 John Swers. Welcom. You are the former chief of MI6, the British Intelligence Service, and now chairman of macro advisory partners. What's your judgment on Donald Trump and his generals? I think Donald Trump has shown in his candidacy and in his first year as presidency that he's a deeply unsuited person to be president of the United States. Does that mean he's dangerous as well? I think he's unreliable. He's quixotic. I think it's very good that you have some strong advisers around him. You mentioned the three generals, Kelly, Mattis, McMaster. There are also people like Gary Cohen, the National Economic Council, Steve Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary, Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State. These are important checks and balances on the ability of President Trump to follow his own wishes. There are. But at the same time, if you pass to your generals the responsibility for developing US strategy in a very turbulent world, they are likely to have a bias towards military solutions. I think we will see that most likely on North Korea where I think the difficulties of finding a viable strategy will make America more inclined to seek a military outcome than they would do if there were civilians in charge of it. But generals are always supposed to be averse to war having experienced it. I mean, you're suggesting actually that containment will not be a strategy for North Korea. If you left it to Europeans, then we would say that containment and deterrence was the only viable strategy to deal with North Korea. But I agree, generals are cautious about warfare, but they also like clear-cut outcomes. They don't like awkward compromises. I don't think you'd have found American generals in 1948 signing up to the long telegram of containment of the Soviet Union for the next 50 years. They would have liked to have solved the Soviet problem rather than manage it for 50 years. But some problems just have to be managed. So the percentage risk of war with North Korea? I wouldn't like to put a figure on it, but I think it's rising. Didn't you say 15%? No, the Japanese colleagues said 15%. Let me ask you finally. We've put your hat on as the former boss of MI6. What are the consequences? What will be the future of a world in which ISIS has been defeated and yet Al Qaeda still exists? Well, I think we're seeing the destruction of the ISIS caliphate, the territory that they controlled. I think the informal networks of ISIS fighters will continue. And in some ways the dispersal of ISIS personnel could lead to an increase in the threat that they pose in the short term rather than a decrease. But in the long term, we're going to see Islamic fundamentalism for decades to come, whether it's Al Qaeda or Daesh or whoever it's going to be because there are some fundamental tensions in the Islamic world which have not yet been worked out. I think what we demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan was you cannot solve them by the West imposing solutions. They have to be found by Muslims themselves. And I'm quite encouraged that people like Muhammad bin Salman is calling for a return to more moderate form of Islam. And that's an important step forward. But it doesn't solve the immediate problem of how to deal with the extremists who have been radicalized in the war zones of Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 20 years. Indeed. John Sawes, thank you very much indeed. Thank you, John.