Russian Intel Warns of UK Plan to Stage Tanker Incident
Sputnik – 04.08.2025
British intelligence agencies are planning to involve NATO allies in launching a large-scale crackdown on the so-called “shadow fleet” carrying Russian oil, the press bureau of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said on Monday.
“According to information received by the SVR, British intelligence services are planning to engage NATO allies to carry out a massive sweep of the ‘shadow fleet’. London’s idea is to trigger such a campaign with a high-profile incident involving one or several tankers. The plan envisions staging a major act of sabotage, the damage from which would allow them to declare Russian oil transportation a threat to global maritime navigation,” the statement said.
According to the SVR, this would give the West free rein in choosing methods of counter-action.
“In the extreme scenario, this could mean detaining any ‘suspicious’ vessels in international waters and escorting them to NATO member-state ports,” the statement added.
The plan envisions staging a major act of sabotage, the damage from which would allow the transportation of Russian oil to be deemed a threat.
“The UK intends to time the attack to maximize its media impact and use it to pressure Donald Trump’s administration. The goal is to force Washington, against its own national interests, to adopt the harshest possible secondary sanctions on buyers of Russian energy resources, portraying them as ‘indirect culprits of the tragedy,’” the SVR emphasized.
London allegedly plans to assign the execution of these anti-Russian attacks on tankers to Ukrainian security forces.
“Their predictably dirty work and inability to ‘cover their tracks’ are seen by the British as a guarantee of their own impunity. An international investigation would place responsibility either on Russia or – at worst – on Ukraine, similar to the sabotage of Nord Stream,” the SVR statement said.
According to the report, London’s scenario involves engineering an “accident” with an “undesirable” tanker in one of the world’s narrow maritime chokepoints, such as a strait, creating grounds for NATO countries to conduct an “emergency inspection.”
“The British are working through two potential casus belli. The first is to stage an accident with an ‘undesirable’ tanker in a narrow maritime passage. The resulting oil spill and blockage of the waterway, London believes, would give NATO states ‘sufficient’ justification to establish a precedent for ‘emergency checks’ of vessels, ostensibly to verify compliance with maritime safety and environmental regulations,” the SVR noted.
US and UK behind cyberattack on Aeroflot – Russian MP
RT | July 31, 2025
US and UK intelligence services were behind this week’s major cyberattack that disrupted operations at Aeroflot and other Russian companies earlier this week, a senior Russian lawmaker has claimed.
Andrey Svintsov, the deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Information Policy, has said the attack is part of a coordinated campaign by Western powers to damage the Russian economy after failing to achieve their objectives through military means and sanctions.
Aeroflot, Russia’s largest airline, was forced to cancel or delay dozens of flights on July 28 after pro-Ukrainian hacker groups claimed to have crippled the airline’s internal IT systems. The cyberattack also disrupted airport operations and affected other companies, including a nationwide pharmacy chain.
”These are not isolated hackers, but a planned action by American and British intelligence agencies,” Svintsov told Russian outlet Abzats. He described the campaign as a “systematic effort that is being carried out against Russia,” suggesting that it’s a sign of desperation by the country’s adversaries.
”This is a systematic approach by our Western enemies, who have failed to defeat Russia on the battlefield. They are moving to weaken the economic potential, since sanctions are not helping,” Svintsov said. He warned that cyber sabotage could continue until Russia achieves victory in the Ukraine conflict.
In May, Defense Secretary John Healey said the UK would significantly increase cyber operations against Russia and China. He confirmed the creation of a new Cyber and Electromagnetic Command, adding that “the keyboard is now a weapon of war.”
The Kremlin has urged Russian businesses to replace foreign-made software and hardware to reduce exposure to cyber threats. Last month, President Vladimir Putin instructed the government to accelerate import substitution.
Hacker groups Silent Crow and Cyberpartisans BY have claimed responsibility for Monday’s attack on Aeroflot. They claim to have been inside the airline’s corporate network for over a year, stealing more than 20 terabytes of data and destroying around 7,000 servers.
