It was almost inevitable, and one has to wonder whether Andy Burnham is embarrassed about how its court system treats terrorists, or happy that the United States is no longer using his RAF base to attack Iran from.
Actually, I don't wonder. I doubt Burnham gets embarrassed by much.
BREAKING: The US Air Force has removed all of its bombers from RAF Fairford, the Pentagon has said. Sky's @jonathansamuels reads the US Air force statement https://t.co/sNNPvIqlRs https://t.co/nfGfyNErkd
— Sky News (@SkyNews) October 4, 2026
Whatever Burnham is thinking, President Trump has made clear what we are: the United Kingdom is not a particularly safe place for our military to operate from.
The U.S. removed all its B-1 bombers from the U.K.’s RAF Fairford air base, a decision stemming from security concerns over suspected terror plots against the facility, American officials said. https://t.co/skDuWqnuii
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) October 4, 2026
The U.K. government seems to be very lackadaisical about the whole affair, even though both the United States and Israel have made clear that the plot was real, serious, and under investigation before the British police picked the terrorists up. In fact, the Brits had been investigating the men, but apparently didn't have them under constant surveillance.
The decision follows the arrest of six suspects in connection with a suspected attack on the base that U.S. and British officials said was foiled last Sunday. U.K. Prime Minister Andy Burnham said there were “strong indications” that Iran played a role in the incident, which was shrouded in mystery after the U.K. released the suspects on bail but continued to investigate the situation.
U.S. officials were aware of an Iran-linked plot to attack the bomber aircraft and kill personnel at the base, The Wall Street Journal has reported. A branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had recruited U.K. nationals to carry out the plot, which involved multiple steps including a diversion in the neighborhood nearby, according to a senior U.S. official.
In the U.K., authorities are still trying to piece together what happened, and some U.K. officials question the level of sophistication of the planned attack.
President Trump has previously said the arrested men intended to do serious damage to the base and had been under investigation. He questioned the U.K.’s decision to release the suspects on bail, saying “I would not have released them.”
Five of the men traveled to Fairford last Sunday in three white vans, which British police said contained no explosives but did hold quantities of fuel. The men were arrested after one in the group called the police to alert them to the plot. A sixth man, a dual U.K.-Iranian citizen, was arrested days later on suspicion of plotting a terrorist act but was also released on bail.
We still don't know why one of the terrorists called in a warning, tipping off the police; it could be that one was an informant all along, but even with an informant, not keeping an eye on the terrorists seems a bit bizarre, and bailing them out is even more so.
There has been talk in British circles that the attack was never intended to be serious, and I can't speak to that. Either way, the link to Iran seems strong enough for the PM to say that it's real.
Senior sources discounted suggestions the Fairford Five were fuel thieves – and politicians including PM Andy Burnham maintained there was a “strong indication” the plot was inspired by Iran.
But police have so far been unable to prove that the Fairford Five knew – or ought to have known – they were being instructed by Iran.
It is understood the men were kept under surveillance by counter terror cops as their electronic devices were examined, leading to the arrest of their suspected recruiter.
Investigators now believe the RAF Fairford plot was a “stunt” designed to cause havoc and disruption at the base.
Assistant commissioner Laurence Taylor, head of the UK’s Counter-Terrorism Policing said that the plot at RAF Fairford “may be activity committed by proxies, or individuals either knowingly or unknowingly, working on behalf of a foreign state”.
I'm not sure why it matters whether it was intended to be a stunt; unless it is proven that it was, it should be treated as an attempted act of terrorism, and even if it is proven to have been one and the criminals were just wanting to make money, doesn't coming down hard on them serve a deterrent purpose?
It's not exactly benign. It has radically changed US policy.
The British just aren't serious about serious things, and they increasingly suck as an ally.
Editor's Note: Unelected federal judges are obstructing President Trump's agenda and ignoring the will of the people.
Help us expose out-of-control judges determined to halt President Trump's mandate for change. Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member