On the menu today: When news broke over the weekend that the United Kingdom police had arrested five men outside of a major joint U.S.–U.K. air base, it sounded like a huge bullet dodged — a potential terrorist attack against a site the Iranian military had declared to be a legitimate target. But in the last day or two, the story has only grown more complicated and confusing. Media reports claim no explosives were found, even though the men were arrested under the U.K. Explosives Act. The men were released on bail. The British authorities are tight-lipped, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last night, “It is something in the hands of a foreign actor.” Was this terrorism at all, or just remarkably stupid thieves? If it was terrorism, was it state-sponsored or state-directed, or just homegrown extremism? And why are these five guys walking the streets? Read on.
Many Questions, Few Straight Answers
Right now, we’re getting two not-all-that-aligned accounts of the arrests of five men outside of Royal Air Force Station Fairford in the United Kingdom.
Here’s the first statement from Richard Ocone, the assistant chief constable of the Gloucestershire Police, Sunday:
“At around 12:45 a.m. today, Sunday the 27th of September, police received a call relating to three suspicious vehicles travelling towards RAF Fairford.
Armed officers responded and subsequently arrested five men in the Whelford area on suspicion of committing offences under the Explosives Act. The men were taken into custody where they remain.
A 400-metre cordon has been put in place around the vehicles, while the Army’s Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit examined them as a precaution. Around 85 households have been advised to evacuate while these examinations take place.”
The Daily Telegraph interviewed the woman who saw the men and called the police:
Driving home from a party in the early hours, a local farmer came across three seemingly abandoned white vans blocking a quiet country road.
Confused, she turned her car around. As she did so, she saw a group of masked men in balaclavas scattering into the trees and across the fields towards RAF Fairford, located only a few hundred meters away.
She drove off and called the police. When she stopped, she also messaged her local WhatsApp group and warned neighbors to lock their doors.
Less than 25 minutes later, the men had been arrested. Video footage recorded by a villager shows five men, shirtless, sitting on the ground in handcuffs in the middle of a road, surrounded by counter-terror police. . . .
She said: “I just thought what the hell are they doing. . . . I saw a group of Middle Eastern-looking young guys running off through the trees. Some of them had masks or balaclavas on, and they all scattered ahead of us as we drove back past.
Note these curious details:
One of the white vans had the words “FUEL 2YOU” in red lettering on its side, with a mobile phone number registered to Sheffield’s area code.
However, the number appeared to be one digit short and was not recognized when called by Telegraph reporters. The company name does not return any Google search results and cannot be found on Companies House.
Whatever these guys were doing out there, they were up to no good.
Royal Air Force Station Fairford in southwest England is the U.S. Air Force’s only European airfield for heavy bombers and routinely supports Bomber Task Force operations. As of March, about a dozen B-1 bombers were stationed at RAF Fairford, “which could represent more than half of the U.S. Air Force’s mission-capable Lancer fleet.”
In March, then-Prime Minister Keir Starmer initially denied the U.S. the use of the air base in operations against Iran, but then changed his mind:
Iran is striking British interests and putting British people at huge risk. The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source in their storage depots or the launchers which are used to fire the missiles. The United States has requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose. We have taken the decision to accept this request, to prevent Iran firing missile across the region killing innocent civilians and putting British lives at risk. That is in accordance with international law and we are publishing a summary of our legal advice. We are not joining these strikes, but we will continue our defensive actions in the region.
In July, Iranian state broadcaster IRIB reported that “a spokesperson for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said . . . that Britain would become a ‘definite and legitimate target’ if it supported the U.S. in any war with Tehran” and had noted “that U.S. bombers had recently used British airfields.”
After his initial summary Sunday, Ocone added, “We would also please ask the public not to speculate, but to follow official channels for all updates.”
Sir, when you evacuate 85 households outside a major joint U.S.–U.K. military airfield, bring in Army explosive disposal units, and don’t offer many details as to why . . . people are going to speculate.
Sunday, President Trump said, “The arrest in the U.K. was fantastic, working with Britain. It was an amazing job. We had them under investigation. They were looking to do big damage to our fort.”
Then the United Kingdom’s head of Counter Terrorism Policing, Laurence Taylor, issued a statement Monday:
As a result of that information, armed officers responded, and arrested five men on suspicion of offences under the Explosives Act and later, preparation of a terrorist act under Section 5 of the Terrorism Act.
The men had been travelling in three vehicles. Overnight, those vehicles have been subject to extensive examination, with the support of military assets and forensic experts.
