Latest news with #CIA
The Sun
an hour ago
- Politics
- The Sun
Spy chiefs probed ‘Russian double agent' at the heart of MI6 in huge 20-year global operation – and never caught ‘mole'
SPY chiefs probed a suspected "Russian double agent" at the heart of MI6 in a 20-year global operation. An investigation launched into the alleged mole, dubbed Operation Wedlock, sent surveillance officers around the world. 6 6 6 It included a team of over 30 MI5 officers, as reported by the Guardian, whose work spanned up to two decades. One on occasion, they were sent to the Middle East and sheltered in a CIA safe house. It is understood they were sent on the mission under terms that would have been illegal according to international law. Despite their work, MI5 were unable to conclude whether there had been a mole spying for Russia. A source told the Guardian: "We thought we had another Philby on our hands". Kim Philby was a prominent member of the notorious Cambridge Five, a ring of spies who passed information to the Soviet Union. With fascism plaguing Europe, Philby headed for Austria where he became active in helping the oppressed working class socialists. Alongside his wife, Jewish socialist Litzi Friedmann, the couple helped the anti-fascist cause in Vienna but later fled to London to escape the Nazis. Philby's life changed when he was introduced to a resident Soviet agent, code-named "Otto", at Regents Park. Along with four other Cambridge students, they were persuaded to start double lives as spies for the Soviets. Through the help of the KGB they worked their way into government jobs and passed on state secrets to the Russians. Philby was so good at his job he even secured a high-level job with MI6. In 1949 he was sent to Washington where be became a liaison intelligence officer 'combating Soviet subversion in Western Europe'. However, after two members of the Cambridge Five defected, suspicion grew over Philby and he resigned from the Foreign Office. Cleared of treason allegations, MI6 posted him to Beirut, where he worked as a correspondent for The Observer. In 1962, his cover was blown during a conversation with a MI5 officer at a party and he later made a 'sham' confession to be granted immunity. A year later a KGB guide smuggled him into Russia where he lived out the remainder of his life and was treated as a 'hero'. MI6 is the intelligence agency which supplies the Government with foreign intelligence (as opposed to MI5 which deals with domestic security threats). Its existence was not formally acknowledged until 1994. It is regarded as one of the best spy agencies in the world. Describing its work on its official website, the agency says: 'Our mission is to provide Her Majesty's Government with a global covert capability. 'We collect secret intelligence and mount operations overseas to prevent and detect serious crime, and promote and defend the national security and economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom.' Meanwhile, MI5 is widely understood to focus its intelligence efforts inside the UK but that isn't always the case. With threats to Britain's security often coming from abroad, the agency says it does "work outside the UK where it's necessary to protect the UK's national security or to counter security threats". It describes itself as a "publicly accountable civilian intelligence organisation", not a "secret police force", as it does not have the power to arrest people. Reporting to the Home Office, it was formed in 1909 under British army captain Vernon Kell to identify and counteract German spies in the country, according to the Britannica. The MI5 probe into an alleged mole was sparked in the 1990s and continued to at least 2015. It was launched after a tip off from the CIA in America, where they believed a British intelligence officer was working for Russia. Vladimir Putin was in charge of the FSB, Russia's secret intelligence service, at one point in the investigation. A source said: '[We were told] the target was a Russian spy. The US believed he was leaking information to the Russians. "He was suspect 1A. The job was taken more seriously than any other [MI5] was involved in. Wedlock eclipsed them all.' As reported by the Guardian, it has been revealed the UK believed they had identified the alleged spy. MI5 specialists were put in charge of tracking him down, although they did not operate from the Westminster HQ. The mission was so top secret, one insider claimed the officer in charge was briefed about the task in a church. Instead, the team were based in Wandsworth, south London, which was near an MI6 base. The officers were told the suspected mole held a senior role at MI6 and listening devices were planted inside his home, as well as secret cameras. He was tracked across the world, with officers travelling as far as Asia and the Middle East. The agents were given authentic passports, but fake names, and told they would be "on their own" if caught. A source also claimed the suspect was not thought to have been working by himself, but aided by two other people. The insider added how Wedlock was a 'highly unusual operation, the longest in recent memory and probably the most expensive'. 'MI5 never got the conclusive proof it was looking for,' they added, and MI6 "still [potentially] has a mole to find". 6 6 6
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Business
- Yahoo
There Are Reasons To Feel Uneasy About Champion Iron's (ASX:CIA) Returns On Capital
There are a few key trends to look for if we want to identify the next multi-bagger. Firstly, we'll want to see a proven return on capital employed (ROCE) that is increasing, and secondly, an expanding base of capital employed. If you see this, it typically means it's a company with a great business model and plenty of profitable reinvestment opportunities. Although, when we looked at Champion Iron (ASX:CIA), it didn't seem to tick all of these boxes. This technology could replace computers: discover the 20 stocks are working to make quantum computing a reality. For those who don't know, ROCE is a measure of a company's yearly pre-tax profit (its return), relative to the capital employed in the business. Analysts use this formula to calculate it for Champion Iron: Return on Capital Employed = Earnings Before Interest and Tax (EBIT) ÷ (Total Assets - Current Liabilities) 0.12 = CA$321m ÷ (CA$3.0b - CA$359m) (Based on the trailing twelve months to March 2025). Therefore, Champion Iron has an ROCE of 12%. In absolute terms, that's a satisfactory return, but compared to the Metals and Mining industry