Three weeks ago I wrote that Fairford was most likely an Iranian operation, and that it was probably designed to be stopped. Fairford was important to the US war effort against Iran. B-1s and B-52s had been flying strike missions from there since March. It was one of only two bases in Europe they could use, because Spain, France, Italy and Germany had all refused. In July the IRGC publicly named it a legitimate target. For Iran this was an efficient way to apply pressure. A successful attack that destroyed US aircraft or killed US personnel would have invited a military response. A plot that is stopped short of the wire carries almost no risk. The men involved are British, hired locally and expendable, and Iran can deny any connection, which it has done. No Iranian officers were exposed, and the cost was a few vans, some petrol and whatever the men were paid. The message still got through: keep letting US bombers fly from here, and this is what you can expect. After the IRGC’s public threat in July, there was no doubt who was sending it. Today two of the men were re-arrested under the National Security Act on suspicion of assisting a foreign intelligence service. Police have confirmed the country is Iran, say state involvement is “highly likely,” and are examining “the ambition behind it.” The evidence points to this being a warning rather than a serious attempt at sabotage. The vans carried petrol but no explosives, and the men were stopped short of the perimeter. The Telegraph reports that Israeli intelligence had warned MI5 of an imminent Iranian-backed attack on the base, which would explain why the police seemed to be expecting them. A week later every US bomber had left Fairford. Iran got what it wanted, at almost no cost.

Three strikes on Riyadh’s airport in five days. Why are some Houthi missiles still getting through, and should Washington help go after the launchers? This week on Eyes on Geo-Politics: the Palestine-2, the interceptor shortage and the new ground campaign in Yemen.