Communications regulator Roskomnadzor said the data leaks have not been confirmed. Russia’s Prosecutor General’s Office has confirmed the cyberattack and opened a criminal case.
The AMIA case: The untold story
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 27, 2025
On the morning of July 18, 1994, a bomb exploded at the headquarters of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) in downtown Buenos Aires, leveling the building and killing 85 people, with over 300 injured.
The attack occurred two years after the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina, which left 22 dead and 242 wounded. Both attacks took place during the presidency of Carlos Menem, a government that was pivotal for Argentina as it marked a transition to neoliberalism, featuring mass privatizations and a partial dollarization of the economy.
But on the geopolitical front, the Menem administration is more remembered for the apparent “secret war” that unfolded within the country, involving intelligence agencies and subversive groups from various nations.
The most widely accepted version of the AMIA case goes as follows: To retaliate against the cancellation of a nuclear technology transfer agreement between Argentina and Iran, the Iranian government (then under President Akbar Rafsanjani) orchestrated an act of revenge, with operatives from the Lebanese Hezbollah carrying it out.
This narrative, elevated to “official truth,” was supported by intelligence reports from the U.S. and Israel. It led to Argentina designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and the rupture of previously friendly relations between Argentina and Iran.
But what if this popular version is wrong?
Recently, a former aide to Judge Juan José Galeano—who oversaw the investigation and trial from 1994 to 2005—revealed details that cast doubt on the established narrative. According to Claudio Lifschitz, Galeano’s former assistant and a former Argentine security official, no concrete evidence linking the Iranian government to the attack was ever found. On the contrary, Lifschitz claims that the evidence increasingly pointed toward elements within Argentina’s intelligence service, SIDE.
Lifschitz first entered the public eye in this case when he released a video recording of a meeting between Galeano and Carlos Telleldín, in which the judge allegedly offered money to the supposed supplier of the van used in the attack—in exchange for confessing that he had sold it to Mohsen Rabbani, the cultural attaché at the Iranian Embassy in Buenos Aires. According to Lifschitz, one of the key pieces of evidence that could exonerate Iran is the fact that SIDE had illegally wiretapped—without a court order—the Iranian Embassy and the Iranian Cultural Center in Buenos Aires, amassing thousands of hours of recordings without a single indication that any Iranians frequenting these places had prior knowledge of the attack.
The real mastermind, Lifschitz alleges, was Jaime Stiuso, deputy chief of SIDE’s counterintelligence division (Section 85) and the officer in charge of intelligence investigations for the AMIA case. According to Lifschitz, Telleldín had actually sold the van used in the attack to a SIDE agent. Furthermore, Stiuso—who had close ties to Mossad and the CIA—was allegedly responsible for constructing the accusation made by prosecutor Alberto Nisman that then-President Cristina Kirchner had sought to cover up Iranian involvement in the case.
The former Argentine intelligence agent claims he heard directly from Stiuso that Mossad was the real force behind the attacks—though it remains difficult to verify whether this conversation actually took place.
The case remains relevant today because it is being leveraged by Javier Milei’s government to justify closer ties with Israel, to the point where the Argentine president has labeled Iran as an “enemy state of Argentina.”
UK could ‘easily’ stab US in the back – Putin aide
RT | July 25, 2025
The United Kingdom would not hesitate to sabotage a potential thaw in US-Russia relations, a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed on Friday.
Nikolay Patrushev, a longtime national security official and senior Kremlin adviser, accused London of being prepared to carry out a false flag in order to derail efforts by US President Donald Trump to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and normalize ties with Moscow.
“If necessary, London would easily stab Washington in the back. I believe officials in the White House realize what kind of ‘ally’ they are dealing with,” Patrushev told RIA Novosti.
His comments followed a statement last month by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), which alleged that British intelligence was directly involved in orchestrating covert Ukrainian operations. The SVR claimed the UK had acquired torpedoes of Soviet and Russian design for potential use in a false flag incident – specifically, a staged attack on an American naval vessel in the Baltic Sea.
Since Trump’s return to office in January and the departure of Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, Russian officials have frequently pointed to London as the primary force behind the continued conflict in Ukraine. They argue that the British government’s firm support is an obstacle to peace and a strategic effort to block reconciliation between Washington and Moscow.
