Become an Independent member to bookmark this article Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Membership today. Join today Already a member? Log in Defence Secretary Wes Streeting accused Iran of “bare-faced cheek” after Tehran branded the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force terrorist organisations. The Iranian action, which also included labelling MI6 a “hostile group” came in response to the British decision to outlaw support for the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
Responding to Tehran’s move, Mr Streeting said Iran had a record of state-sponsored terrorism. Speaking at a press conference in Berlin he said: “The charge levelled at the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force by Iran doesn’t really dignify a response, except to say that I’m minded to take the press clippings and put them up in my downstairs toilet as a trophy. “More seriously, I think Iran has some bare-faced cheek, given the extent to which they fuel regional instability, the way in which they engage in state-sponsored acts of terrorism.
“We’re mindful of the incident at RAF Fairford. “And frankly, in terms of the threats coming from Tehran, we saw in the immediate aftermath of the outbreak of conflict between the United States and Iran just how quickly Iran engaged in strikes against its neighbouring countries who had nothing to do with US combat operations.” open image in gallery Iran has been accused of being behind a security incident at the US base at RAF Fairford (Ben Birchall/PA) ( PA Wire ) He said the UK had maintained diplomatic channels with Iran and was working towards de-escalation in the Middle East.
Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture
The article cites the RAF Fairford incident as evidence of Iranian threats but never says that RAF Fairford was used by US bombers to strike Iran. The Independent's own earlier report said so, and Metro reported it about this event. Without it a reader sees Fairford only as a target of Iranian hostility and does not see why Iran's designation of the RAF ties to UK bases used in attacks on Iran.
“We have always tried to point Iran towards the diplomatic alternative that exists, and we’ll continue to do so,” the Defence Secretary said. The foreign ministry in Tehran announced the designations for the RAF, Royal Navy and Secret Intelligence Service on Sunday “in response to the British government’s hostile actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran”. “The British government shall bear responsibility for their consequences,” the foreign ministry said.
The Independent tells readers in its own voice that Iran designated the RAF and Royal Navy only in response to the UK's move against the IRGC, and cuts the Iranian ministry's quoted reason short at 'hostile actions'. It leaves out that Tehran's stated grounds included Britain's provision of bases and logistical support for the US-Israeli war on Iran, which other outlets reported the same day. It also mentions the RAF Fairford incident without saying the base was used by US bombers to strike Iran.
Leaves out what changes the picture
Serious
“came in response to the British decision to outlaw support for the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps”
Why this matters
The Independent states in its own voice that the Iranian designations came in response to the IRGC ban, as if that were the whole cause.
The impression it gives
A reader believes Iran labelled the RAF and Royal Navy purely as a tit-for-tat for a British legal measure against the IRGC, with no link to anything the RAF or Royal Navy did.
The context
Iran's foreign ministry cited British actions over the past year, first among them Britain's involvement in the US-Israeli war on Iran through providing military bases, facilities and logistical support. The IRGC decision was only one part of its stated grounds. Metro and the Tehran Times reported this the same day.
“in response to the British government’s hostile actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran”
Why this matters
The Independent quotes the ministry's statement but stops at "hostile actions", before the statement names what those actions were.
The impression it gives
A reader takes "hostile actions" as a vague grievance with no specific content, which makes Streeting's dismissal of it in S7 look reasonable.
The context
The same sentence of the statement goes on to say "over the past year" and names Britain's provision of bases and facilities for the US-Israeli war against Iran, as well as the July 2026 IRGC decision.
Iran's foreign ministry said the designations responded to Britain's actions over the past year, including providing military bases and logistical support for the US-Israeli war on Iran, and to the UK's July decision to place the IRGC under the State Threats Act.
Leaves out what changes the picture
Minor
What is missing
The article cites the RAF Fairford incident as evidence of Iranian threats but never says that RAF Fairford was used by US bombers to strike Iran. The Independent's own earlier report said so, and Metro reported it about this event. Without it a reader sees Fairford only as a target of Iranian hostility and does not see why Iran's designation of the RAF ties to UK bases used in attacks on Iran.