Former spy chief on Mandelson, Ukraine, China and Trump

Summary

Podcast Summary

Podcast: The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim
Episode Title: Former spy chief on Mandelson, Ukraine, China and Trump
Date: February 10, 2026
Host: Yalda Hakim
Guest: Sir Richard Moore (Former Head of MI6, 2020–2025)

---

Episode Theme

This episode features an in-depth interview with Sir Richard Moore, the recently-retired head of MI6, reflecting on his career as a British spy chief during a period marked by global upheaval: the Ukraine war, increasing tensions with Russia and China, the Trump presidency, the crisis in the Middle East, and issues of political vetting and espionage in the modern era. Sir Richard offers candid insights into intelligence work, the moral and strategic dimensions of current geopolitics, and the challenges facing Western alliances and world order.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Life as the Head of MI6

• Transition and Reflections ([02:34], [03:23])
  • Sir Richard describes the emotional challenge of leaving after 38 years in the service but emphasizes looking forward rather than backward.
  • “You can't be part of an organization for 38 years…leaving is a wrench…But I'm not a big looker backer…Looking forward to the next chapter.” — Sir Richard Moore [02:34]
  • He highlights the changing face of MI6 headquarters and the need to live a covert life, emphasizing that real intelligence officers are ordinary people doing extraordinary, ethically-guided work, not movie characters.
  • “It's an ordinary office building with some, in some ways, quite ordinary people doing extraordinary things.” [05:01]

2. The Realities of Espionage

• Daily Life & Security Practices ([04:26]–[06:23])
  • Describes the importance of living one’s cover, being mindful of surveillance and privacy threats, but warns against becoming paranoid.
  • MI6 officers are normal people with a deep commitment to the ethical and legal dimensions of their work.

3. The Mandate and Burden of Leadership

• Impact of MI6 During Global Crises ([06:44]–[07:38])
  • Sir Richard dismisses the notion of fundamentally reshaping the world but hopes that MI6’s work has “ameliorated some stuff that would have been worse.”
  • “You have to come into it with a sense of humility, that you're not going to shift the big tectonic plate of geopolitics, but you hope... you can make a difference.” [06:44]

4. The Mandelson Vetting Controversy

• Vetting Process, Secrecy and Limitations ([07:38]–[12:45])
  • Sir Richard refuses to comment on the specifics of Lord Mandelson’s vetting, emphasizing the principle of privacy and the limits of his own knowledge.
  • He stresses that the focus should remain on the underlying issues of misogyny and abuse, not on salacious specifics.
  • Quote: “This stuff does not get circulated around the building.” [00:15/12:06]
  • The vetting system is robust but ultimately human and relies on honesty as well as background checks, originating out of historical lessons like the Cambridge Five scandal.
  • “No process in government or business is ever infallible. But do we work very hard on it? Yes.” [11:12]

5. Ukraine War: Intelligence, Support, and Global Stakes

• Strategic Preparation and Support ([13:24]–[15:01])

  • He credits groundwork laid after Russia’s 2014 Crimea operation for Ukrainian resilience and innovation, especially in drone warfare.
  • “We've done some great work with Ukraine, we’ve done some great work with our Ukrainian partners. I believe that has probably made the situation better than it would otherwise have been.” [06:44]
  • “[Putin] would have already have lost were it not for the Chinese support that he has garnered.” [00:15, 16:44]

• Western Response and Pressure on Russia ([16:51]–[19:48])

  • Argues the West should be intensifying both military and economic pressure on Russia; laments that Europe still buys Russian petrochemicals.
  • “We should be giving them more permissions than we are at the moment. And we should be hammering his economy harder than we are.” [16:51]
  • Warns of ecological threats from the “shadow fleet” of old oil tankers feeding Russian revenues.

• Trump, Western Alliances & Fractures ([18:44], [22:02])

  • Credits President Trump with compelling some states (notably India) to change behavior on Russian oil.
  • Expresses frustration at the slow pace of sanction efficacy and at European financial flows still reaching Putin.

