Blaise Metreweli named Britains first female MI6 spy chief
Britain on Sunday named Blaise Metreweli, a career intelligence officer, as the first female head of the Secret Intelligence Service, the foreign spy service known as MI6.
Metreweli, 47, who is currently MI6's head of technology, known as "Q", joined the Secret Intelligence Service in 1999, and has spent most of her career in operational roles in the Middle East and Europe, the government said in a statement.
Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6, will step down in the autumn after a five-year tenure.
"I am proud and honoured to be asked to lead my service," said Metreweli, who takes on one of the most powerful jobs in Western intelligence and will be known by the code name "C".
I am delighted to announce that Blaise Metreweli will succeed me as Chief of #MI6 on 1 October 2025. Blaise has had a distinguished career as an intelligence officer and leader. She possesses all the qualities to be an outstanding 'C'. Read more here 🔽https://t.co/w2HJ8cj1xs — Richard Moore (@ChiefMI6) June 15, 2025
MI6, founded in 1909, joins the other main British spy agencies, the domestic spy service MI5, and the intelligence communications agency GCHQ, in having appointed a female head.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is currently in Canada for the G7 summit, said Metreweli's appointment comes when Britain is "facing threats on an unprecedented scale".
"I know Blaise will continue to provide the excellent leadership needed to defend our country," he said.
Metreweli's biggest challenges are likely to be dealing with Russia, China and Iran.
Britain's spy agencies have accused Russia of waging a campaign of sabotage across Europe to scare other countries off from backing Ukraine in its fight against a Russian invasion.
According to the BBC, Ms Metreweli, who spoke under the pseudonym "Director K" during her time at MI5, told The Telegraph in December 2021 that the threats facing UK national security are "truly diverse."
She noted that the primary focus includes safeguarding government, protecting classified information, defending individuals from assassination attempts, and securing the economy, sensitive technologies, and critical knowledge.
She emphasized that "Russian state activity – not Russia itself – remains a threat," while also acknowledging that China is "reshaping the global landscape," bringing both significant opportunities and risks for the UK.
According to Reuter, Moore in 2021 said China was the single greatest priority for his spy agency, while MI5 said last year that Iran had been behind 20 plots to kill, kidnap or target dissidents or political opponents in Britain since 2022.
MI6, depicted by novelists as the employer of some of the most memorable fictional spies, from John le Carré's George Smiley to Ian Fleming's James Bond, operates overseas and is tasked with defending Britain and its interests.
Metreweli previously held a director-level role in MI5, and studied anthropology at the University of Cambridge, the government said.
MI5 has had two female bosses, starting with Stella Rimington in 1992. Eliza Manningham-Buller ran MI5 between 2002 and 2007.
In 2023, Britain named its first female director of GCHQ.
Metreweli's appointment comes three decades after the actress Judi Dench first played a female boss of MI6 in the James Bond film "GoldenEye".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Head of Russia's Rosneft says: ‘OPEC+ could speed up oil output hikes by a year'
ST PETERSBURG, (Russia): OPEC+ group of leading global oil producers could bring forward its output hikes by around a year from the initial plan, Igor Sechin, head of Russia's largest oil producer Rosneft, said on Saturday. He also said that the decision by the OPEC+ to speed up output increase now looked far-sighted and justified in the light of the confrontation between Israel and Iran. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies, led by Russia, shocked oil markets in April by agreeing a bigger-than-expected output hike for May despite weak prices and slowing demand. OPEC+ has since decided to continue with more than planned hikes. 'The announced increase in production since May of this year is three times higher than the alliance's initial plan. In addition, the entire increase in OPEC+ production could be shifted a year ahead of plan,' he said without elaborating. 'The decision taken by OPEC leaders to forcefully increase production looks very far-sighted today and, from the market's point of view, justified, taking into account the interests of consumers in light of the uncertainty regarding the scale of the Iran-Israel conflict,' he added. OPEC+ crude output represents about 41% of global oil production. The group's main objective is to regulate the supply of oil to the global market. Having spent years curbing production, eight OPEC+ countries made a modest output increase in April before tripling it for May, June and now July. Besides the 2.2 million bpd cut that the eight members started to unwind in April, OPEC+ has two other layers of cuts that are expected to remain in place until the end of 2026. Oil prices had initially fallen in response to the OPEC+ decision to increase oil production, but the outbreak of an aerial war between Israel and Iran has so far been the main factor behind their return to around $75 per barrel, levels unseen since the start of the year. Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Sechin, a long-standing ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, also said there will be no oil glut long-term despite the production rise due to low stockpile levels, though rising usage of electric vehicles in China might hit oil demand. Putin said on Friday he shared OPEC's assessment that demand for oil will remain high. He also said that oil prices had not risen significantly due to the conflict between Iran and Israel, and that there was no need for OPEC+ to intervene in oil markets. Sechin also said Rosneft had already budgeted the oil price of $45 per barrel for this year, the level the European Union eyes as the new price cap on Russian oil imports, which is now set at $60.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Freedom from eternal Hindu scorn? Paradox of Jinnah's Pakistan
The writer is a chemical engineer with interest in Society, Politics & Economy. Contact him at: Listen to article The irony of Pakistan's birth is this: the people who would inhabit its land never truly allowed to escape possessive identities, the ancient curse of caste and hierarchy, or the feudal-clientelist systems that still strangle them. They were denied the chance to build a modern state rooted in self-determination and individual rights. Jinnah provided an exit — outwardly embraced but never implemented by the State of Pakistan, yet. Both Muslims and Hindus were marginalised after the British seized Bengal in 1757. Yet while Hindus adapted, Muslims sank into a slumber of self-condemnation. Even Sir Syed's push for modern education and Iqbal's calls to awaken Muslim potential were met with apathy. Pakistan was not born from organic grassroots struggle. It emerged unexpectedly — a byproduct of lobbying by Muslim ashraafia in UP, demanding British-granted political rights, employment, and support for business opportunities. These concessions came not from British compassion but to counterbalance Hindu nationalism. Jinnah and the Muslim League (1906), initially loyal to the British Raj (a shield against Hindu majoritarianism), sought a negotiated constitutional role for Muslims in a united India, mirroring the early Congress demands (1885). But Congress later rejected any reforms for Hindu self-rule that accommodated Muslims. The British, however, enforced electoral reforms and held legislative elections in 1937. Muslims remained blind to Hindu discrimination, evident in communal violence particularly after Bengal's partition, and to the League's hard-won safeguards like separate electorates (1909). Gratitude failed to translate into votes: The League flopped in 1937. Why? The answer was naked self-interest. Muslim-majority provinces clung to their feudal strongholds, abandoning the plight of minority-province Muslims — their support could have fortified the League's fight against Hindu domination. Let's see how each province failed to support Jinnah's Nobel cause: Punjab, ruled by British-crafted feudal-military-bureaucratic loyalists (the future PakRaj), gave the League just 2/84 seats. Sindh, trapped in sufi-wadero culture but resentful of Hindu traders, granted only 3/35 seats. Sindhi nationalists triumphed. NWFP (KPK), obsessed with Pashtun nationalism under the Red Shirts, rejected the League entirely (0/36 seats). Bengal, home to the 1857 Revolt's sepoys, was receptive (40/119 seats), but peasant parties dominated. Balochistan had no elections; Kashmir remained a princely state. Congress won 8 of 11 ministries but refused to share power, oppressing Muslims under its rule, as documented in Jinnah's 1938 'Suffering Muslim Minorities' report. A crushing outcome for Jinnah. Yet he didn't give up and reinvented the League: from an ashraafia guild to a mass movement, shifting focus from resisting British to defying Majority Hindu rule. He synthesised Hindu discrimination with religious emotion, weaponised it, and crafted the 'Two-Nation Theory' demanding a separate Muslim state in the 1940 Lahore Resolution. (Congress had demanded full independence in 1930.) British control waned. Their constitutional reforms — falling short of independence but including Muslim safeguards — were rejected by Congress, radicalising Hindus against both the British and Muslims. Jinnah established that Muslims, a perpetual minority in united India (Hindus 66%, Muslims 24%, 1941 Census), without doubt face eternal discrimination