ABNA24 - Iran’s Foreign Ministry strongly condemned London’s allegations regarding the incident at Fairford Air Base, describing them as a ploy to help Britain evade accountability for its involvement in the US and Israeli regime’s military aggression against Iran.
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham on Monday reiterated his previous claims about Tehran’s role in the incident at Fairford military base, continuing to fuel security-related allegations against the Islamic Republic of Iran without presenting any public evidence. The British government has resorted to accusing Iran while remaining silent about its own responsibility for the war against the country.
This contradiction lies at the heart of the Fairford case. A government that has allowed US bombers to use its territory for operations against Iran is now seeking to cast Tehran as the accused by making unsubstantiated allegations. Such an approach cannot absolve Britain of its political responsibility.
The issue is not merely a security incident. It also involves an attempt to turn an unproven allegation into an instrument of political pressure and a justification for imposing further sanctions on Iran.
British officials have spoken of Tehran’s alleged role in terms such as “highly likely” and “almost certainly.” However, categorical language in making an accusation is no substitute for proving it. In international relations, attributing responsibility to a state must be based on credible, verifiable evidence, not vague expressions.
British police have announced the arrest of several men on suspicion of committing offences related to explosives legislation. However, the arrest of suspects does not, in itself, establish any link between the incident and the Iranian government. London must present clear evidence to substantiate its allegations. Until then, attributing the incident to Iran remains unproven and cannot serve as a legitimate basis for sanctions and political punishment. Imposing sanctions before the truth is established increases the risk of turning an allegation into an instrument of political retribution.
When British officials speak of new pressure measures while making unsubstantiated allegations, a serious question arises: Is London’s priority to establish the truth or to exploit a security case for political purposes? The answer must be sought in the course of the investigation and the evidence presented, not in the repetition of accusations and threats.
Britain’s foreign policy record also underscores the need to scrutinize these allegations carefully. The 2003 Iraq weapons of mass destruction case showed how controversial intelligence assessments can pave the way for decisions with catastrophic consequences. This precedent does not, by itself, determine what happened in the Fairford incident, but it serves as a clear warning: security allegations must not become the basis for punitive measures and escalating tensions before they have been verified.
In this context, Iran’s ambassador to the UK, Seyed Ali Mousavi, firmly rejected the allegations against Tehran during a meeting with Stephen Doughty, the British minister for West Asia, and called for claims to be made only on the basis of evidence. He also expressed Iran’s readiness to facilitate cooperation between the relevant institutions of the two countries to investigate the matter.
This proposal offers a way to establish the facts through technical cooperation, a thorough investigation and avoidance of political prejudgment. However, the investigation into the Fairford incident must not become an excuse to overlook Britain’s separate responsibility for its military involvement against Iran.
London cannot help provide the grounds for US military operations and then seek to exempt itself from accountability by accusing Tehran. Both issues must be examined on the basis of evidence and international obligations.
The British government must now choose between establishing the facts and escalating confrontation. Presenting credible evidence and allowing an independent investigation are the responsible course of action. Insisting on accusations and threatening sanctions will only deepen mistrust.
The Fairford case is a test of Britain’s accountability, and its outcome will be determined not by political rhetoric, but by the evidence and the British government’s actions.
/129
Your Comment