6. The Changing World Order

• Global Fractures and New Alliances ([22:02]–[24:58])

  • Acknowledges that the rules-based order is deeply frayed; the US-UK intelligence relationship remains strong and “incredibly special,” even when policy differences arise.
  • “There will be an international system of type of sorts, but we're gonna have to work out what it is…and how we...retain our freedoms and our way of life.” [24:02]

• Intelligence Sharing and Legal Constraints ([25:08])

  • Explains that UK intelligence sharing is carefully managed, anonymized, and always conforms to British law—even when there are disagreements over use of force, as with the US post-9/11.
  • “Our job to gather secret intelligence from agents in the field…We publish it…to a select number of readers…written in a way…disguising of the source.” [25:08]

7. Iran: Regime Fractures, US Policy, and Regional Dangers

• Internal Vulnerabilities and Military Tensions ([27:36]–[33:42])
  • Moore resists making predictions, noting Iran’s regime instability, the dangers of junior commanders exercising autonomy, and the possibility of miscalculation.
  • “This is a deeply ideological regime that is literally and metaphorically in a bunker and in a bunker mentality.” [28:24]
  • Warns that unless Iran negotiates, military action may be inevitable, especially with Israel's perceived “unfinished business.”

8. China: Engagement and Threats

• Balancing Firmness and Engagement ([33:42]–[36:05])
  • China is both a significant security threat (e.g., targeting diaspora, espionage) and a necessary partner for global challenges such as climate and AI.
  • “If we are going to have any kind of system of global stability, you have to engage with it…But that does not mean that you don't make it very clear where you think behavior is unacceptable.” [34:12]

9. The Decade Ahead: Hope, Realism, and Uncertainty

• Outlook for Ukraine, Iran, and China ([36:05]–[38:08])
  • Sir Richard offers cautious optimism about possible peace in Ukraine and regime evolution in Iran but stresses unpredictability.
  • “I desperately hope that Iran can evolve into the type of country its people deserve... We have to find a way, most importantly, of living with China and doing it not entirely on their terms.” [36:34]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the limits of intelligence work:
  “Our job was to steal secrets, not to solve mysteries.” — Sir Richard Moore [28:24]
• On Chinese support to Russia:
  “Putin would have already have lost were it not for the Chinese support that he has garnered.” [00:15/16:44]
• On the intelligence relationship with the US:
  “The one bit which is incredibly special is the intelligence relationship, always has been.” [24:07]
• On emotional challenges of retirement:
  “...Leaving is a wrench and it was very emotional on the last few days.” [02:34]
• On the nature of MI6 officers:
  “They're normal people. They are warm, living people who care about the work they're doing deeply.” [05:01]
• On the world order:
  “Some of the truths that we held to be self-evident about the international system in the post-1945 era are no longer the case.” [22:30]
• On hope for Iran:
  “I've met many Iranians…this is an extraordinary civilization of great millennia and it has a highly educated young population…These people should be at home, you know, helping to create the type of Iran we'd like to see.” [36:34]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [02:34] — Sir Richard on leaving MI6; reflections on 38-year career
• [05:01] — Realities of office life at MI6 and ordinary lives of spies
• [06:44] — On the burden and limitations of trying to make the world better as MI6 chief
• [07:38] — Discussion of Lord Mandelson's vetting and process transparency
• [13:24] — British intelligence support to Ukraine and lessons learned since 2014
• [16:44] — The crucial role of Chinese backing in sustaining Putin’s war
• [18:44] — On Trump’s policies, oil sanctions, and European dependence
• [22:02] — Fracturing world order and “rules-based” system
• [24:58] — Intelligence sharing between UK and US; handling policy divergences
• [28:24] — Risks and unpredictability of US-Iran relations, internal regime dynamics
• [34:12] — Threats from China and balancing engagement with firmness
• [36:34] — Looking ahead: hope, realism, and the unpredictability of geopolitical shifts

---

Conclusion

This episode provides a rare, authentic look inside the world of British intelligence during a tumultuous period. Sir Richard Moore deftly balances candor and discretion, conveying both the operational realities and the ethical dilemmas of modern spycraft. He reflects on the complex interplay of geopolitics, intelligence, alliances, and the human factor at the center of history’s unfolding dramas.

Transcript

[A]

Sky News, the full story. First.

[B]

You have to understand the sensitivities of this. This stuff does not get circulated around the building. Putin would have already have lost were it not for the Chinese support that he has garnered. I used to sometimes say to people when I was the chief that our job was to steal secrets, not to solve mysteries.