Moscow has portrayed the Ukraine conflict as a NATO-driven proxy war meant to weaken Russia at the expense of Ukrainian lives.
Past reporting by The New York Times and The Times of London has confirmed that both US and British officials have played more active roles in directing Ukrainian military strategy than publicly acknowledged by their governments.
Benjamin Netanyahu Is Coming to Town Again
Will Donald Trump surrender or will Bibi resort to a false flag?
By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • July 4, 2025
Benjamin Netanyahu is on his way for his third visit to Washington during the first six months of the second term of President Donald Trump. Bibi requested the visit because he clearly wants something and he never likes to hear anyone tell him “No!” The American Jewish community and the state of Israel working together are already mustering their substantial resources to give the Prime Minister anything he wants, whatever that might be. If necessary, the so-called Israel Lobby, which controls many aspects of what is referred to colloquially as the United States Government, has a unique ability to lay down a serious guilt trip on anyone who tries to interfere with their prerogatives. Their ability to persuade is frequently based on repeated invocations of a semi-mythical event called the “holocaust,” which has been and will continue to be a burden on all the rest of humanity forever.
Many Jews have consequently successfully turned themselves into something like caricatures, where they are always the victims of an irrational hatred and therefore are entitled to extraordinary measures to protect themselves. Indeed, it all means that whatever happens that involves either Jews or Israel will ipso facto grant a “license to kill” in response to ensure that there will be “never again.” South African journalist Ilana Mercer describes the current process succinctly: “Israel’s ‘strategic perspective’ requires everywhere and always an enemy. This designated enemy will be tarnished by a blood libel, an abstraction: he, she or they will be said to be antisemitic, baying for Jewish blood. This blood libel ignores the truth, because when facts and reality are scrutinized, it’s Arabs that are being exterminated daily en masse, with western grants of government privilege, not Israelis. You have to hand it to Israel. It has positioned itself as the world’s cross, a curse that every individual not Jewish-Israeli is born into and must carry like an albatross.”
It is too bad that Netanyahu will be landing in Washington, where his arrival will no doubt be protected by the battalions of soldiers brought into the Capital two weeks ago to march down Constitution Avenue in their celebration of Vietnam War draft dodger Donald Trump’s birthday. If Bibi were to land in New York he just might be arrested on the warrant issued by the International Criminal Court. The Democratic candidate for New York mayor Zohran Mamdani has the Israeli Lobby and assorted Jewish identity groups hounding him relentlessly in part because he is a Muslim but also because he declared that if he is elected mayor he would arrest Netanyahu if/when he showed up in the city. The declaration had me and others cheering but we also wished that there were some mechanism for also arresting Genocide Joe Biden and Antony Blinken. Presumably Donald Trump, another genocide enabler, is untouchable except by impeachment as he is in office, which is a shame as he and his own batch of war criminals to match those around Biden richly deserve a bit of hard time.
Some journalists are speculating that while at the White House, Trump will pressure Netanyahu to agree to a new sixty day truce in Gaza, but Bibi is unlikely to have asked for the meeting if he thought he might be trapped into stopping the killing of Palestinians. I have my own theory about why Netanyahu will be in Washington and apart from the part where he has his butt kissed by Trump and four hundred bought-and-paid-for congressmen, it won’t be pretty. You see, Bibi wants to establish Israeli hegemony “from the rivers to the sea,” which means from the Euphrates, Litani and Nile rivers and all along the seafront with the Mediterranean. That will require regime change in Iran eliminating that nation as an adversary but the recent short war against the Iranians has made it clear that Israel cannot do it alone unless it goes nuclear, which would do possibly fatal damage to Tel Aviv’s ability to deal with the rest of the world and could easily mean the de facto end of the Jewish state. So he has to convince a gullible Donald Trump to do it for him and is prepared to lie effusively about the threat posed by Iran to make that happen.
