The Times (London), on Iran, 12 October 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.4 findings

Iran is “highly likely” to have been behind the alleged terrorist plot against RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, the prime minister has told parliament. Seven men have been arrested by counterterrorism police in connection with the incident on September 27. Most commented 1 Tiger kills man who ‘jumped’ into pen at Yorkshire Wildlife Park 786 comments Police were alerted in the early hours of the morning to reports of three suspicious vans driving close to the airbase.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article says seven men were arrested and mentions bail, but never says they were released without charge. A reader may assume charges followed the arrests.

How we know

Top stories 1 Starbucks ‘explores takeover’ of Chipotle Mexican Grill US business Counterterror officers later said no explosives had been recovered from the vehicles, but petrol had been found. US jets were filmed leaving the Gloucestershire base Reuters Toby Shepheard/Reuters The base, which previously housed US air force staff and aircraft, had been used to launch bombing raids on Iran. The US withdrew its bomber fleet from the airbase in the wake of the incident.

Advertisement Andy Burnham told the Commons: “The home secretary will update the House regarding the incident at RAF Fairford. Top stories 1 Budget 2026 predictions: when is it and what could change? Economics 2 ‘I went from high-flyer to house husband. Here’s how I beat my shame’ Family Finances 3 Retirement isn’t a cliff edge. It’s a window and you need to plan for that Pensions “But I can confirm our assessment that it is highly likely to have been coordinated in Iran, almost certainly directed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards (IRGC).

“We will not tolerate these threats on our soil. We will crack down on Iran’s use of criminal networks, using our full range of powers to target them and their funding streams. And we will bring further sanctions to restrict the capacity of Iran and the IRGC to do us harm.” Watch: Burnham addressing the Commons about RAF Fairford How safe are Britain’s military bases from hostile states? A branch of the IRGC planned to recruit British citizens to carry out the plot, which would have involved a diversion nearby and drones swarming the airfield, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Advertisement President Trump said last week that the withdrawal of a dozen bombers from the base was a direct response to a specific threat, saying: “They didn’t fly out by accident.” He did not mention Iran. US newsletter A balanced, fair and fact-checked take on global news and culture for our US readers. Sign up with one click You’ve successfully signed up to the US newsletter Explore our newsletters An error occurred. Please use the link below.

US newsletter Explore our newsletters Ed Miliband, the foreign secretary, summoned the Iranian ambassador to make clear that “Britain will not tolerate threats on our soil”. He announced that two Iranian citizens had been designated for their role in hostile activity . Ruhollah Bazghandi, head of counterespionage operations within the IRGC, and Shahram Ali Reza Tamarzadeh Jakki, a facilitator of the Zindashti criminal network, are subject to an immediate asset freeze, travel ban and director disqualification, he said.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article reports that the Iranian ambassador was summoned but never says that Iran denied involvement. The ambassador 'categorically' rejected the accusations, asked Britain to present evidence, and called them 'unfounded and malicious speculations'. Without this a reader believes the British attribution went uncontested.

How we know

Miliband said: “Iran’s continued attempts to undermine the security of the United Kingdom and international partners through its criminal networks, proxy groups and state-backed malign activity is unacceptable. Advertisement “As we have repeatedly made clear to Iran, Britain will not tolerate threats on our soil. Today I instructed my department to summon the ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Kingdom to reiterate this message in its entirety.

“We are also announcing the designation of two Iranian nationals for their role in facilitating or engaging in hostile activity on behalf of the Iranian regime, with the clear intent of threatening, planning or conducting attacks overseas. “This government will never waver in our commitment to tacking Iran’s unacceptable actions and protecting our national security. We have already designated the IRGC under our new state threats powers, and imposed major sanctions on those responsible for Iran’s malign activity.”

Shabana Mahmood at Labour conference last month ADAM VAUGHAN/EPA Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, later did not rule out expelling the Iranian diplomats after being urged to follow the approach taken against Russia after the Salisbury poisonings. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, asked whether ministers would expel diplomats suspected of involvement in hostile activity or espionage. Advertisement Mahmood said: “We wouldn’t take anything off the table as more facts are established, as the investigation matures, and we know more of the detail as to exactly what happened.”

Philp questioned the decision to release the suspects on bail and said senior US officials had been surprised at the move. Mahmood said: “I have full confidence in the police as they carry out that investigation, and because it’s ongoing, more facts will be established, and I’m sure that the police will take appropriate action when they come to light.” She added: “And I do think that a more responsible approach from all members of this house on this matter is required.”

Mahmood also dismissed suggestions any of those arrested had Iranian diplomatic immunity. She said: “No one had or has diplomatic immunity, so I can put that on the record immediately.” Advertisement After the UK’s assessment, foreign ministers from 29 nations, including the US, France, Germany, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, issued a joint statement on Monday condemning Iran’s “use of violent attacks, including the acts of lethal plotting, arson, sabotage, cyberattacks and other hybrid activities”.

The coalition formally recognised the UK’s attribution of the plot to Iran, noting that the event demonstrated the IRGC’s willingness to use covert networks and proxy actors abroad. The statement linked the alleged incident to a broader campaign of hostile acts across Europe targeting Jewish communities, Iranian journalists and US interests, warning that those conducting state-backed activities on Iran’s behalf would be identified, disrupted and prosecuted.

The joint statement added: “Iran should be in no doubt that we are united and remain committed to safeguarding our sovereignty and strengthening our international coordination, bolstering our national resilience, protecting our communities, and ensuring that those responsible are held to account.”

Read the original article on thetimes.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (4)

The Times reports the British government's claim that Iran was behind the RAF Fairford incident but never says that Iran denied it, even though the Iranian ambassador rejected the accusations and asked for evidence. The headline drops the prime minister as the speaker of 'highly likely' and the word 'alleged' that the body uses. The paper also takes up 'the regime' in its own paraphrase and never says the men arrested were released without charge.

  1. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Serious

    What is missing

    The article reports that the Iranian ambassador was summoned but never says that Iran denied involvement. The ambassador 'categorically' rejected the accusations, asked Britain to present evidence, and called them 'unfounded and malicious speculations'. Without this a reader believes the British attribution went uncontested.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

  2. Headline goes beyond the article

    Minor

    “Iran is ‘highly likely’ to have been behind RAF Fairford plot”

    Why this matters
    The headline quotes 'highly likely' with no speaker and calls it a 'plot' outright.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes it as an established finding that a plot existed and that Iran was behind it.
    The context
    The body attributes the assessment to the prime minister speaking in parliament and calls it an 'alleged' plot. No one has been charged.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“the alleged terrorist plot against RAF Fairford”
    • Elsewhere in the article“the prime minister has told parliament”

    Show it in the article

  3. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “on behalf of the regime”

    Why this matters
    The Times takes up Miliband's word 'regime' in its own paraphrase, without quotation marks.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes 'the regime' as the paper's neutral name for Iran's government.
    The context
    'Regime' is the foreign secretary's word, as his quoted statement in S28 shows. In narration it belongs inside quotation marks or should be 'the Iranian government'.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“on behalf of the Iranian regime”

    Show it in the article

  4. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article says seven men were arrested and mentions bail, but never says they were released without charge. A reader may assume charges followed the arrests.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Times (London)

Everything we scored from The Times (London)