average of 8.2% it's much better. Check out our latest analysis for Champion Iron In the above chart we have measured Champion Iron's prior ROCE against its prior performance, but the future is arguably more important. If you'd like to see what analysts are forecasting going forward, you should check out our free analyst report for Champion Iron . On the surface, the trend of ROCE at Champion Iron doesn't inspire confidence. Over the last five years, returns on capital have decreased to 12% from 42% five years ago. On the other hand, the company has been employing more capital without a corresponding improvement in sales in the last year, which could suggest these investments are longer term plays. It's worth keeping an eye on the company's earnings from here on to see if these investments do end up contributing to the bottom line. In summary, Champion Iron is reinvesting funds back into the business for growth but unfortunately it looks like sales haven't increased much just yet. Although the market must be expecting these trends to improve because the stock has gained 78% over the last five years. Ultimately, if the underlying trends persist, we wouldn't hold our breath on it being a multi-bagger going forward. If you want to know some of the risks facing Champion Iron we've found 4 warning signs (1 shouldn't be ignored!) that you should be aware of before investing here. If you want to search for solid companies with great earnings, check out this free list of companies with good balance sheets and impressive returns on equity. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
an hour ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Senate blocks Iran war powers resolution
The Senate on Friday blocked an effort to prevent President Trump from taking future military action against Iran without authorization from Congress, less than a week after he directed strikes aimed at its nuclear capabilities. Senators voted 47-53 largely along party lines against the war powers resolution. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was the lone GOP lawmaker to vote with Democrats. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), an ardent backer of Israel, voted with Republicans. Fifty-one votes were needed for it to pass. The resolution was authored by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has long been a supporter of Congress asserting itself to greenlight authorizations of war. 'I think the events of this week have demonstrated that war is too big to be consigned to the decisions of any one person,' Kaine said on the floor ahead of the Friday evening tally. The vote came after days of complaints from Democrats on the Iran issue. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters that administration officials called to tell him ahead of time that strikes were happening, but declined to tell him where or divulge any other information. Democrats have also questioned the veracity of Trump's claim that the Iranian nuclear sites that were targeted were 'completely destroyed.' That was especially the case after a preliminary classified report indicated that the strikes did not destroy core components of the Iran nuclear program and likely only set it back by a matter of months. More recent statements from the CIA and Trump's head of national intelligence have disputed the report. Those questions were still unanswered after top administration officials — including CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine — held a classified briefing for members on Thursday. While lawmakers appeared satisfied by the answers they received, they were still unsure how much of a setback the strikes will prove to be for Tehran. 'The point is: We don't know,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) after the briefing. 'Anybody who says we know with certainty is making it up because we have no final battle damage assessment.' 'Certainly, this mission was successful insofar as it extensively destroyed and perhaps severely damaged and set back the Iranian nuclear arms program. But how long and how much really remains to be determined by the intelligence community itself,' he added. More congressional Republicans had been expected to jump on board with the war powers push, but some backed off after Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran on Monday that has held up in recent days. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has found himself in a lengthy spat with the administration over the strikes and the party's mammoth tax package, withdrew his support for a war powers resolution he had introduced with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). Trump, though, on Friday told reporters that he would not hesitate to approve more strikes against Iran if the intelligence community gathers information in future months and years about the nation's uranium enrichment capabilities. 'Sure, without question, absolutely,' Trump said at a press briefing when asked if a second wave of bombings are possible. The lion's share of Republicans have given the administration its full backing. 'President Trump protected our country,' Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said on the floor earlier on Friday, pointing to similar strikes during former President Obama's tenure that did not require congressional authorization. 'He did it responsibility, he did it decisively, and he did it constitutionally,' Barrasso said. 'I believe [this resolution] is not needed. … It would prevent the president from protecting us in the future.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
US, European intel clashes over damage to Iran's nuclear program
US and European intelligence assessments appeared to clash over the impact of last week's air strikes on Iran's nuclear ambitions and uranium stockpiles. A leaked Defense Intelligence Agency report had suggested the US strikes set back Tehran's ambitions by only a few months, but the CIA on Wednesday said more up-to-date intelligence indicated key facilities were destroyed and would take years to rebuild. Meanwhile, a preliminary intelligence assessment provided to European governments suggested that Iran's enriched uranium stockpile was not concentrated in Fordo, and had been distributed to other locations ahead of the US strikes, the Financial Times reported. The contradicting reports come after US President Donald Trump said the US attack had 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear facilities, with the administration vowing to investigate the DIA report leak.