Obviously, the problem confronting Netanyahu is that Iran really does not pose any threat to the United States or, indeed, even to Israel if the Israelis were willing to cease their quest for dominance and regional expansion. So he will have to make something up, which admittedly he has a great deal of experience in doing. But what will happen if Trump does not take the bait, whatever that will turn out to be? Will Trump Riviera Resort Gaza be enough to sway the New York Real Estate man who is pretending to be the President of the United States? I rather think that Netanyahu will have several possible schemes in reserve if he runs into a wall in Washington, including false flag operations plausibly blamed on Iran that will kill a lot of Americans to get across the message that the Iranians pose a real danger to the United States.
To be sure, Israel has demonstrated that it is not shy and will not hesitate to kill Americans when its own interests suggest a need for extreme measures, witness the deliberate killing of 34 US Navy sailors on the USS Liberty in 1967 and the recent deaths of US citizens in Gaza which the American government has done nothing about. Israel knows it can get away with murder, both figuratively and literally, and even though the American people might be sick of the slaughter of Palestinians the Israel Lobby knows that it has the support of both Congress and the media no matter what it does.
I rather think that what Israel will do will rely on the White House’s apparent belief that renewing war with Iran will result in attacks on some of the many US bases in the Persian Gulf region. As Iran is not likely to want to carry out that kind of escalation, Israel might decide to do the job itself but leaving evidence behind that it was Iran or an Iranian proxy that carried it out. Israel has many active agents run by Mossad throughout the region, as was evident in the assassinations of senior Iranian government officials and scientists together with their entire families back when the first phase of the so-called “twelve day war” began with an Israeli attack back a month ago. So Israel will blow up an American base or two and then loudly proclaim that the deed was done by Iran to get revenge for the US bombing of the Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow nuclear facilities.
Or if one really wants to explore options on the dark side, Israel might decide to really float the false flag, so it just might use one of its own nukes to do the job, embellishing the tale by pointing out that the blast was clear evidence of the claim that Iran had and still has a secret nuclear weapons program. Clowns in congress like Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz will immediately take up the cry and loudly call for revenge. Trump will be unable to resist, or at least that is what Netanyahu will be thinking, and if a nuke was used on an American base the willingness to reciprocate in kind will be overwhelming in Washington. As both Bibi and the Donald have several times recommended that the 10 million plus folks living in Iran’s capital Tehran should evacuate their homes, it is, in my opinion, quite possible that both Israel and the US have in any event been thinking of going nuke for some time. So, if all goes well for Bibi they will get what they want, i.e. regime change in a devastated Iran and the end of the Iranian challenge to Israel. Let us hope that instead of that outcome, Trump will be listening to his better angel, if he has one, and Netanyahu will be rebuffed and will go home with his tail between his legs next week!
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
A catalytic event
By Přemysl Janýr | June 19, 2025
Bombing from the air will not bring about the overthrow of the regime, but rather its consolidation. We have seen this in Germany, Japan, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen. The only way to overthrow a regime is by a color revolution or a ground military campaign, if one is lucky.
And Israel isn’t up to it in Iran.
I don’t think he didn’t know. Just like he didn’t know in advance what the Iranian missiles would cause.
If Israel went ahead with the operation anyway, it means it has a plan in reserve. That is to use the US military for a ground campaign.
The fact is, however, that neither the American public nor the president are particularly keen on that. Just as they have not been keen before World War I and World War II or the Vietnam War, just as they have not been keen to destroy seven countries in five years. It always needed, as the neocons say, a catalytic event: the sinking of the Lusitania, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Tonkin incident, the 9/11 attacks.
If Israel went ahead with the operation anyway, it means it has a catalytic event in reserve.
We can only speculate about it for now. Or infer from the few indistinct hints and signals.
These could be, for example, the meanwhile buried news of Iran’s foiled assassination attempt on Donald Trump, later of Iranian terrorists dropped into the US and equipped with a surface-to-air missile to shoot down Trump’s plane. Netanyahu recently reiterated Iran’s intention to take out Trump.
The shooting down of Trump’s plane would indeed be such an ideal catalytic event. If Israel kills Ayatollah Khamenei before, it would be Iranian retaliation beyond any doubt. It would convince Americans – Trump supporters and opponents alike – of the necessity of the Iranian campaign, while removing the erratic eccentric repeatedly meddling with Israel.
