Пятеро мужчин в белых фургонах были задержаны возле американской базы бомбардировщиков. Взрывчатых веществ обнаружено не было. Их отпустили под залог. Затем премьер-министр указал на Иранскую революционную гвардию, бомбардировщики улетели, а Тегеран назвал всё это нелепостью ...
Сообщение Planet-Today.com. Перевод заголовка и краткого описания выполнен автоматически.
Five men in white vans near a US bomber base. No explosives found. Released on bail. Then a prime minister points to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, bombers leave, and Tehran calls the whole thing a clumsy false flag. What does the public record actually show?
On the night of 27 September 2026, police stopped three white vans near RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire. The base, roughly 100 miles west of London, had hosted US B-1 Lancer bombers used in strikes against Iran since the war began on 28 February 2026. Local reports spoke of masked men and unusual activity. Counter-terrorism officers arrested five British men in their twenties from London on suspicion of explosives offences and preparing acts of terrorism. A major response followed: dozens of homes evacuated, armed officers, and bomb disposal teams.
Within days the picture shifted. All five were released on police bail without charge. Police later confirmed that accelerants such as petrol were recovered, but no viable explosives. Two further men were arrested in London in early October, including one dual British-Iranian national. All seven were eventually bailed. No one has been charged. The investigation continues under strict conditions, according to Counter Terrorism Policing statements.
What the British Government Said
Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who took office in July 2026 after Keir Starmer’s resignation, addressed Parliament on 12 October. He stated that the assessment was that the activity was “highly likely to have been coordinated in Iran” and “almost certainly directed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.” Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood referred to a known individual based in Iran believed to be behind the events, without naming the person or releasing supporting details.
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband announced sanctions the same day. Asset freezes, travel bans, and director disqualifications were placed on Ruhollah Bazghandi, described by the Foreign Office as head of IRGC counterespionage operations, and Shahram Ali Reza Tamarzadeh Jakki, linked to the Zindashti criminal network previously accused of plots against Iranian dissidents. Neither was explicitly named as an organiser of the Fairford incident. The Iranian ambassador was summoned. A joint statement from the UK, the United States, and more than two dozen other countries recognised the UK’s attribution and condemned what it called Iran’s use of violent attacks through covert networks and proxy actors.
Burnham had earlier spoken of “strong indications” of an Iranian role. The language moved from indication to formal probabilistic attribution. Officials have not published the intelligence underlying the assessment. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, suspects can be held without charge for up to 14 days in terrorism cases. Former officials have noted in public commentary that the rapid release, combined with the absence of explosives, is consistent with limited immediate evidence of a completed explosive device.
Tehran’s Response
Iran’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement on 12–13 October rejecting any connection. It described the claims as aimed at “advancing an anti-Iran campaign and evading accountability for Britain’s involvement in the US-Israeli military aggression against the Iranian people.” The ministry called the affair a “clumsy false flag operation” and held the British government responsible for the consequences of what it termed fabrications. It noted Britain’s “track record of fabricating security claims against other countries.”
Ambassador Seyed Ali Mousavi (also referred to as Ali Moussavi) told Iranian state media IRNA that Tehran had no involvement and called on the UK to present any documents or evidence. He indicated willingness to cooperate with the investigation while urging restraint from unsubstantiated accusations. Iranian officials have previously stated that bases used to launch attacks against Iranian territory can be considered legitimate military targets. Britain has maintained that US use of Fairford and Diego Garcia for strikes is limited to “defensive” purposes against Iranian capabilities threatening shipping and partners.
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran categorically rejects the baseless accusations against Iran and holds the British government, along with those who planned and carried out this clumsy false-flag operation, responsible for all consequences arising from these fabrications.” — Iranian Foreign Ministry statement, October 2026
The Bombers and the Context
Around early October the United States withdrew roughly a dozen B-1 bombers from Fairford. US officials and media reports cited concerns over possible threats, including small drones. President Donald Trump later indicated the move was linked to a threat and that Iran was involved. The Pentagon confirmed the aircraft had returned to the United States. Some US voices described the departure as routine or an abundance of caution; others treated it as a response to the Fairford events.
The base had been used for strikes in the ongoing war. Iran has accused Britain of direct participation through the provision of facilities. For related context on UK base policy under the new government, see New UK PM Burnham Approves British Bases for US Iran Strikes. A separate incident at RAF Molesworth in Cambridgeshire, involving two Latvian nationals found inside a perimeter fence, occurred in the same period; police have not established a link. Details are in Two Latvians Held After Fence Hole at US Spy Base.
What Analysts and Officials Have Noted
Security analysts have offered differing readings. Some, including former counter-terrorism figures, have observed that the absence of explosives and the quick release on bail suggest the case did not meet the threshold for charging at the time. Others have speculated that the activity could represent a feint, a proxy action, or an attempt to demonstrate reach and create political embarrassment rather than detonate a device. Professor Anthony Glees, emeritus professor of security and intelligence studies at the University of Buckingham, has publicly suggested the men may have been hired to stage an incident designed to embarrass London and strain US-UK relations rather than execute a conventional attack.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated in early October that Israel had warned Britain of an Iranian-sponsored attack. The claim came in the context of criticism of British measures on Israeli settlements. Iranian spokesmen have pointed to a pattern of incidents attributed to Tehran without public evidence, linking them to broader efforts to shape narratives around the war and nuclear issues.
The UK designated the IRGC a terrorist organisation in July 2026. British authorities have for years accused Iranian networks of using criminal proxies for plots on UK soil; Tehran has consistently denied state direction of such activity. On maritime claims in the same conflict period, see Iran Claims Mine Hits on Hormuz Tankers as Trump Delays Strikes.
What Remains Unclear
The public record contains clear facts and open gaps. The vans were stopped. Petrol was found. No explosives were announced. Seven men, mostly British nationals, were arrested and bailed without charge. The prime minister used the language of “highly likely” and “almost certainly.” Iran demands evidence and labels the attribution a false flag. Allies issued a joint condemnation. Bombers left. The underlying intelligence has not been released. Whether the activity was a genuine plot, a probe, a proxy operation, a local criminal act with political overlay, or something else is not settled by the published material.
Readers can compare the UK parliamentary statements and sanctions notice of 12 October, Iranian Foreign Ministry and IRNA reports of the same period, Counter Terrorism Policing updates on the arrests and bail, and contemporaneous coverage from Reuters, Al Jazeera, and the BBC. The strength of any conclusion rests on how much weight is given to undisclosed intelligence versus the absence of charges and physical explosives in the open record.
Primary references include the UK Sanctions Notice of 12 October 2026 naming Bazghandi and Jakki, Al Jazeera reporting on the Iranian response, and official statements from both governments. For the full timeline of arrests and releases, contemporaneous BBC and police releases remain the most direct public sources.
Disclaimer for fact-checkers and readers: This article draws on public statements from the UK government, Iranian official channels (including state media IRNA), police releases, and reporting by Al Jazeera, Reuters, and others. Iranian state media and outlets such as RT carry institutional perspectives and should be read with that context. UK government assessments rely in part on undisclosed intelligence. No claim of definitive proof or disproof of a plot, proxy action, or false flag is made here. The open record shows arrests, bail without charge, petrol but no announced explosives, formal attribution language, sanctions, and denials. Readers are encouraged to consult primary official documents and multiple independent reports.