The Hill
7 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Administration briefing doesn't assuage House Democrats' fears of Iran nuclear capabilities
A House briefing from Trump administration officials on last weekend's strikes against Iranian nuclear sites has done little to mollify the concerns of Democrats, who say they were presented little evidence that the attacks will prevent Tehran from producing nuclear weapons. Skeptical Democrats had gone into the briefing with two pressing questions: Did Iran pose an imminent threat to Americans, thereby justifying Trump's move to launch the strikes without congressional approval? And did the attacks 'obliterate' Iran's capacity to make nuclear weapons, as Trump has claimed? Leaving the closed-door gathering, Democrats said they got satisfactory answers to neither. 'I would say that that particular briefing left me with more concerns and a true lack of clarity on how we are defining the mission and the success of it,' said Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.), the Democratic whip. Rep. Bill Foster (D-N.J.), a former nuclear physicist, said the U.S. strikes likely knocked out Iran's centrifuges and other infrastructure required to enrich uranium in the future. But there's no evidence, he said, that the attacks destroyed Iran's existing stockpiles of enriched uranium. If those are intact, he warned, Iran could still produce weapons with the strength of a Hiroshima bomb in 'a very small break-out time.' 'I was very disappointed that we learned very little about the inventory of high-enriched uranium — 60 percent enriched uranium — its whereabouts and what that meant for the breakout time to Iran's first nuclear device,' Foster said. 'The 60 percent-enriched material, while not weapons-grade, is weapons-usable. The Hiroshima device was a mixture of 50 percent and higher enriched uranium. And that worked pretty well.' 'The goal of this mission, from the start, was to secure or destroy that material,' he continued. 'That's where they're hiding the ball. And that's what we have to keep our eyes on.' Friday's House briefing came six days after Trump ordered strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to dismantle Tehran's ability to produce nuclear weapons. The briefing was conducted by top administration officials — including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Radcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — who had also briefed Senate lawmakers a day earlier. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence who has clashed with Trump over the threat of Iran's nuclear program, did not attend either briefing. Trump has repeatedly said the mission was an unqualified success, 'obliterating' Iran's nuclear capacity and setting the program back by years. And the president's GOP allies in the Capitol echoed that message after the briefing. 'It is clear, everyone can see by the videos, that these massive ordinance penetrating bombs did the job,' said Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). 'I think their key facilities have been disabled and I think Iran is now a long time away from doing what they might have done before this very successful operation.' A preliminary report from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reached different conclusions, finding that the strikes set back Iran's nuclear program by months, rather than years. More recent statements from the CIA and Trump's head of national intelligence have disputed the DIA report, creating mixed messages from the administration about the success of the mission. Republicans are siding clearly with the latter. 'You can dismiss the low-level initial assessment, and you can rely upon what the CIA has said, because these are first-hand accounts,' Johnson said. 'The greatest evidence that we have of the effectiveness of this mission was that Iran came immediately and was willing to engage in a ceasefire agreement,' he added. 'That would have been unthinkable just a few weeks back.' Indeed, Trump said Wednesday that administration officials will meet with Iranian officials next week, when the U.S. will press Iran on ending its nuclear ambitions. At least one prominent Democrat, for his part, did air some satisfaction with the briefing: Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Rubio clarified that the objective of the mission 'was to set back or destroy Iranian nuclear capability in the service of bringing them to the table.' But whether that goal was achieved remains an open question. Himes said that even though the U.S. wants to bring Iran back to the negotiating table, it does not mean Tehran will follow suit. 'There's two questions: Did we, in fact, set back or destroy? And two, Will they come to the table?' Himes said. 'It's really too early to tell what the intentions of the Iranians are. If the intentions are to go to the negotiating table, great. 'But the intentions may also be to just go underground and produce a device.'