And workable. Experts with access to the necessary information and equipment will surely find a way for such a missile to bypass defense systems. And singling out Iranians who will happily fire it and die in the ensuing firefight is also tried and tested.
It’s speculation, of course. Quite possibly, there will be another catalytic event, perhaps the sinking of an American ship, more successful than that of the Liberty, an attack by pro-Iranian militias on an American base, or something else.
But that Israel would go headlong into it I think is out of the question.
The Czech original: https://www.janyr.eu/123-katalyticka-udalost
Israel Would Have No Qualms About USS Liberty-Style FALSE FLAG If Iran Campaign Falters – Analysts
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 18.06.2025
Donald Trump is mulling whether or not to join Israel’s aggression against Iran as Tel Aviv faces problems sustaining its defenses against growing counterstrikes, and apparently lacks a realistic game plan for an end to hostilities after failing to achieve its goals. Analysts told Sputnik how the US could be ‘nudged’ into the conflict.
“The US is already assisting Israel with supplies, intel, refueling support, etc. One of the many US posts in the region could be attacked for a casus belli,” former Pentagon analyst Karen Kwiatkowski explained.
“If Trump doesn’t comply with Israel’s demand” and join its aggression voluntarily, “a false flag may be needed” to drag the US in, Kwiatkowski, retired US Air Force Lt. Col.-turned Iraq War whistleblower, fears.
Netanyahu has a diverse array of options at his disposal, according to the observer, including:
- a false flag against US assets abroad blamed on Iran or one of its Axis of Resistance allies, like the Houthis
- a US domestic attack or assassination blamed on Iran
- Iranian air defenses ‘accidentally’ hitting a civilian jetliner carrying Americans
- use of a dirty bomb or nuclear contamination somewhere in the region blamed on Iran
- even blackmailing by threatening to use nukes against Iran if the US doesn’t join the fight
Kwiatkowski estimates that Israel probably has “enough blackmail power” against President Trump and Congress to avoid the necessity of a false flag operation, but a “USS Liberty-style” attack, targeting the soon-to-be-retired USS Nimitz supercarrier that’s heading to the Middle East, for example, nevertheless cannot be ruled out entirely, she says.
Beirut-based geopolitics analyst Yeghia Tashjian agrees, emphasizing that Israel “has limited capabilities when it comes to destroying Iran’s nuclear infrastructure” (the stated goal of Operation Rising Lion), “especially the underground nuclear facilities.”
The same holds true for Israel’s lack of ability to independently deploy boots on the ground in Iran, which means no chance of “overwhelming victory” even if events go their way in the ongoing back and forth strikes.
Possible scenarios for a false flag imagined by Tashjian include “attacking US bases in Iraq…or a terror attack against US embassies in the region.”
Ukraine’s most reckless attack: Was NATO behind it?
RT | June 6, 2025
While Western headlines celebrated Operation Spider’s Web as a daring feat of Ukrainian ingenuity, a closer look reveals something far more calculated – and far less Ukrainian. This wasn’t just a strike on Russian airfields. It was a test – one that blended high-tech sabotage, covert infiltration, and satellite-guided timing with the kind of precision that only the world’s most advanced intelligence networks can deliver. And it begs the question: who was really pulling the strings?
Let’s be honest. Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence didn’t act alone. It couldn’t have.
Even if no Western agency was directly involved in the operation itself, the broader picture is clear: Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence, its military, and even its top political leadership rely heavily on Western intelligence feeds. Ukraine is deeply embedded within NATO’s intelligence-sharing architecture. The idea of a self-contained Ukrainian intel ecosystem is largely a thing of the past. These days, Kiev draws primarily on NATO-provided data, supplementing it with its own domestic sources where it can.
That’s the backdrop – a hybrid model that’s become standard over the past two years. Now, let’s look more closely at Operation Spider’s Web itself. We know the planning took roughly 18 months and involved moving drones covertly into Russian territory, hiding them, and then orchestrating coordinated attacks on key airfields. So how likely is it that Western intelligence agencies had a hand in such a complex operation?
