‘If MI5/MI6 had any reason
whatsoever to suspect that Epstein was a Mossad agent, and that Mandelson had
passed/could and might pass sensitive and classified information to him, why
apparently, were none of the Cold War procedures below followed?’ –
AI (21.04.2026) – ‘During the Cold War, the procedure for dealing with a
suspected spy among senior political nominees relied on highly confidential,
restricted channels involving the Security Service (MI5), the Cabinet
Secretary, and top Foreign Office officials, often by-passing standard
administrative routines to prevent leaks.
Procedure for Internal Notification (UK Officials and PM):
1. ‘MI5/SIS Intelligence Report’ – If MI5 (counter-intelligence) or SIS (MI6)
discovered adverse information during vetting, a secret intelligence report was
compiled.
2. ‘Cabinet Secretary Briefing’ – The Director-General of MI5 would typically
brief the Cabinet Secretary directly, due to the sensitivity of an
ambassadorial appointment.
3. ‘Direct Ministerial Briefing’ – The Cabinet Secretary would then verbally
brief the Foreign Secretary and/or the Prime Minister, often in private and
without written documentation to preserve ‘deniability’ or prevent leaks, as
was standard during the era of the Cambridge Five mole crisis.
4. ‘Vetting Denial/Withdrawal’ – If suspicion was strong, the security vetting
clearance was simply denied or, if previously granted, quietly withdrawn. This
would make it impossible for the nominee to receive the necessary
“STRAP” clearance needed to handle top-secret intelligence.
5. ‘The “Five Eyes” Link’ – Under the UK USA Agreement (1946) and
subsequent intelligence sharing, the UK had a responsibility to notify US
counterparts of a significant security risk to intelligence channels.
6. ‘MI6/CIA Liaison’ – The Head of SIS (MI6) would brief their counterpart at
the CIA.
7. ‘Formal Embassy Channels’ – The Minister (Political) or the existing
Ambassador in Washington would be instructed to inform the US State Department
or a designated official in the White House directly that the nominee was not
suitable, often using code words to suggest a security, rather than political,
issue.
8. ‘The “Persona Non Grata” Route’ – If the U.S. suspected the
nominee before the UK acted, they could signal that the individual would be
declared persona non grata (unwelcome), forcing the UK to withdraw
the nomination without a public scandal.
Actions to Avoid a Breach:
9. ‘Private Withdrawal’ – The Prime Minister would typically persuade the
nominee to withdraw for “personal reasons” or “health
reasons” to avoid public scandal, rather than publicly accusing them of
treason.
10. ‘Forced Reassignment’ – If the person could not be stopped from taking a
role, they would be placed in a non-sensitive position without access to
intelligence, though this was rare for an ambassadorial post.’
Activate to view larger image,
Comments added:
- AI (21.04.2026) – ‘The primary evidence and allegations include: …
A 2020 FBI memo cites a source who was “convinced that Epstein was a co-opted Mossad agent” and “trained as a spy” for Israel.
Documents suggest Mossad may have contacted Epstein’s lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, for debriefings related to Epstein. Dershowitz has denied any intelligence ties.
Epstein reportedly helped arrange sensitive negotiations between Barak and Russian officials regarding a potential regime change in Syria in 2013.
Correspondence shows Epstein brokering security cooperation and surveillance technology sales between Israel and countries like Mongolia and Côte d’Ivoire.
Some staff referred to Epstein’s New York apartment as “Barak’s apartment,” and emails discussed the possibility of the Israeli government installing surveillance equipment there.
Epstein facilitated a $1.5 million investment in Carbyne, an Israeli startup led by Ehud Barak and former intelligence officials.’ - Since Sir Oliver Robbins served as a Deputy UK National Security
Advisor between 2010 and 2014, it must be assumed that he knew about the
existence of these procedures – chapter and verse.
So, why as he said to a Committee in the House of Commons today, did he decide that it was not necessary to take any ‘legal advice’ about his acts and ommissions in relation to what he was told about the failure of Mandelson to pass security vetting, which rersulted in the appointment and acceptance by the US of a UK ambassador who was a high security risk?
If I understand correctly, Robbins’ contends that he behaved as he did, in order to protect and preserve the integrity of the vetting process.
Logically, this appears to amount to an argument that the rights of a suspected spy override the national interest in avoiding a security breach, i.e. by appointing a spy as an ambassador.
If that is his argument, then it is is absurd!
All warning lights should have been flashing ‘red’ about the appointment of Mandelson, including in the Foreign Office.
But it appears that the lights were all turned off.
If it is factually correct, then why were all of the warning lights switched off – and by whom? - AI (21.04.2026) – ‘In 2022, U.S. prosecutors charged an Israeli citizen
residing in New Hampshire with smuggling sensitive electronic
components to Russia that are used in nuclear and hypersonic weapons. …
Former U.S. Navy analyst Jonathan Pollard was convicted of spying for Israel in 1985. While Pollard primarily provided information to Israel, U.S. intelligence officials and reports from The New Yorker and The Washington Post alleged that certain elements in the Israeli military traded some of this intelligence to the Soviet Union in exchange for the release of Soviet Jews.’ - Based upon the Jonathan Pollard case (see my previous comment), is it at all in the realms of possibility, that an informed and ‘switched on’ MI5/MI6 officer, may have had even a slight a concern that: (i) Mandelson would be privy to FVEY intelligence; (ii) could pass it on to Epstein; (iii) who might pass it on to Israel; who (iv) might then sell it to Russia? I wonder if any UK parliamentarian will ask a Q. about this, because so far, I have not heard one.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUsdGBBw_hU
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJhqGDZbqBI
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNYUxQXpG3I
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78dxvYTN6Y0
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toqY9NIADrY
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKnFdCRy18Y
- Are any potential links between: (i) Mandelson; (ii) Epstein; (iii) Mossad; and (iv) Israel – a ticking time-bomb for all of those involved in the security vetting process, and appointment of Mandelson, as UK Ambassador to the US?