Why the British base at Fairford is essential for the US

The British base at Fairford — where five people were arrested on Sunday on suspicion of planning an attack — is an important military site, but one highly exposed due to its proximity to populated areas.

During the conflict with Iran, it drew dozens of enthusiasts, ready to photograph the arrival and departure of American aircraft. Here are images of American B-1 and B-52 bombers, with detailed close-up views. Here are the spotters equipped with ladders lined up around the installation’s perimeter, ready to “fix” a takeoff or manoeuvre.

There is even a Facebook page dedicated to this community, and a few hours before the alarm, one of the visitors asked for information on the “status”; another replied that there was no B-52 at the moment. And the very fact that the five arrested were near with three vans is proof of an easy perimeter. In short, not exactly a fortress, even if guarded.

The installation has been used throughout history for major operations, including the famous D-Day, with the complex attack on the Normandy coast. The RAF then placed it at the Pentagon’s disposal, which stationed fighter jets there permanently and rotated other aircraft to coincide with the opening of war fronts. These included the campaign after the invasion of Kuwait (1991), the attack on Serbia (1999), the war against Saddam Hussein (2003) and then, after that, the all-encompassing missions in the Persian Gulf conflict.

Part of the air component was transferred to bases in the region, while numerous strategic bombers arrived here to carry out strikes against positions of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

In some circumstances, the “traffic” through Fairford and other US posts — particularly those housing essential supplies for long-range raids — has become a signal of imminent developments.

The base’s involvement in Epic Fury provoked threats from the Pasdaran in the harshest days of the war. The Iranians have repeatedly — even in recent hours — said that any structure used by the US in the offensive, wherever it is, is considered a legitimate target. And the guards have relied on missiles and drones, successfully hitting targets. This happened in Jordan and, further away, in Cyprus, where London has several large installations.

At a later stage, Tehran spoke clearly about targets in Europe, again linked to the Americans, while its leaders added the Indian Ocean, a reference to the fleet and the base at Diego Garcia.

A tactic that is part of a propaganda exchange, but also a concrete desire to spread revenge as widely as possible, to raise the cost for those who support Washington, to influence security and to emphasise the existence of vulnerabilities to exploit. A consistent trend that has proven effective: a simple incident or a case with unclear circumstances can indirectly aid this effort. Because there is always fear of surprises and investigators must consider every possibility. Added to this are the drone episodes, even equipped with explosives (as in Leipzig), or the false alarms linked to the hybrid duel with Moscow.

To the concern are added the arrests of suspects in Crete and Cyprus, individuals accused of espionage at airports as part of the Anglo-American network. They were not Iranian, but citizens of other countries employed for this intelligence work. Some (small) terrorist acts in Europe, attributed to pro-Iranian elements, have involved remotely recruited perpetrators, sometimes individuals with criminal records for minor crimes. This modus operandi has been replicated in other areas by the Russian military. Now it is up to the British judiciary to provide details and evidence to put the Fairford case in perspective, as Corriere writes.