Start with logistics. It’s been reported that 117 drones were prepped for launch inside Russia. Given that numerous private companies in Russia currently manufacture drones for the war effort, it wouldn’t have been difficult to assemble the necessary devices under that cover. That’s almost certainly what happened. Components were likely purchased domestically under the guise of supplying the “Special Military Operation.” Still, it’s hard to believe Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence could have pulled off this mass procurement and assembly alone. It’s highly likely Western intelligence agencies played a quiet but crucial role – especially in securing specialized components.
Then there’s the explosives. If the operation’s command center was located in the Ural region, as some suggest, it’s plausible that explosives or components were smuggled in via neighboring CIS countries. That kind of border-hopping precision doesn’t happen without outside help. In fact, it mirrors tactics long perfected by intelligence services in both the US and Western Europe.
Because make no mistake: this wasn’t just the CIA’s playground. European services – particularly those in the UK, France, and Germany – possess the same capabilities to execute and conceal such an operation. The NATO intelligence community may have different national flags, but it speaks with one voice in the field.
The real giveaway, however, lies in the timing of the strikes. These weren’t blind attacks on static targets. Russia’s strategic bombers frequently rotate bases. Commercial satellite imagery – updated every few days at best – simply can’t track aircraft on the move. And yet these drones struck with exquisite timing. That points to a steady flow of real-time surveillance, likely derived from signals intelligence, radar tracking, and live satellite feeds – all tools in the Western intelligence toolbox.
Could Ukraine, on its own, have mustered that kind of persistent, multidomain awareness? Not a chance. That level of situational intelligence is the domain of NATO’s most capable agencies – particularly those tasked with monitoring Russian military infrastructure as part of their day job.
For years now, Ukraine has been described in Western media as a plucky underdog using low-cost tactics to take on a larger foe. But beneath the David vs. Goliath narrative lies a more uncomfortable truth: Ukraine’s intelligence ecosystem is now deeply embedded within NATO’s operational architecture. Real-time feeds from US and European satellites, intercepts from British SIGINT stations, operational planning consultations with Western handlers – this is the new normal.
Ukraine still has its own sources, but it’s no longer running a self-contained intelligence operation. That era ended with the first HIMARS launch.
Western officials, of course, deny direct involvement. But Russian investigators are already analyzing mobile traffic around the impact sites. If it turns out that these drones weren’t connected to commercial mobile networks – if, instead, they were guided through encrypted, military-grade links – it will be damning. Not only would that confirm foreign operational input, it would expose the full extent of how Western assets operated inside Russia without detection.
At that point, no amount of plausible deniability will cover the truth. The question will no longer be whether NATO participated – but how deep that participation ran.
Another fictional ‘Iranian plot’ in London?
By Robert Inlakesh | The Cradle | May 18, 2025
The arrest of a group reportedly consisting of Iranian nationals, accused of planning an attack on the Israeli embassy in London, has coincided with an aggressive lobbying campaign to classify Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization in the UK. While details of the case remain sparse, previous such allegations suggest that linking this plot to Tehran without substantiated evidence is politically motivated.
On 7 May, The Telegraph claimed that five individuals were detained in what the UK Home Secretary described as one of the “biggest counter-terrorism operations in recent years.” According to the report, four of those arrested were Iranian nationals, apprehended under Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, allegedly for plotting an assault on the Israeli embassy in London.
A confused arrest, a convenient campaign
Yet, contradictions in the report raised significant public skepticism. While The Telegraph asserted that “the suspected terror cell was hours from unleashing the attack when the men were arrested,” it also noted that the suspects were detained in cities across England – three of them located around a four-hour drive from London, and another an hour away. The disparity sparked a wave of theories and doubts among the British public.
As these logistical inconsistencies drew scrutiny, right-wing media outlets in Britain seized the moment to stir anti-immigrant sentiments. On Talk TV, Kevin O’Sullivan descended into hysteria, warning, “We are going to have a Southport 2 unless we are careful,” invoking a racially charged incident that had ignited riots. The immigration status of the suspects became the focal point for many conservative commentators.