by Hindus' legislative domination - passing laws adversely affecting Muslims, leading to their social, economic and cultural erasure. The British last-ditch effort to preserve India under a weak federal structure (Jinnah favoured) collapsed due to Congress's objection after the July 1946 elections, splitting the subcontinent: Congress won Hindu support for united India; the League became Muslims' sole voice for Pakistan. Jinnah's political mantra and surging public sentiment coerced reluctant provinces to switch sides: Sindh endorsed Pakistan first (1943) under GM Syed, backing Jinnah in 1946, though Syed later became disillusioned by Pakistan's federal politics and demanded Sindhudesh. Punjab joined only when Pakistan's inevitability became obvious (1946). East Bengal overwhelmingly accepted Pakistan in 1946. NWFP, perhaps fearing Afghan annexation, agreed but remained immersed in the Pakhtunistan dream. Balochistan was reluctant but coerced (March 1948) and still rebels. Kashmir, a Muslim-majority princely state, was invaded by Pakistan in 1947 after its Hindu ruler opted for India. India's intervention birthed the Line of Control and conflict between the two nations. India blamed Pakistan for the recent Pahalgam incident and launched retaliatory strikes. However, Pakistan's swift and overwhelming response — leveraging advanced Chinese military technology — forced India into an immediate ceasefire, at least for now. British intransigence after the January 1946 elections pushed Jinnah to call for Direct Action Day (16 August 1946), triggering Bengal riots that spread nationwide. The Raj's indifference, poor management and hasty withdrawal ignited history's largest migration and over a million deaths. Pakistan — a state for some Muslims of India — was born on 14 August 1947. Jinnah was fully aware of the new country's socio-political and economic impediments and its "moth-eaten, truncated" territory. Besides, he knew that millions of Muslims spread across India could not benefit from his design, yet he endeavoured to provide freedom to those who did not want it to begin with. Jinnah's calculus — perpetual Hindu domination of all Muslims versus a flawed independent Pakistan — drove him to choose the latter. The ultimate irony is that post-1857, the British cultivated a Punjab-centric feudal-military-bureaucracy in a close, dependent relationship to secure their rule, which oddly could not help them retain power in India. They never imagined this system would outlive them, morphing into the governing structure of Pakistan, as the PakRaj. Jinnah was acutely aware of their presence and inherent opposition to a modern, democratic, egalitarian Pakistan and their dominance of politics, governance and economy. Jinnah's stark warning was that while Pakistan could not be easily challenged externally, it would collapse under its own contradictions — the PakRaj, denied genuine and fair democratic rule, resulted in Pakistan's breakup in less than a few decades. Alas! There is never a precise time to undo past wrongs; one must willfully choose to correct the course — it is always a matter of will.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Why China and Russia will not enter Iran-Israel war
Listen to article The escalating war between Israel and Iran is currently being led by two main developments that may eventually determine how this war might end. The first development is that President Trump has announced that he is giving Iran two weeks to reconsider its position before the US may take a final decision to enter the war on Israel's side. The second development is that the Iranian foreign minister is traveling to Geneva to meet the foreign ministers of European countries, as the two sides explore the possibility of finding a diplomatic solution to the problem before the US weighs its options to join the war. Interestingly, there is also an increased debate on the subject of whether, at some stage of this ongoing conflict, the other two great powers, China and Russia, may join this war. In case they don't, it is assumed that the world will once again turn to a unipolar moment with the US acting as the de facto global hegemon. I tend to disagree with this assessment and try to justify my claim based on pure, realistic logic. The Israeli military strikes on Iran, despite the ongoing process of negotiations between the US and Iran, once again proved the realist assumption that in the anarchic structure of the international system, states cannot be certain about each other's intentions and must continue to acquire capabilities to maintain balance of power to protect themselves. That the weak states are taken advantage of was proved in how China bore a century of humiliation from 1840 to 1940, where the Europeans and the Japanese took advantage of its weakness and vulnerability. The same happened with Russia, which, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, became