[A]

Hello and welcome to the world podcast. I'm Yalda and I'm back in London after a few days in Saudi Arabia. And of course, Richard was in Iran. In this episode, I'm going to be speaking with the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Moore. He was in post from 2020 to 2025 and of course a lot happened whilst he was in charge. Let's go through it. He served two monarchs, four Prime Ministers, five Deputy Prime Ministers and six Foreign Secretaries. He was also in his position when the full scale invasion of Ukraine took place, when Donald Trump came back to the White House. Upheaval that we saw in the Middle east for two and a with the war in Gaza, the ousting of the Syrian dictator Bashar Al Assad, and Israel's campaign against Iran and its proxies. Add to that the threats coming from China and the Great Power competition there, as well as artificial intelligence, and he had a pretty busy time in charge of the UK's spy service. I hope you enjoy our conversation. It's fascinating hearing from a spy and especially one who was recently head of MI6. As always, you can follow us on on Spotify and Apple. If you prefer, you can watch our podcast on our YouTube channel. Richard and I will be back in conversation to discuss his recent trip in Iran later this week. And of course you can send us all of your thoughts. So, Richard, thank you so much for joining us here on the podcast. You've been out of office for about four months now. Do you miss your old job?

[B]

Occasionally. You can't be part of an organization for 38 years. I joined as a young man. I knew nothing else. So of course leaving is a wrench and it was very emotional on the last few days. But having said all that, I'm not a big looker backer. So I'm looking forward to the next chapter of my life and I had that fantastic privilege of handing on to someone that I really, really admire and rate in Blaise Metro Valley. So I knew I was leaving it in really great hands and they'd do a better job than me. So it was easy at that level to leave.

[A]

Talk about, you know, walking in every morning for, as you say, almost 40 years into one of the most iconic buildings in London.

[B]

Well, thank goodness I didn't walk in every single day of those years, because most people in the service show you they probably would not be very happy if they had to do that. One joys, of course, is the overseas component to her career. So, you know, when you go in and the building has changed. In the time that I was in the service, it used to be a rather drab building near Lambeth north tube station. Now it's Vauxhall Cross, which is a much more iconic building, largely due to James Bond. You just, I guess you get used to it and at the end of the day, as those people who've been in Cybox or Cross will tell you, some extraordinary work takes place there. But when you walk in, it does feel like an office building, because it is. So you get used to it like anything else. You get used to the elements of a secret life. Like anything else. It's very odd when you start. It's very odd not being able to tell your friends what you do for a living. That takes a bit of getting used to. And then like everything else, you do, kind of get used to it.

[A]

You mentioned James Bond there. I mean, what we know about the kind of work that you do, the kind of role of a. Of a spy, so to speak, you know, comes from movies. And I guess it's interesting hearing you say, does feel like another office building. I mean, but. But there must be things about it that's different to a normal job. You know, your phone, for example, devices that could track you or, you know, listening devices on your phone. Was it that you'd have to put that phone aside and, and leave your life behind when you're in that space, Whether that's in the office or, you know, in the field?

[B]

Of course, I mean, I think you become more aware of those types of threat. I mean, when I started, it was very important to live your cover. I was, you know, pretending to be in the Foreign Office and it was important that I, that I did that for the operational work that I was involved in at that early stage of my career. Yeah, you, you are. You become, I think you try and avoid becoming so hyper aware, you go a bit paranoid about it. But yes, I kind of accept that if something's on my mobile phone, then that is accessible to people who have the capability to interrogate my mobile phone. I don't try not to put stuff on it that would matter if it was uncovered, apart from a bit of privacy intrusion. So, yes, look, it's an ordinary office building with some, in some ways quite ordinary people doing extraordinary things. Ordinary in the sense that these are normal people. They're not sort of a bunch of. Of strange people who, so, I don't know, go home and sit in a cupboard. They're normal people. They are warm, living people who care about the work they're doing deeply. Think about it. Think about it in all its dimensions, including critically, its ethical and legal dimensions, and then get on with it.

[A]

You started your role in 2020 as head of MI6 and you left, as I said, just a few months ago, you've said that you don't believe you left the world in a better. You know, did you feel the burden of that? I mean, when you started the role, that you had to do something that would put the world in a better place?

