Fairford case; The consensus of London and Washington in the absence of public evidence

Three weeks after the arrest of seven British youths near Fairford Air Base, London and Washington called Iran "almost certainly" responsible for a "terrorist plot"; But so far, no public, technical or judicial document has been published to prove this attribution. Meanwhile, the quick release of the defendants on bail, the internal contradictions of the US government, and the preemption of Israel in raising the claim, have raised serious questions about the true nature of this case.

According to Ambassador Arjan, during the past three weeks, the arrest of several young men near an air base belonging to the British Royal Air Force, which is also used jointly by the United States, has become the basis of widespread accusations against Tehran by London, Washington and their allies.

According to Ambassador Arjan, in the early hours of October 5, the police arrested five British citizens in their twenties on charges of preparing a terrorist act and explosives crimes after reporting three suspicious cars in Welford, adjacent to Royal Air Force Base Fairford in Gloucestershire. Later, two other people were also arrested; All seven people were released without charges and on bail.

Police said a search of the three vans found some gasoline as an incendiary agent but found "no usable explosives." Up to this moment, the reports confirmed by the British government and the police of this country are based on the arrests, cars and the discovery of some gasoline. No bombs, drones, weapons or documents related to the connection of the arrested people with someone outside the UK have been published so far.

The "fuel theft" hypothesis was raised in media speculations in the first days of the Fairford case, before London's official narrative about Iran's role was established. The basis of this hypothesis was that the police found only "some gasoline" in the three vans and no explosive devices; At least one van also had a fake logo and phone number that mimicked the appearance of a real fuel distribution company called Fuel2U. The company itself announced that neither the car nor any of the people involved had anything to do with it.

Ambassador Arjan's report considered these findings at the same time as the significant increase in energy prices in the UK following the US and Israel's military aggression against Iran, "validating" the hypothesis that the accused may have been simply "fuel thieves".

In the same report, Patricia, a 60-year-old resident of the nearby village of Kempsford, told Ambassador Arjan: "It's a shame that people around the world thought it was a terrorist attack, but in the end it wasn't; It was all a fuss." "If they were real terrorists, they would not have been released," he added. Another resident also told Ambassador Arjan that the presence of people in the middle of the night was "a little strange", but if they were terrorists, they would not be released.

During the past days, the officials of the United Kingdom and the United States of America have continuously accused Tehran in vague statements without referring to valid documents. London and Washington have used possible and vague interpretations such as "most likely", "almost certain" and "out of an abundance of caution", but so far they have not provided any published public, technical or judicial documents that prove the direct role of Iran or IRGC in the Fairford incident. British Prime Minister Andy Burnham said on October 12 that the incident was "most likely coordinated in Iran" and "almost certainly directed by the IRGC"; But he did not disclose the conversation, financial document, communication record, and not even the name of the accused who is connected to Tehran or IRGC.

David Miliband also summoned the Iranian ambassador in London and sanctioned two Iranians, saying that Britain "will not tolerate threats on its soil"; But the official reason for the sanctions was simply the claim of "facilitating or carrying out hostile activity on behalf of the Iranian regime" and the specific link of these two people with the Fairford incident was not explained in the public text. In the meeting with Seyed Ali Mousavi, Iran's ambassador, Tehran once again categorically denied any connection with Fairford and asked London to refrain from taking a stand without documents. The Iranian ambassador also stated that if Britain has evidence, it should provide it, and Tehran is ready to cooperate with the relevant institutions of the two countries in investigating the issue.

The picture is not uniform in Washington either. Donald Trump said the American bombers had left Fairford because of "some threats" and added: "We really know the people making the threats" and "they will be linked to Iran"; But he did not provide evidence for this claim. Vice President J.D. Vance called the decision "out of an abundance of caution" and referred to Iran as a general statement about Tehran's "terrorist act" rather than the specific evidence of the case.

