RAF Fairford terror plot suspects ‘controlled by Iranian handler’

Two British men charged over the suspected RAF Fairford terror plot were allegedly being handled by an operative believed to be working for Iran, a court has heard. Nouman Essghir and wheelchair-bound Mohmed Abdulkarim, both 24, had been in contact with a man known only as “Ali” – who prosecutors believe organised the alleged plot. Mr Abdulkarim was allegedly sent more than £65,000 in cash, with which he orchestrated the purchases of mobile phones, five vans, vehicle dash cams, and fuel.

Mr Essghir was first arrested at the scene near the Gloucestershire base on Sept 27 and has been charged with entering a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the UK when carrying out a reconnaissance of the site a month prior. Appearing at Westminster magistrates’ court on Tuesday, they spoke to confirm their names, addresses and dates of birth. Mr Abdulkarim, who wore a dark chequered shirt and cap in court and was described as having “vulnerabilities”, was granted conditional bail following the hearing.

He must adhere to an electronically monitored curfew between 9pm and 7am at his London address and surrender his passport. Prosecutor Louise Gray said the charges related to both the incident of September 27 in which three vans containing petrol were found – which resulted in five men in their 20s being arrested and bailed – and the weeks before. She told the court: “On that occasion, five men drove in three vans, got out of their vans and were told to do so by someone giving directions remotely.

“One of them was told there was a bomb in the van and one of them called 999.” Counter Terrorism Policing (CTP) have since said they believe Iran’s intelligence services are behind the suspected plot and said bailing them “led to securing” the charges. Ms Gray told the court the person giving directions remotely was a contact named Ali, who had been communicating with both Mr Essghir and Mr Abdulkarim for “a number of years”. The court heard Mr Essghir, after returning from a holiday in Morocco, travelled to the RAF base “at the request of Ali” in what Ms Gray described as a “reccy”.

He is alleged to have driven around the outside of the base, while video calling Ali to show him its perimeter. In September, Mr Abdulkarim allegedly carried out a “number of tasks” for Ali, including buying mobile phones and five vans. Authorities believe Ali could also potentially be connected to an incident at the Israeli embassy earlier this year. He is also accused of attending a money exchange site where he used a “codeword” to collect “nearly £70,000” to fund the purchases.

The court heard the vans were purchased to “purportedly start businesses”, with one branded with “Fuel2You”. Mr Abdulkarim is alleged to have organised the purchase of equipment including fuel barrels, smart dash-cams and screws in the days leading up to the incident on Sept 27. However, he was not one of the five arrested at the RAF base when “Ali” claimed a bomb had been planted. The court heard he attended police interviews and has since been charged under the National Security Act, alongside Mr Essghir.

Chief magistrate Paul Goldspring granted Mr Abdulkarim conditional bail and remanded Mr Essghir in custody. Both will appear at the Old Bailey on Nov 20. Five other men arrested during the investigation remain on police bail. Speaking outside Scotland Yard on Tuesday, Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor, the head of Counter Terror Policing, said that while decisions made during investigations can “appear illogical,” the tactics ultimately led to them being charged.

Mr Taylor told reporters outside Scotland Yard: “For the public, this incident was defined by images of three vans being stopped and searched by armed police officers, and the arrest of five men at the scene. “The subsequent release of those five men on police bail sparked significant questions and speculation about the investigation, and why that was the case. “We know that decisions made during our investigations can sometimes appear illogical to those on the outside, but I want to make it very clear that there will always be a good reason or rationale behind them.”

He added: “Like our adversaries, our tactics vary – and may not always be obvious. “In this case, this decision-making has led to swifter progress, better evidence and ultimately us securing the charges. “In sensitive investigations like this, it can take time to convert intelligence into evidence.”