[B]

Well, I said that as a bit of a humorous line. I mean, I don't think it was ever in my job description to rework the world. But what you do do, if you go into those lines of work, you want to. You want to make the world a slightly better place. And I like to think that we have helped to ameliorate some stuff that would have been worse if MI6 wasn't focusing on it and working on it. Ukraine is clearly a terrible situation, but we've done some great work with Ukraine, we've done some great work with our Ukrainian partners. I believe that has probably made the situation better than it would otherwise have been. So I think you have to come into it with a sense of humility, that you're not going to shift the big tectonic plate of geopolitics, but you hope on certain key issues where you're focusing that you can make a difference.

[A]

So, Richard, we are going to get to Ukraine in a moment. But of course, the big talking point, everyone is talking about the process of the appointment of Lord Mandelson as our man in Washington. Of course, the Epstein files over the course of the last few weeks. I mean, one of the things that the government says is that Peter Mandelson passed his vetting. Can you help us unpack what that means? Because obviously he passed his, his vetting process, he became the ambassador in Washington. But what was that process that. That got him to that place?

[B]

Well, first of all, let me just say the very obvious here, that as we get into the minutiae of vetting or of this, that or the other story about this, it's, it's important to wind back and remember what this is about, which is the display of kind of rancid misogyny and appalling systematic abuse of women and girls. And I just, you know, just. It's just important, I think, with this before we dive off into particular salacious elements of it that we do remember. That's what's behind this. I mean, I can't really comment on the vetting process. I wouldn't have been part of it. No doubt Peter Manson, like anybody taking up a senior job in government, would have gone through a vetting process. But I really. Yeah, it's impossible for me to comment. I wasn't there. I wasn't party to anything that passed by. But yes, I mean, I presume that if he was appointed, then he passed it.

[A]

So he passed a vetting process because that is what the Prime Minister is saying. He's saying he passed a vetting process and then I appointed him. But you wouldn't have to dig too deep to know much about Peter Mandelson's past and his history. I guess the question is, were those things flagged and written raised with 10 Downing Street.

[B]

Look, I can't tell you because I don't know that I wasn't privy to it. I mean, not least because when people go into vetting, be they ever so senior, I mean, it is a very intimate process and therefore there is a high degree of privacy around it. So I wouldn't see, you know, report on, on Peter Mandelson. So let's, let's, you know, perhaps move away from one individual, however prominent, and think about the process and maybe that is helpful to your listeners.

[A]

Let's do that.

[B]

Because at the end of the day, you do do some background checks as a part of this process. So undoubtedly there would have been some background checks and then there is an interview process where you rely, to a degree, you've got the background checks, of course, to set it against. But you rely on people in those interview processes as being very honest. I've been through them many, many times. They can sometimes be uncomfortable conversations because you're being asked about very private elements of your lifestyle or about your financial situation, and you are required to answer those questions truthfully. And the system depends on the balance between truthful answers in the interview process and the checks on whether what's been said is truthful. And I'll just, I'll leave it there, if I may, rather than comment on an individual.

[A]

Sure. But the overall vetting process, I mean, presumably it is one of the most sophisticated on the planet, you know, that of your agency, one would assume that you know, the vetting process would be deeply sort of sophisticated.

[B]

I've done my best, Yelda, to describe it. It's obviously a thorough process. It has to be. It's, it's a, it's a human process. It's. No process in government or business is ever infallible. But do we work very hard on it? Yes. Is, is it like it is because of history? Remember, the developed vetting, as it's now called, used to be called positive vetting system, was brought in because of the traitors of the, you know, the Cambridge Five, you know, of those people who got through in a world where there was not that type of vetting process. And it was introduced in order to make sure that people don't join or take up positions who are unsuitable. What more can I say?

[A]

I guess the, the question then is, and I know you want to move away from, from an individual, but can you share with us what MI6 knew about Lord Mandelson?

[B]

No, I can't, you know, because I, by definition, if I, if I knew it, I wouldn't be able to share it. But I'll say to you, I said, yeah, I don't. It's. It. There is, There is. I am not aware of anything. So. But I repeat what I said. You have to understand the sensitivities of this. This stuff does not get circulated around the building. So the answer is, I have no idea.

[A]

But I guess, you know, again, I don't want to labor it, but I, I, I. The Prime Minister is saying you're laboring it a little bit because the Prime Minister is saying that, you know, he was vetted, and so does it just kind of. That's his defense of this situation. He was vetted. It was put on my table.

