The RAF Fairford Incident: What Is This...?

The RAF Fairford Incident is still veiled in mystery.

I have a sneaking suspicion it might actually remain unresolved, going forward.

Though the consensus narrative seems to be that a major terror plot was foiled, it still isn’t clear exactly what was going on.

This alleged plot to blow up the air force base in Gloucestershire was supposedly orchestrated by Iran: though Russia was also being cited early on as a likely culprit too.

Remarkably uninterrogative media in Britain seems to have happily run with the Iran-backed terror plot story, despite plenty of reason to ask more questions.

Has a genuine terror plot been foiled? Or is this whole thing a strange piece of theater concocted to establish a desired narrative?

Let’s recap the basic story here first.

Five men were arrested in the early hours of Sunday morning after “three suspicious vehicles” were reported travelling towards the base. A local farmer alerted police to a “large group” of masked men near the vehicles.

They were arrested on suspicion of explosives offences and later on suspicion of preparing a terrorist act, before being released on bail on Monday.

Police said a quantity of petrol but no explosive devices were found during searches of vans near the site.

So that’s the basic version of events.

Crucially, as stated, the five men initially detained (all British born) were all later released on bail.

A subsequent arrest has been made of an alleged dual Iranian citizen.

But none of these men have yet been identified.

Despite the emergent narrative of a plot to blow up the base, no explosives have been found. And no weapons of any kind have been reported.

And despite the rush to implicate Iran in the plot, no evidence has been put forward to demonstrate such a link. The Prime Minister Andy Burnham has said no such proof can be made public yet while the investigation is ongoing. Nevertheless he has said there’s ‘strong indications’ of Iranian involvement.

There are a couple of other things worth noting.

First, it was the Americans who immediately announced that a foreign orchestrated plot had been unfolding. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had stated the incident “clearly involves the hands of a foreign actor“.

And then President Donald Trump strangely claimed that the detained men had already been under observation and were “looking to do big damage”. Trump later complained about them being released.

“We know everything about them,” he told reporters. “I would not have released them.”

For clarity, RAF Fairford is an American base, one of various US bases in the UK. And it would be a logical target, given it has been used to launch planes that have conducted foreign bombing operations, including in Iran.

But what did Trump mean with his statements? Why would he already ‘know everything about them’?

And if American government sources did already know everything about them, why did the police release the men? That doesn’t make any sense.

Under British terror laws, the authorities are allowed to hold terror suspects without charge for up to two weeks: so why were these men released so quickly, given the US president’s later statements?

And here’s the other thing worth noting: the Fairford Incident happened after Israel warned the British government that a precise plot of this type was about to unfold.

This is according to Benjamin Netanyahu himself, who told FOX News‘s Sean Hannity “We gave the Brits the intel, that there was going to be an attack, and it’s an Iranian-sponsored attack.”

So, coincidentally, both the Israelis and the Americans seemed to know the plot was about to unfold: and both began talking about it before the police or the British authorities had completed any investigation or made any definitive statements.

And the whole ambiguous incident has been more or less immediately linked to Iran, which has denied any involvement.

All very odd.

Also noteworthy is that the woman who initially reported the suspicious vans said that there were more men at the scene than just the five who were detained: ‘…there was definitely more than five. We think maybe between eight and ten of them were there at that point, and a lot of them would have their faces covered…”

So where did those guys disappear off to?

Also, it was reported that it was actually one of the detained men who had initially contacted the police from the scene.

Draw your own conclusions, based on what I’ve laid out here. I’m not speculating on what was really going on. Fuel thieves, as some have suggested?

Or badly staged shenanigans? Even a botched false flag attempt?

If it was a bomb plot, the lack of explosives is a problem. And if it was a terror attack, the lack of weapons is an obvious issue.

The latest narrative pivot is that this was a ‘dry run‘ for a real attack.

Sure, okay. Maybe.

Alternatively, maybe some kind of fake/staged terror incident was being planned, but the local woman eyewitness ruined it by being in the wrong place at one in the morning and calling in the police, who then arrived and did their job, messing things up?

We’re getting quite a few of these weird, ambiguous incidents lately: not necessarily actual false-flags, but entirely indeterminate incidents that are nevertheless used to support a narrative.

The supposed Russian drone attack on Leipzig Airport in Germany, for example: where a Russian attack was reported as fact, but where the German government offered no evidence to back up the claim.

Such incidents seem to be being used to establish the perception of a state of hostilities: and an inevitability of some kind of expanding war situation.

In terms of the Iranian situation, I’ve noted previously how there seems to be an ongoing push to drag Britain more squarely into the conflict. In that article, I also noted some of the dubious links and sources being employed to implicate Iran in alleged operations on UK soil.

Having failed to draw the previous PM Kier Starmer more squarely into the Iran War (and having launched a campaign to smear him as a ‘Jew hater’), it seems as if the same people are now trying their luck with Andy Burnham to see what he does.

It’ll be interesting to see what the final verdict is regarding the incident at Fairford.

But it might never be resolved: it might just remain an ambiguity.

See all ‘false flag’ articles here. See all ‘Iran War’ articles here.