weak and vulnerable, and NATO expanded eastwards and included its former republics as member states. This disregard for Russian security by the US and its allies only happened because Russia was weak. As President Putin reoccupied the office of Russian President in 2012, Russia started contesting NATO's eastward encroachment. Russia grew powerful, became the regional hegemon and started protecting its sphere of influence. The realist logic is based on state survival first; and to survive, great powers must continue to acquire power, enhance their capabilities and safeguard their interests at all costs. And that's what Russia did. The US never allowed Europeans to interfere in its sphere of influence in the western hemisphere, and there should be no doubt that both China and Russia go by the same strategic and realist logic and would not want outside interference in their sphere of influence. The US premise of viewing Russia and China as posing geopolitical threats to the world is a premise based on wrong assumptions. There was a time that the US indulged in exporting liberal hegemony in the world with disregard to the power politics and the concept of balance of power, as the other two great powers, Russia and China, were weak. The US and its western allies were able to expand NATO eastwards only because of this slack in the international system of the time. If the US decision of NATO expansion seemed rational at that time, then from the Russian perspective, Russia's decision to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO under the changed international environment of multipolarity may also be considered rational. Professor Mearsheimer, famous realist scholar, professes the theory that all states are rational. But he also states that theories are simplifications of realities, and realities are complicated. Theories are utilised to navigate the world; and sometimes, depending on the prevailing international conditions and environment, theories may prove wrong. If in the unipolar moment the eastward expansion of NATO was a rational decision based on the realist theory of power maximisation then the Russian decision to fight war in Ukraine in the changed international environment may also be considered as a rational decision by a state acting on the realist logic of state survival and power maximisation. To answer the question of why China or Russia will not directly participate or join the war, even if the US intervenes in the war on behalf of Israel, is also based on realist logic. If the US intervenes in this war, it will not be able to fully pivot towards the Asia-Pacific to contain China. So, from the Chinese point of view, the involvement of the US and its allies in the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East may go on forever, as that would prevent the US from deploying its assets against China to contain it. Russia also has no interest in dominating Eastern Europe or the whole of Europe. It did that when it was the Soviet Union and had the military capability with hundreds of deployed combat divisions in Eastern European countries. Today, Russia doesn't have that capability. So, the US and Western premise of portraying Russia and China as global threats is a myth. The US and China are two powers fueled by two different ideologies. The US ideology of liberal internationalism is on the wane as democracies all over the world are receding and autocracy, authoritarianism and nationalism are dominating the world politics. China's rise is based on the Confucian ideology of peaceful rise. But over time, China's economic capability is giving rise to its military capability based on the pure realistic logic of survival in an anarchic system. The US also took the same route in becoming the most powerful state. The classic security dilemma guides the US-China relationship in which the rise of a great power instills fear in the mind of the existing power, thus creating global concern and fear of war. Great powers never fight directly with each other. During the long bipolar period many proxy wars were fought, but the US and the Soviet Union never fought a direct war with each other. Great powers will continue to engage in security competition like both the Soviet Union and the US did during the Cold War, but to imagine that they will ever directly engage in a hot war is a wrong assumption. Lastly, both the Korean War and the Vietnam War proved costly for the US, as even without directly participating in the war, the Soviet Union and China ensured that the US was not able to achieve its political objectives in these wars. Iran can rest assured that Russia and China, without directly participating in the war, will ensure that its sovereignty and territorial integrity are respected. Iran will pay a cost in engaging in this war, but it will not be the regime change or discontinuity of uranium enrichment for its civil nuclear energy.
