worsening by the day. Now the Arab League has pulled back its monitors in recognition of their failure to ease the violence. Foreign Secretary William Hague has said he is ‘deeply concerned,’ while the Gulf states are pushing for the whole mater to be referred to the UN Security Council. But the chances of a ceasefire and the start of a transition are low. The Russian government is growing tired of Bashar al-Assad but does not want to condone any kind of intervention, which they think is likely if the matter is referred to the UN Security Council. Russia still regrets backing the Libya resolution, believing they were hoodwinked by the West into allowing a military intervention against Muammar Gaddafi.

With the EU agreeing a new round of sanctions on Iran – outlawing European oil and gas purchases from Iran in six months, freezing Iran's Central Bank and banning trade in gold and other precious metals with any state-related bodies – tensions between Iran and the West are increasing. An Iranian MP has – again – warned that Iran will close the Strait of Hormuz and the US administration has – again – said that such an action will be countered. But what would happen if Iran carried out its threat? Iran has noteworthy littoral warfare capabilities, including mines, anti-ship cruise missiles, and land-based air defence.

The story being briefed out of the year’s first Franco-German Summit is that President Nicolas Sarkozy won the backing of Chancellor Angela Merkel for a tax on financial transactions, a levy that the British government objects to and that Ernst and Young say would leave a €116bn hole in Europe’s public finances. But before the City begins building barricades and the PM puts on his bulldog mask, it is worth taking another look at the news from Berlin. For no sooner had the agreement been announced than the tax was rejected by Chancellor Merkel's junior coalition partner, the pro-business Free Democrats, who say they will only back a Europe-wide tax scheme. They are not alone. The Netherlands and Ireland feel the same.

Foreign policy specialists have been confused about how to categorise the coalition. Is it neoconservative, given its backing for the Libyan rebels? No, says no less a figure than the Prime Minister. Is it realpolitical, given the PM’s willingness to make up with Russia and court China? Most No.10 officials would wince at such a description. So what is it? To answer the question, look no further than William Hague's trip to Burma last week. Not only was it the first visit by a British foreign minister since 1955, but it was also the culmination of little known, high-level, behind-the-scenes outreach to Aung San Suu Kyi by No 10 and concomitant pressure on the Burmese junta. And it seems to be paying off.

Guns blazing, Libya’s various militias are showing little sign of laying down their arms and giving authority to the Libyan state. Even Mustafa Abdul Jalil, chairman of the National Transitional Council, has said that Libya faces a risk of widespread conflict, after a gun battle between militias in one of Tripoli's busiest streets killed four fighters. Publicly, the militiamen are reluctant to lay down arms for fear of a rearguard pro-Gaddafi takeover. In reality, they like their newfound power and want to ensure that they swap their weapons for status and influence. How many of these groups exist is not clear — some estimate 100, with over 125,000 armed Libyans making up their numbers.