I can confirm that following extensive interviews and enquiries, the five men who were arrested are being released on police bail this afternoon.
To be very clear, this does not mean the investigation is over. They are subject to stringent conditions on their movement and contact with others. They absolutely remain under investigation as we explore multiple lines of enquiry. . . .
But be assured, we are considering this from every possible angle, including, that this may be activity committed by proxies, or individuals either knowingly or unknowingly, working on behalf of a foreign state.
Taylor also added:
Often this threat becomes visible to us as criminal activity, often at a small scale and committed by individuals whose primary aim is not terrorism but a quick financial gain. It can be harder to spot, and to that end I would ask the public to remain vigilant and report anything suspicious to police.
Under United Kingdom law, police can arrest an individual under TACT (Terrorism Act 2000) or PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 legislation) for terrorism-related offenses. The rules regarding bail under each law are complicated, but under PACE, “Police can impose pre-charge bail with conditions.” Under TACT, “All defendants have a right to unconditional bail after charge (save for defendants charged with murder, manslaughter and certain serious sexual offences where bail can only be granted if exceptional reasons justify it).”
According to a 2016 statement from the Metropolitan Police of London:
The most common conditions likely to be imposed by a custody officer post charge are:
-
A curfew
-
Reporting regularly to a police station
-
A condition of residence
-
A condition to stay away from a witness or a request for a surety (someone who guarantees the offender’s attendance at court)
In a subsequent report, the Telegraph offered the assessment of a former counter-terrorism detective:
Their release on bail came as a surprise, with most security experts believing police would have continued to question the men for days to come. Terror suspects can be held for up to 14 days without charge.
One former counter-terrorism detective told The Telegraph that the decision to bail the five suspects suggested no explosives or dangerous materials had been found in the vehicles.
He said: “It takes time to assess anything forensically, especially in the counter-terrorism game. There’s very little been found in my assessment.”
Britain’s national news agency, PA, “reported without citing sources that police had not found viable explosives.”
Speaking to BBC Radio 4 on Monday morning, British Defense Secretary Wes Streeting was asked of potential Iranian involvement in the suspected plot. Streeting said he was not “drawing a connection with Iran,” before adding, “We know that Iran and their proxies wish to do us harm.”
Then Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Sean Hannity’s program on Fox News Channel last night and stated:
Let me preface by saying I have to be careful, some things I cannot say on the air for different reasons. Suffice it to say what happened, what could have happened in the U.K. over the weekend is a very serious situation. It is something in the hands of a foreign actor. I won’t get into great detail about that yet. I do want to thank authorities in the United Kingdom who have been cooperative and on top of that — I know a lot of people are disturbed by the news that some of these people were released on bail, some people investigated, and obviously we are engaging with them. Suffice it to say beyond that, I would argue they have been very cooperative and helpful. . . . I think it ties us to the reality here, we are dealing with elements in the world of, in the case of Iran for example, who openly threatened to attack American interests globally, we will take that very seriously, the repercussions for that if it were to happen or attempted, about what happened could have been, and was, I think, a very serious threat, and I want to thank the U.K. for their cooperation and help.
Rubio didn’t equivocate; he said, “It is something in the hands of a foreign actor,” and immediately subsequently mentioned Iran.
Now, we have seen a widespread campaign of sabotage and hybrid warfare all over Europe, committed by Russia through proxies against our NATO allies. But a direct attack on a U.S.–U.K. base, even by cutouts, would be a major escalation, even by Vladimir Putin’s standards.
So, the men have been arrested under the Explosives Act, but allegedly police had not found viable explosives. We have a witness describing “Middle Eastern-looking young guys” in “balaclavas” outside a U.S.–U.K. base that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had specifically named a legitimate target. And while the bail laws for terrorism-related cases in the United Kingdom are different from those in the U.S., to most Americans, getting arrested on suspicion of terrorism against a military base and being let out on bail less than two days later is just about unthinkable.
And these guys were in a van, with a fake company name, in the middle of the night, running into the woods, wearing masks . . . and now they’re walking the streets? If they were merely thieves, why would they choose to attempt to rob an extremely well-armed and well-guarded target?
How do the U.K. authorities know these guys won’t do something really dangerous, like post something racist on the internet?
ADDENDUM: Over in the Washington Post, an observation that for Democrat James Talarico to have a real shot at winning his U.S. Senate race, he needed four or five factors to break his way. By my count, Talarico is up to about seven.