[B]

I think I probably said as much as I went on.

[A]

Well, let's move on to Ukraine, because you talked about the work that the agency has done in terms of Ukraine. We are coming up to now four years of the war in Ukraine. One of the massive elements of that war is the intelligence that the British government, your agency, has shared with the Ukrainians, which they have often credited as being a massive help for them and some of their operations. Can you talk us through sort of that process and that relationship?

[B]

Well, there's a limit, you'll understand, in what I can talk about in terms of specifics. I can't. By definition, that's work we do with them secretly, which we wouldn't want the Russians to know about. But we made a decision, I think, very clearly in 2014. And that's an important date here when, you know, we were all taken by surprise by Putin's move on the Crimea in particular and his invasion of Eastern Ukraine, that we needed to prepare for him to try again. And I'm glad that my predecessors were as prescient as that. So we partnered with the US in particular, but others in Europe to try and build up the Ukrainians capacity over that period. And I'm glad we did because it gave them eight years of working with us and others, as they proved in these last four years. The vast majority of credit for the resistance that the Ukrainians have led against the most naked act of aggression since the Second World War by Putin is down to their own extraordinary bravery and ingenuity, led from the top, led from Zelenskyy. So they are very committed. They're also having to do things often with limited resources, and they are incredibly innovative. What they've done with drone warfare has transformed the nature of warfare, hasn't it? And we've seen that in their ability to resist and hold off a bigger enemy. So lots of involvement. Very proud of it, but probably can't go into too much detail.

[A]

And I've spoken to President Zelensky on a number of occasions. Most recently a few months ago. You know, he talked about being, being fifth, sixth generation in terms of drone warfare and how it's changed the face of modern warfare today and how battles are fought. Are you worried that President Trump is going to abandon Ukraine?

[B]

We have to stick by the Ukrainians for a number of reasons. I mean, there is just the moral imperative to support a people that have been subject to the aggression that they have been. And we should, should do it for that reason. We should do it because the security of the Euro Atlantic system is at stake here. This is the most naked challenge to it since, as I said, since the Second World War. And if we don't stand up to Putin and ensure that Putin does not win in Ukraine, then his stomach will grow with the eating and you'd have to worry about whether he would be emboldened to test Europe in other ways. And we've seen the beginnings, haven't we, of course, of drone intrusions and attempts around the Baltic states and Poland that we should pay careful attention to. And then behind Putin is Xi Jinping and the Chinese government. And I am very clear that Putin would have already have lost were it not for the Chinese support that he has garnered. So the headlines is often grabbed by the North Koreans giving him 12,000 troops or so to fight in Kursk or the Iranians quite early on providing him with drone technology. But the heft, if you like, in it, it comes from China.

[A]

What lessons do you think they're taking away from how the west is handling the war in Ukraine?

[B]

Well, let me deal with Putin first on that. He's just more comfortable than he should be. Doesn't mean to say he's entirely comfortable. I mean, the casualties now are astonishing. I mean, in December alone, I think we believe that something like 30,000 Russians were killed in one month. That's as many as they lost in a 10 year campaign in Afghanistan. So the losses are terrible and even the Russians will struggle to replace that level of losses. So they continue to do appallingly badly on the battlefield. The economic situation at home is worsening. He has completely mortgaged the Russian economy to the war effort. But he's still more comfortable than he should be because we should be adding more pressure. We should be helping the Ukrainians more extensively than we are. We should be giving them more permissions than we are at the moment. And we should be hammering his economy harder than we are. So that's the first thing. The second thing on Xi, to that question, of course he's watching. I mean, he watches all of this. And Xi Jinping clearly has a sort of narrative of Western weakness and decline, which probably really started to take hold on the financial crisis. So if we fail this test of wills, I don't know for sure, but it's not going to help our deterrence posture around Taiwan or in the South China Sea or in any other theater where China is pushing up against our interests and trying to redesign the international system to its own liking.

[A]

We're also not seeing enough accountability by those states that are evading the sanctions, frankly, or continuing to buy Russian oil. I mean, President Trump is threatening tariffs and sanctions, but we're seeing this continuation feeding into the Russian war machine.

