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”.
Left out here: Drops what it reported before
The article mentions RAF Fairford only as the site of a security incident Iran is accused of. It leaves out what the Standard itself reported days earlier: the base is used by the US Air Force and heavy bombers arrived there in March for operations in Iran. Without it a reader sees Fairford only as a target of Iranian hostility, not as part of the British role Iran cited for its designations.
The Evening Standard tells readers in its own voice that Iran's designations were a reply to Britain's move against the IRGC. It cuts the part of Iran's statement that cites Britain's role in the US-Israeli war against Iran, including the provision of bases, though other outlets carried it. The Standard also leaves out its own earlier report that US heavy bombers arrived at RAF Fairford in March.
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
In its own voice the Standard gives the IRGC decision as the cause of Iran's designations.
The impression it gives
Iran acted purely in tit-for-tat over the IRGC ruling and had no other stated grievance.
The context
Iran's foreign ministry statement named the IRGC decision as only part of its grounds. It led with Britain's involvement in the US-Israeli war against Iran through the provision of military bases and logistical support.
“in response to the British government’s hostile actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran”
Why this matters
The Standard quotes Iran's statement but stops before the words that say what those hostile actions were.
The impression it gives
Iran's reasons are vague and unspecified, leaving Streeting's account of Iranian aggression unanswered.
The context
The same statement went on to cite Britain's provision of bases and facilities for the US-Israeli war against Iran. Metro carried the fuller quote, and reported that US bombers used RAF Fairford to strike Iran.
The article mentions RAF Fairford only as the site of a security incident Iran is accused of. It leaves out what the Standard itself reported days earlier: the base is used by the US Air Force and heavy bombers arrived there in March for operations in Iran. Without it a reader sees Fairford only as a target of Iranian hostility, not as part of the British role Iran cited for its designations.