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.”
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. “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 Evening Standard gives Wes Streeting most of the article to condemn Iran's designation of the RAF and Royal Navy. In its own voice it gives the British ban on IRGC support as the cause, and it cuts Iran's statement before the part that cites Britain's provision of bases for the US-Israeli war on Iran. A reader is left believing the designation answered only the IRGC decision, and Streeting's claim that Iran hit countries with 'nothing to do with US combat operations' goes unexamined.
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 Standard states in its own voice that the designation came in response to the IRGC decision, giving it as the cause.
The impression it gives
The reader believes Iran acted only because Britain moved against the IRGC.
The context
Iran's own statement, as Metro reported it, gives two grounds: the IRGC decision, and Britain's role in the war through bases on British territory. Metro also reports that US bombers used RAF Fairford to strike Iran. The Standard's own earlier reporting says RAF Fairford is used by the US Air Force for operations in Iran.
“in response to the British government’s hostile actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran”
Why this matters
The Standard quotes Iran's foreign ministry but stops at the vague words 'hostile actions'.
The impression it gives
The reader believes Iran gave no concrete reason, which leaves Streeting's account of the designation as mere 'cheek' standing alone.
The context
The same statement went on to name Britain's involvement in the US-Israeli war against Iran through bases and facilities on British territory, and the July IRGC decision. That second half was available and other outlets carried it.
Iran's foreign ministry said the designations answered Britain's hostile actions, including its provision of bases used in the US-Israeli war against Iran, and the July decision to place the IRGC under the State Threats Act.
One side gets the space
Minor
“More seriously, I think Iran has some bare-faced cheek”
Why this matters
The Standard runs Streeting's remarks across most of the body, from S3 to S9, covering terrorism, Fairford, strikes on neighbours and diplomacy.
The impression it gives
The reader takes in Streeting's account of Iran at length and hears little from the other side.
The context
Iran's foreign ministry appears only in two closing sentences, and nothing answers Streeting's charges.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“the foreign ministry said”