[B]

Well, I give President Trump some credit here. He's clearly changed some behaviors, particularly in India, and that's welcome, because you're right, a number of states have been cashing in on cheap oil, frankly. And even in Europe, one of the most shameful statistics that's out there is that Europe is still putting more money into Putin's war machine by purchases of petrochemicals and gas than they are giving to Ukraine. How can that be right? But you're right, I find it personally. And one of the things about being no longer in the job is you can feel a bit more liberated to say it. I find that extraordinarily frustrating given what is at stake.

[A]

What would you call to happen other than the sort of tariffs that we're seeing Donald Trump impose and the kind of pressure he's attempting? Are you saying there should be sanctioning of those states? I mean.

[B]

Look, the pressure has already, as I try to lay out there, both in the battlefield and in the Russian economy, the pressure is there. The measures that have been taken have not failed. They just take time to work and they are beginning to work. And one of the problems for democracies is we're not very patient. We don't play the long game. We need to be patient. We need to see this out. And yes, is there more that we could do? Undoubtedly. We could definitely furnish them with more air defense. We could give them more long range weaponry and the permissions to go with it. We could tighten the screws on the central Bank. We're already doing more, I'm glad to say, around the shadow fleet. This is an extraordinary, let alone the benefits to the Russian economy. There is an ecological disaster in waiting out there. Virtually every tanker over 25 years old which would have gone to the breaker's yard is now out there in the shadow fleet floating around. And one of the they're all accidents waiting to happen. And the ecological devastation, if one of them were to go down, would be astonishing and would remind us of some of the past such. So at the end of the day, we all want the slaughter to stop in Ukraine. Then you'll get a Putin who will arrive at the negotiating table. Not trying to kid you that he's serious, you may actually find a serious one. You'd have to watch him like a hawk in terms of the deal that he would come and make because he's a track record. This man invaded in 2014, then accepted a sort of dodgy piece and then when he was ready, he came back. We have to ensure that once we get him to the negotiating table and he's not ready yet because just it's too easy for him. When he's ready to come because we put extra pressure on him, then you do a deal and then you back it with guarantees.

[A]

I was in Davos a few weeks ago where we heard the likes of Mark Carney, the Canadian Prime Minister, saying the rules based order is effectively dead. Emmanuel Macron talking about bullies and you know, basically pointing at the United States. Do you think that the Russians and the Chinese are popping their champagne corks and pulling out their popcorn and watching this kind of fracture between the Europeans and The United States with glee.

[B]

So the short answer is yes, they do take pleasure in it. And then the related point is that clearly some of the verity, some of the truths that we held to be self evident about the international system in the post1945 era are no longer the case. Now that's not all down to Donald Trump. That's down to a pile of things, including Putin's decision to invade his neighbor in Europe. But it's clearly fraying the behavior of the Iranian regime for many years through its proxies. So I can recall even as recently as 2018, 2019, when I was the political director, I was taking a short stint outside MI6 with the foreign Office where we could still have a discussion over the Iranian nuclear deal with the Chinese and the Russians as the P5 nations, trying to find a way through that. You can't do that anymore. And yes, President Trump took America out of the jcpoa, but Putin has just taken Russia out of any kind of civilized international world. And it's very difficult in those circumstances to make the old order work. So we are going to have to be thoughtful about how we manage our way through what is emerging around us. There will be an international system of type of sorts, but we're gonna have to work out what it is and have work out how we, in a rather more fluid, contested world, how we make our way as a country and as a group of allies.

[A]

Would you say that the United States is an unreliable partner?

[B]

No, I wouldn't say that. I spent my entire career working with the United States as the most extraordinarily capable and reliable partner. If you people love to, to, to mock the, the notion of the special relationship, but I can tell you the one bit which is incredibly special is the intelligence relationship, always have been. So no, you know, sometimes over the years you get policy differences between the US and the UK or US and Europe or any other group of countries, and they can be highly disruptive. But the intelligent relationship keeps going because it's in the interest of both countries to keep it going. So I'm not ready to make that call.

[A]

Have you been forced to ever withhold intelligence because of those policy differences? I think of Venezuela earlier in the year.

