RAF Fairford: Burnham vs. the US vs. Police vs.… Iran?
Written by James Albero, BA International Relations.
What happened at RAF Fairford remains unclear, with counter-terrorism officers continuing to investigate the incident and establish a motive as of 7 October. Meanwhile, officials have offered competing narratives: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio asserting on Fox News that a ‘clearly [...] foreign actor’ was involved, UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham informing the BBC that ‘[...] Iran played a part' (while maintaining that the base remains 'safe'). The Iranian Embassy publicly rejected these accusations on the social media platform X. Amid these conflicting declarations, determining the true sequence of events endures as a challenge.
Gloucestershire Police said:
'At around 12.45am today (Sunday 27 September) police received a call relating to three suspicious vehicles travelling towards RAF Fairford.
Armed officers responded and subsequently arrested five men in the Whelford area on suspicion of committing offences under the Explosives Act.'
Subsequently, the Times revealed that one of the suspects had made the initial 999 call, meaning that ‘authorities were already on the scene’ before a farmer called to report suspicious road blockage.
According to the UK Counter Terrorism Police report, all five men arrested in connection with the alleged plot have now been released on bail while ‘all possible lines of enquiry’ are explored. All five are from London.
Andy Burnham’s claim that there were ‘strong indications’ of Iranian involvement was rejected by Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi on X:
“Determining the true sequence of events endures as a challenge.”
'I can confirm Iran's belief that releasing supposed terrorists working for foreign states really says it all.
You're barking up the wrong tree.'
Although no explosives were found in the three vans, the men were arrested on suspicion of preparing a terrorist act. The limited information released by authorities has fuelled public speculation.
Online discussions about the Fairford ‘plot’ have been filled with unsubstantiated claims about possible conspiracies. For example, there is a rising suspicion that the incident was a plot to disrupt RAF Fairford from being used to carry out strikes on Iran.
This theory draws on the US military’s use of the base. Less than three months after Iran labelled the bases used for strikes on its territory ‘legitimate targets’, the US withdrew its aircraft from Gloucestershire. Tehran’s comment landed only a few months after Keir Starmer had allowed the US to use Fairford for this purpose, as revealed by the BBC.
Although Rubio downplayed the reason for this withdrawal, Donald Trump had a stark disagreement with UK Counter Terrorism Policing, claiming the US ‘actually know[s] the people who made the threat [that led to the withdrawal]’, and that they were avoiding ‘tempting the enemy.’ The New York Times claims the withdrawal was due to new, more specific intelligence - intelligence not publicly released by UK police.
However, Downing Street maintains that the base is safe. Is the US therefore acting, as US Vice President JD Vance described, with an ‘abundance of caution’?
Ultimately, the only clear fact is that some threat has been made by British nationals, including at least one UK-Iranian dual national. Yet, the scant details provided by law enforcement and the stark contrast between Washington’s apparent prudence and London’s upbeat reassurances only fuel further scepticism and unease among the public.
