Jonathan Cook: Fairford and a ‘Free Press’

When the establishment media deals with issues in which the West’s war industries are most heavily invested, it happily jettisons even the semblance of critical distance from the state.

By Jonathan Cook
Jonathan-Cook.net

It’s easy to forget that the Western media — the so-called “free press” — likes to distinguish itself from media in authoritarian regimes on the basis that, unlike them, it asks critical questions of the powerful, reports facts objectively and formulates its analyses dispassionately.

They do propaganda, we do news — or so the Western media argues.

The feverish coverage since five men were arrested in the early hours of Sunday morning close to RAF Fairford in the U.K. is blowing a very big hole in that claim. 

Here are the known facts so far.

Three white vans, bearing the logo of a genuine fuel transit company, were spotted by a local farmer on the road outside her property as she returned from a party.

Police arrived promptly and arrested the men, who were all British nationals in their twenties. On Tuesday, it emerged that one of the arrested men actually called the police earlier — seemingly the reason officers were on the scene so quickly.

Although the men were initially arrested on explosives charges, no “viable” explosives were found. Although they were arrested on terrorism charges, which allow for 14 days of detention, they were released on bail under normal criminal laws in less than two days.

[On Thursday, a 25-year-old British-Iranian dual national was arrested on suspicion of preparing a terrorist act.]

UK police can hold terrorism suspects for 14 days without charge. Had police any grounds to believe the men arrested outside RAF Fairford had even the slightest terrorism connection, they would not have been released. They’d still be behind bars.

But watch the BBC’s Daniel… pic.twitter.com/wZCNYCbC5H

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) September 28, 2026

It has also emerged that the men had several empty “barrels” in their vans, plus one that contained what police described disturbingly as an “accelerant.”

Actually, that was simply a reference to petrol. The stuff that goes into vehicles to make them accelerate.

I’m sure the BBC’s Daniel Sandford is scornful of social media users for speculating that the men arrested close to a farm near RAF Fairford were there to steal fuel.

Sandford, meanwhile, is still busy helping the security services spin this as an Iran terrorism story – by… pic.twitter.com/iM2vUIio47

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) September 29, 2026

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham held a rare national emergency Cobra meeting over the incident.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration got involved because RAF Fairford, despite its name, is in reality a U.S. air base from which American planes are waging an illegal war of aggression against Iran, with the U.K.’s blessing.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said the incident “clearly involves the hands of a foreign actor.” When asked whether Iran was that actor, Trump replied: “It might be.” He added: “I know the answer… I can be very specific, but I’d rather not say.”

According to a report in The New York Times, “American and British intelligence services worked with Israel and Western countries to discover the threats against US bases, including ones in Germany.” [my emphasis]

Despite these sparse facts, the British media have uniformly rushed to a single conclusion: that this was almost certainly part of an Iranian terror plot to target the U.S. airbase and its planes. The only room for debate allowed is whether the five men were witting or unwitting actors in that plot.

As The Guardian reported in its Wednesday edition, referring to this as a “complex investigation”: “An Iranian link to the bizarre events in the Gloucestershire countryside over the weekend is seen as increasingly likely.”

As context, let us note the following: that British and U.S. officials have every interest in trying to hype this incident as an Iranian “terror plot,” whatever the actual evidence suggests.

Why? Because the U.S. is waging an illegal war on Iran, and the U.K. is allowing it to do so from British soil.

Under the rules of war, Iran has every right to attack RAF Fairford.

If the British state and billionaire-owned media were actually serving as a truly “free press,” they would be offering the context that RAF Fairford is a legitimate military target and that any attack on it by Iran would not constitute terrorism.

Of course, none have done so.

Instead, they have loyally regurgitated the British and U.S. security services spin of a “terror plot” — based on no tangible evidence at all — that paints Britain and the U.S. as the victims of a sinister and unwarranted act of Iranian aggression.

But context aside, an objective, sceptical media — a “free press” — would be reserving judgment on what had happened. It would be asking difficult questions. It would be offering plausible counter-narratives.

Again, none of this is happening. In the British media, there has been a lemming-like rush towards accepting uncritically the very conclusions that best serve British and U.S. state interests.

The constant highlighting of a terrorism connection to the arrested men — for which there is no apparent evidence — is precisely the kind of coverage you would expect from state media in an authoritarian regime. This is about whipping up a public mood of fear, not about transparent fact-finding.