[B]

So understandably people are interested in this. And most obvious thing I would say about Venezuela is you can imagine that in amongst China, Russia, Iran, counterterrorism, perhaps Venezuela might not be the place where the UK was making the most important intelligence contribution in the United States. But leave that to one side. The broader issue is we have to act within the law. Everything that MI6 does has to be according to UK law. So by definition, sometimes you get get differing legal opinions on the use of force, for example, and in those circumstances, there may well be adaptation around those issues and you might not be able to. But that has been the case. And I can think of numerous instances around counterterrorism work. And in the period after 9 11, there was a distinction divergence of view around what was permissible and what wasn't between the US and uk. So you have to manage your way through those periods and you do it ultimately by staying within the law. But my final comment on that, Yalda, is that I sometimes think that people have this vision of sharing of intelligence, which is a long way away from how it actually works. So if you think about our job to gather secret intelligence from agents in the field, those brave men and women who might be in Iran or in Russia or in a terrorist group sharing secrets with us, when we take that material in, obviously we have to make sure that we are confident that it's accurate, that there are lessons, of course, painful lessons we have to learn in the period of the Iraq war have been learned. And then we sort of publish it into Whitehall to a select number of readers who are clear to see the material, but it does not say on the tin who it's from. It's written in a way that is faithful to the insight, but is disguising of the source. And the same is true of signals intelligence. So when you share it with even your closest allies, it is disguised. So you don't feel in those terms that you are putting agents at risk, because that is the thing that you try the hardest, in my experience, to avoid.

[A]

Point. Let's talk about Iran, because of course, we have been in the last few weeks hearing Donald Trump make very direct threats to the Iranian regime. And those conversations continue. Prime Minister Netanyahu is heading to Washington again to meet with Donald Trump for the seventh time. No doubt Iran is going to be top of the agenda. What are your predictions about what may happen? Do you think that we will see the kind of strikes, perhaps targeted strikes or decapitation of the top leadership of Iran, or do you think there might be some negotiations that. I know that there are talks behind the scenes with the Omanis as well, but what do you see as the kind of outcome in Iran?

[B]

I used to sometimes say to people when I was the chief that our job was to steal secrets, not to solve mysteries. And you are taking me sort of dangerously close to this in the sense that there are so many variables here, there are so many uncertainties. The president has been pretty forthright in what he said. There is US forces in some numbers in the region, so clearly there is some intent here. Whether that intent is going to end up in a, in military action or whether it is designed to force the Iranian regime to come to the table to negotiate a sensible deal on its nuclear and missile program, I think it's probably largely the latter. This is a deeply ideological regime that is literally and metaphorically in a bunker and in a bunker mentality. So I know there are people in Iran who probably do want to come out and do that deal, but there are many who don't and many who, including an 86 year old leader who have a kind of sacrificial revolutionary zeal to them and that's difficult to negotiate with. So I don't quite know how this dynamic is going to play out. I would say that the risks of miscalculation are high. When you have serious firepower in the region and you have a regime like the Iranians which is in disarray. They have been badly beaten up last June by the Israelis and the US They've just been through this uprising of their own people which they've dealt with just unspeakable brutality. So they're very unsettled. They are not thinking straight. And I remember as chief just being struck occasionally after incidents at the degree of autonomy that relatively junior commanders within the Iranian system had within the IRGC Navy sometimes. And we've seen, didn't we a few days ago, an example of something which looked bloody hell putting a drone over the top of a warship, some of the other thing, but we've seen this before with some pretty reckless behavior around.

[A]

That's quite interesting because we don't see defection much or at all frankly from within the regime. But it's interesting that quite junior officers, you're saying, have a lot of autonomy, you know, to make certain decisions. I guess I find that quite interesting because I would have thought that it was a quite a tight ship, you know, whether it's the IRGC or answering to the Supreme Leader.

[B]

But Yalda, we often think of these autocratic regimes as, you know, we think that the trains really do run on time and they just don't and they're not well run and they are highly corrupt. And so the information flows up and down are very flawed. Putin Supreme Leader Xi will not get an accurate version of what's going on. You're in a sort of fog of pre war war, if you like, in these situations. So it's fraught, and I hope we can navigate. I hope the Iranians see sense and come to the table to do a proper deal, because if they don't, I think it's hard to avoid the conclusion that there won't be some kind of military action, not least because I think the Israelis feel that there is unfinished business here. So I watched this one with very close attention. A lot of worry. I was in the Gulf a week or so ago, and you can see that for those countries who are near neighbors to Iran, this is a very concerning situation, and they're very hopeful, I think, that it can be resolved peacefully. But that is down largely to the Iranians.