The contradiction becomes more obvious at this level: Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, said that there is no direct connection between the sudden departure of the bombers and the "suspicious Iranian plan" and that the Pentagon is simply shifting resources; While Trump considered the withdrawal as the result of the threat related to Iran. MI5 chief Ken McCallum also said Iran had moved on to "harder targets such as military sites" and that Fairford was "not isolated", but he also did not provide any public documents about Iran ordering, financing or directly carrying out the incident.

The joint statement of 29 countries on 20 Mehr also did not pass this ambiguity: these countries recognized "the British assessment of Iran's role in the Fairford incident", rather than publishing independent evidence. Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs targeted this point in its statement on October 20 and stressed that London cannot avoid the political and legal responsibility of its claims and their possible consequences by hiding behind vague phrases and without providing "solid evidence". In other words, what has happened at the international level is the political stabilization of an intelligence narrative, not the presentation of a proof case.

the release of the accused; A clear evidence of the lack of a document of a terrorist act

Many lawyers, security experts, and analysts have considered the release of the alleged defendants in this case as a clear sign of the lack of evidence of a foreign terrorist operation.

Chris Phillips, the former head of Britain's National Counter-Terrorism Office, said in an interview with Al Jazeera: "If even traces of explosives had been found in the vans, or if these people were even thought to be terrorists, they would not have been released." "If there were explosives, small or large, in those vans, there is no way the police would release these people on bail," he emphasized.

Afzal Ashraf, a researcher at Loughborough University and a former senior officer of the Royal Air Force, also said in an interview with Al Jazeera that the quick release showed that the police did not have "enough evidence to detain people".

Graham Wetton, a former Metropolitan Police officer with more than 30 years' experience, told Sky News that the release "so quickly" for a terrorism-related charge was "highly unusual" and was, in his view, "a clear sign that there was no evidence of terrorism". He claimed that the accused may have been sent there simply to "test the security response".

In an interview with the Observer, Jonathan Hall, the UK government's independent reviewer of terrorism law, said the police had "done the right thing" and that bail was a way to "buy time" in a complex investigation. He added: "It's good that the police are so independent that they don't pay any attention to Trump's words."

Max Hill, the former Attorney General of England and Wales, also stressed in an interview with the Observer that public concern about the release of people linked to a "state terror scheme" is normal, but stressed that bail could come with very strict restrictions and supervision.

Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araghchi wrote on October 9 in response to Burnham's statements: "Burnham says his government can confirm that it believes Iran was involved in the Fairford incident. I can also confirm Iran's belief: releasing people who, as you say, were terrorists and in the service of foreign governments, will clarify everything by itself." "You're looking for the culprit in the wrong place," he added.

In his weekly meeting with reporters on the 12th of Mehr, Ismail Baqaei, the spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said: "The multi-screen shows that we have encountered in the last week should draw the world's attention to the fact that the Zionist regime and some European countries have a long way to go in what is known as false flag operations." He emphasized: "Based on the claims that there is no way to verify them, Iran is being accused of planning an operation, which itself is a source of doubt." Kazem Gharibabadi also evaluated incidents such as the Fly Dubai flight and the Fairford military base in the context of trying to "secure Iran's case" and put pressure on Tehran.

Tehran also reacted at the diplomatic level. Political Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, summoned British Ambassador to Tehran, Hugo Shorter, and conveyed Iran's "strong objection".

He called the claim of Iran's connection with the "sabotage plan at the Fairford military base" as "baseless and ridiculous" and emphasized the need for "an official explanation from the British government" and a correction of London's approach. Takhtrovanchi also said that Britain's recent propaganda campaign cannot overshadow "British complicity in military aggression against the Iranian nation" and that London should be held accountable for its participation in the aggression and war crimes of the United States and the Zionist regime.

Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs also announced in a statement on October 20 that it "strongly condemns" the British authorities' claim of attributing the alleged Fairford incident to Iran and called it "an ugly conspiracy to advance the anti-Iranian campaign and evade accountability for the British role in the military aggression of the United States and the Zionist regime against the Iranian people."

The statement emphasized that the use of phrases such as "high probability" and "almost certain" to make the accusation appear credible is in fact "a clear attempt to evade accountability for baseless accusations." The Ministry of Foreign Affairs categorically denied any accusations against Iran and held the British government and "the designers and implementers of this clumsy false flag operation" responsible for all the consequences of this forgery.

