Arthur Donaldson

Iran Has Warned Us. MI5 Has Warned Us. Is Anyone in Government Listening? For the second time in little more than a month, American military aircraft have been moved from a British airbase amid reports of an Iranian threat. Nine refuelling tankers left RAF Mildenhall for Scotland, Germany and Spain, while three Ospreys moved to RAF Lakenheath. According to the Wall Street Journal, US officials received fresh intelligence concerning Iran, prompting security at both Suffolk bases to be raised to FPCON Charlie. This follows the suspected Iranian-linked operation at RAF Fairford in September. Five British nationals were initially arrested near the base, which had housed American bombers used against Iran. Nouman Essghir and Mohmed Ahmad Abdulkarim have since been charged with national-security offences. One is accused of assisting a foreign intelligence service believed to be Iran. A court heard allegations involving reconnaissance, vehicles and more than £65,000 in funds. The allegations await trial. Britain has been warned repeatedly. MI5 has identified more than twenty potentially lethal Iran-backed plots involving assassination, kidnapping and intimidation. The IRGC has declared that bases used against Iran are legitimate targets. Iranian officials have reportedly boasted that Channel smuggling routes are more useful than missiles because operatives can enter Britain and await instructions. So ministers can hardly say the danger was unforeseeable. Yet the Government continues receiving and dispersing illegal arrivals from countries where independent verification of identity and background can be exceptionally difficult. Around two-thirds of small-boat arrivals in the year to June came from Eritrea, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iran. Fingerprints cannot reveal an undisclosed past when dependable records are unavailable. A hostile operative absent from accessible databases may pass through screening undetected. What extra safeguards followed the warnings about Iranian exploitation of Channel routes? The public deserves an answer. The danger extends beyond immigration. Mildenhall supports American air operations across Europe, while Fairford accommodates strategic bombers. Their security matters to Britain's defence and NATO. The reported movements raise a troubling question: can Britain provide the protection its closest ally needs on British soil? Washington's concern about Britain's handling of migration and public safety is already on record. In November 2025, the US State Department instructed diplomats to monitor migration-related crime and governments' responses, including in Britain. That was an extraordinary signal of scrutiny between allies. Now American commanders are reportedly taking precautions against another Iranian threat at a British base. Ministers should consider what this succession of warnings does to Britain's standing. The Ministry of Defence responded that aircraft routinely move for operational reasons. Of course sensitive intelligence cannot be disclosed. But secrecy must not become a substitute for accountability. We have heard about Iranian intimidation of dissidents, alleged influence networks, covert plots and attempts to exploit border weaknesses. Yet all ministers seem able to offer is another assurance that national security is taken seriously. What the public has not heard is a convincing account of how those vulnerabilities are being closed. A government warned about hostile-state activity has a duty to show that its safeguards match the threat. After Fairford and now Mildenhall, another bland statement will not do. Ministers must explain what has changed, how arrivals are screened when records cannot be trusted, and how allied forces are protected. Britain cannot afford to discover the limits of its defences only after an attack. "US moves KC-135 Stratotankers out of RAF Mildenhall over Iran threat, just weeks after RAF Fairford security incident."