[A]

Would your advice to President Trump be then, not to launch military action?

[B]

Look, any commander in chief, any British prime minister, is always so aware of the perils of putting your military into action. And I'm absolutely confident that President Trump is in the same position on that. But we'll have to see whether, as I say, whether the Iranian regime is prepared to come and do a deal. This is a regime, after all, that is arsonly devoid of legitimacy now. I mean, it has what I guess in the UK we would describe as a sort of payroll vote. It's got, you know, people in the security forces, in particular in the Basij, in the irgc, who are. Who are paid to be loyal. And as you say, you're right. There's not a sign yet of any significant regime fracture that might, you know, come before a fall. But there is no support for that. I mean, even I have to, you know, reluctantly accept that Putin has a residual level of popular support in Russia. That's just not the case in Iran.

[A]

I want to just ask you before we wrap up about China. We saw the Prime Minister make a trip to China. We've talked about, you know, this fracture between the relationship between the United States and this side of the Atlantic. Are you concerned that perhaps, you know, we're cozying up to the Chinese or we will. And what sort of threats does the UK face from the Chinese?

[B]

So, look, I think two things can be true here. One is, do the Chinese pose a significant threat to UK interests and security yesterday and some of their behaviors? You know, my former colleague Ken McCallum, director general of MI5, has laid out some of this very clearly. Some of the behavior in the UK is unacceptable. In particular, things like the intimidation of diaspora communities. And we ought to have zero tolerance for that. And we should take a firm line on it. And I believe the Chinese are expecting us to take a firm line on it. And if we don't, they'll see that as a sign of weakness. So we should. On the other hand, this is a very large, very serious, important country with a massive economy. And if we are going to have any kind of system of global stability, you have to engage with it. And so I do look at some of the stuff around visits and all the rest and wonder quite what's going on here. It's perfectly all right, it seems to me, for the Prime Minister and other ministers to visit China. It will be perfectly all right for President Trump to go and visit there in April. You need to have lines of I visited China as chief, it's important you have these communication channels. What you then say in the room, you need to be tough. So, you know, I, I, I wasn't there, but I'm, you know, confident that the Prime Minister will have delivered some appropriately tough lines with Xi. But it is legitimate to trade with them, it's legitimate to talk to them about where we go on climate change. What do we do as a human race about agentic AI you can't address these issues, it seems to me, personal view without being engaged with a China. But that does not mean that you don't make it very clear where you think behavior is unacceptable.

[A]

You started off this interview well, we started off talking about the state of the world and that you felt in your five years that, you know, that you hadn't the world wasn't in a better place. What do you think is likely to happen over the course of the next five years? Do you think the war in Ukraine will be resolved? Do you think that the situation or regime in Iran will perhaps change? Will we see these sorts of dramatic tectonic shifts in geopolitics?

[B]

I refer you to my remarks earlier about mysteries Yalda on summer. It's very difficult, difficult to predict where we're going to end up. Already take the Ukraine war. Four years of appalling slaughter in Ukraine. Second World War lasted only for six. And it's extraordinary to think that we have a war in Europe that's gone on for four years. I desperately hope that we can find a way to get a fair peace for Ukraine over the next few years. I desperately hope that Iran can evolve, evolve into the type of country its people deserve. I've met many Iranians over the years. In my profession, this is a extraordinary civilization of great millennia and it has a highly educated young population. If you go I've been the States recently, and you just look at the extraordinary Iranian Americans you see and the success. These people should be at home, you know, helping to create the type of Iran we'd like to see. So I'd love, you know, this is where I guess the optimist and the occasional romantic in me is there. I hope so. I hope we can do that. And we have to find a way, most importantly, of living with China and doing it not entirely on their terms. We need to find a way in which we are going to be able to manage the rise of this formidable power and do it in a way that makes sure that we retain our freedoms and our way of life and our economic security.

[A]

Sir Richard Moore, really fascinating talking to you. Thank you so much.

[B]

Thanks, Jana. Nice to spend some time with you.

[A]

So that was Sir Richard Moore, the former head of mic. It was a fascinating conversation. It's always interesting to speak to a former spy, certainly one that headed an agency. He was frank when it came to some things, and he remained secretive when it came to other things. I hope you enjoyed the conversation.