The shadow of the "special relationship" on British foreign policy

In the Fairford case, the new British government is under the dual pressure of maintaining a vital relationship with Washington and managing the left wing and advancing Labor. The tendency of "New Labor", which is the legacy of Tony Blair, is still powerful within the party and tends to align closely with the American foreign policy; The same trend has led London to accept Washington's narrative about Iran's role, even in the absence of public and independent evidence.

The prestigious New Statesman magazine wrote in a frank analysis this spring that the Labor Party is "deeply committed to unity with the United States" and even "bowed to America under Trump." This publication described one of the options facing the party as "a more Blairite party: supporting tech giants, America and privatization"; An expression that directly refers to the legacy of New Labor and the neoliberal tendency within the party.

In this context, the approach of "Progressive Realism" followed by former Prime Minister Keir Starmer and former British Foreign Secretary David Lemmy is practically a logical continuation of the Blairite foreign policy: close alignment with Washington while maintaining the appearance of independence. Jane Hartley, the former US ambassador to London, said in a report by Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) that Starmer was acting "completely in line with US policy".

In the Iran War, Starmer first refused to allow the US to use Fairford for an offensive attack, saying that Britain "does not believe in regime change from the sky"; But then, under pressure from Trump, he authorized the use of Fairford for "limited defense operations." Before Starmer stepped down, Time magazine wrote that the turnaround "fractured" the London-Washington relationship and exposed the tension between the two governments.

It seems that Andy Burnham's government has put the policy of appeasement with the Trump administration at the top of its policies.

The same pattern was repeated in the Fairford case: Burnham was forced to align London's narrative about Iran's role with Washington's, while some analysts believe that this alignment is more due to concern about damaging the relationship with the United States than independent evidence. The Express (October 5) wrote that the withdrawal of American bombers "made Burnham look weaker" and that Trump called Stormer a "Churchillian" for not allowing the bases to be used.

Consequences of boycott of Jewish settlers

The allegation of Iran's involvement in the alleged attack on Fairford is made in a situation where the new British government is under severe pressure from the Zionist lobbies in this country and the Israeli government. Although Ed Miliband, the new foreign minister, tried to neutralize these pressures by announcing a package of sanctions against Jewish settlers in the West Bank at the same time as a package of new sanctions against Iran, this action did not satisfy the Israeli lobbies either.

After Ed Miliband's decision on September 16 to ban the import of Israeli settlers' goods in the West Bank, he angered Tel Aviv and Zionist lobbies in Britain. The Daily Telegraph wrote that Miliband's anti-Israel approach "may appeal to Labour's vocal pro-Palestinian lobby, but it does not serve Britain's wider national security interests".

The Jerusalem Post wrote in a report titled "Britain and Israel growing further apart": "In early September, Israeli intelligence warned MI5 that an Iranian-backed attack on a British base was imminent. The next day, Ed Miliband announced his intention to ban imports of goods from Israeli settlers in the West Bank.

The key point is that the claim of the Iranian operation against Fairford was first made by Israel 20 days after the arrest of some people near this base, but after some time this Israeli intelligence claim became a "practical fact" in the official narrative of the British media and even the government of this country. Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview with Fox News on October 8: "We informed the British that an attack was going to happen and this attack was supported by Iran," and added: "Almost the next day, they imposed sanctions against us."

What happened in the Fairford case, rather than a proven case of state terrorism, is an example of the political fixation of an intelligence-security narrative; A narrative that has become a "reality" without publishing a public document, by repeating ambiguous interpretations and London's cooperation with Washington. The quick release of the defendants, the lack of explosives, the contradiction between Trump and Rubio's statements and the strange foresight of Israel in making the claim three weeks before it happened, all show that the evidentiary basis of this case is still fragile. In such an environment, the main question is not whether Iran played a role in Fairford or not; The main question is why London and Washington have expressed such certainty about an accusation without providing a document.