Notably, unlike the British media, The New York Times report does allow for another possibility, even if it instantly ignores it and then joins the British media in treating what evidence there is as proof of an Iranian terror plot.

The Times opens with a question: “The potential ambiguities – were the men Iranian operatives, petty gas thieves, or both? – added to the confusion surrounding the arrests that the authorities have yet to fully explain.”

“Petty gas thieves!” Men in vans with empty barrels close to a farm in the middle of the night. Is it possible they could simply be criminals?!

In fact, this conjecture has been all over social media since the first reports of the men being arrested surfaced. As new details have emerged, those suspicions have only grown.

And yet Britain’s “free press” has uniformly ignored this counter-theory in favour of the U.S. and British security services’ narrative.

Doubtless, British journalists covering this incident would call the idea that this was simply a criminal group caught in the act unhelpful “speculation.”

But how is their no-more-plausible, and possibly less plausible, theory that this was an Iranian terror plot not equally speculation — if in their case, speculation that happens to be extremely helpful to the British and U.S. security establishments?

There are other theories we could posit too, given the known facts. Israel, which originally pushed for the illegal and disastrous war on Iran, has been looking for a way to persuade the Trump administration to return to a full-scale bombing campaign.

An attack on RAF Fairford — or the appearance of one — would be an ideal way to pile on the pressure for renewed strikes on Iran. It’s not, after all, as if there are no examples of Israel carrying out false flags.

If the “foreign actor” of Iran can recruit a gang of petty criminals to unwittingly spark a major security incident outside RAF Fairford, why can the “foreign actor” of Israel not do exactly the same?

I don’t know what happened outside the airbase. I’m not claiming to. I am keeping an open, critical mind while what facts there are emerge. If only our “free press’“ were doing the same.

There may be those reading this who find the claim that the media in our “democratic” societies is not confrontational to, or at least distant from, the state hard to believe. Such an idea may be new to them.

That should not be surprising. After all, how did each of us form our foundational view of the world — of who are the good guys and who the bad — if not from spending a lifetime reading and watching media owned by billionaire-led corporations and the state?

Since quitting the establishment media myself a quarter of a century ago (I worked for The Guardian), I have dedicated much of my time to identifying some of the most egregious examples of skewed journalism — reporting that consistently presents events in ways that serve not their audiences’ interests but those of the powerful: the corporations themselves; Western security establishments; and Israel, the linchpin of the West’s war industries.

In such cases, the establishment media readily abandons even the pretence of neutral, fair or dispassionate reporting. It serves as little more than a propaganda factory. (You can read my detailed explanation of how the Propaganda Model works here.)

This has been all too visible in the coverage of Israel’s mass-slaughter in Gaza, a genocide that could not be named as such.

It was visible in the coverage of Russia’s “unprovoked” invasion of Ukraine that had, in fact, been provoked by NATO for decades, as it expanded across Europe with a clear intention: either to corner Moscow militarily or drive it into a retaliatory attack on Ukraine that would provide an opportunity for the West to bleed Russia on a proxy battlefield.

It was visible in the sustained media campaign of antisemitism smears against Jeremy Corbyn, that rarest, and most dangerous, of things: a leader of a major political party who promoted socialist policies for the benefit of the public, not billionaires and was a vehement critic of Israel long before it showed its genocidal hand.

It was visible too in the media pile-on against Julian Assange, whose WikiLeaks whistleblower platform exposed British and U.S. war crimes while also threatening to destroy the media’s top-down model.

Having ridiculed him for claiming asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London for fear Washington would seek to extradite him for exposing its crimes, the media then treated his seizure by British police and incarceration for years in a high-security London prison, while the U.S. sought his extradition for exposing its crimes, as entirely unremarkable, as barely worth reporting.

I could go on and on. There is a consistent pattern when the establishment media deals with the most important issues, the very ones in which our national security states are most invested. Then the media jettisons even the semblance of critical distance from the state.

RAF Fairford is just the latest example of how, in such important moments, the media serves as nothing more than the security state’s loudspeaker.

Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist. He was based in Nazareth, Israel, for 20 years. He returned to the U.K. in 2021. He is the author of three books on the Israel-Palestine conflict: Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish State (2006), Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East(2008) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (2008). If you appreciate his articles, please consider offering your financial support.