Simultaneously, the pro-Israel lobby began exploiting the incident to reinvigorate its campaign for the IRGC’s designation as a terrorist organization. On 28 April, Progressive Britain—a group aligned with the Blairite wing of the Labour Party – published an article titled “Why the UK Should Proscribe the IRGC.” Its author, Jemima Shelley, is not only a non-resident fellow at Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) but also a senior analyst at United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI).
UANI has played a recurring role in previous efforts to influence British policy against the Islamic Republic. Masquerading as a neutral non-profit, the group is chaired by Jeb Bush and features an advisory board packed with pro-Israel operatives.
Former Mossad Director Meir Dagan was a member until his death, and the US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth currently sits on its Veterans Advisory Council.
Nigel Farage, leader of the far-right Reform UK Party, opportunistically called on the Labour government to proscribe the IRGC, bizarrely claiming that “friends of mine who live in the Middle East are astonished we haven’t done it.”
Terror claims as political leverage
On 8 October 2024, MI5 Director General Ken McCallum delivered a speech at London’s Counter Terrorism Operations Centre, stating:
“Since the killing of Mahsa Amini in 2022 we’ve seen plot after plot here in the UK, at an unprecedented pace and scale. Since January 2022, with police partners, we have responded to twenty Iran-backed plots presenting potentially lethal threats to British citizens and UK residents.”
Although McCallum insisted that the intelligence agency does not politicize terrorism cases, his speech disproportionately emphasized threats from Russia, China, and Iran – the UK’s designated strategic adversaries. Commentators quickly seized on his remarks to bolster narratives of Iranian culpability.
Despite referencing 20 “Iran-backed” plots, British authorities have failed to provide concrete evidence linking Tehran to any of them. Officials argue that such ambiguity is strategic, offering “plausible deniability.” But in most cases, their accusations rest on tenuous associations, such as Tehran’s political animosity toward the individuals in question.
Consider the highly publicized case of Austrian national Magomed Husejn Dovtaev, who was convicted in February 2023 after recording video footage of the offices of Iran International, a Saudi-funded Persian-language news outlet based in London.
Dovtaev claimed he had been defrauded of €20,000 and was seeking those responsible at the location. Despite denying any connection to Iran, he was convicted of collecting information likely to be useful for terrorism.
On 4 March, Britain’s Security Minister Dan Jarvis repeated the claim of 20 terror plots and that “the Iranian regime is targeting dissidents.” He also told parliament that “The Iranian Intelligence Services, which include the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, or MOIS, direct this damaging activity.”
However, Jarvis clarifies that “rather than working directly on UK shores, they use criminal proxies to do their bidding. This helps to obfuscate their involvement, while they sit safely ensconced in Tehran.”
While the existence of Iranian intelligence operations abroad cannot be ruled out, the recurring claims tying Tehran to every suspicious activity lack transparency and verification.
A precedent of manipulation
The current frenzy echoes the Israeli embassy bombing in London in 1994. Initially blamed on “pro-Iranian extremists” allegedly tied to Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the attack resulted in the arrest of five Palestinians. Two of them, Jawad Botmeh and Samar Alami, were convicted of conspiracy despite no direct evidence or allegation that they planted the bomb.
At the time, human rights group Amnesty International issued a statement raising concerns that neither Botmeh nor Alami had been granted “their right to a fair trial because they have been denied full disclosure – both during and after the trial – of all information.”
“There was no direct evidence connecting either of them to the attacks and both had alibis. The appeal was based on the grounds that the convictions were unsafe, including due to the failure of the prosecution to disclose evidence to the defence, and on the length of the sentences.”
When the late veteran journalist and long-time West Asia correspondent Robert Fisk wrote on the case for the Independent in 1998, he described it as follows:
“The trial was, to put it mildly, a very puzzling affair. Even before it began, the case developed unusually. First of all, the police charged Nadia Zekra, a very middle-class Palestinian lady, with planting the bomb outside the embassy. Explosive traces had supposedly been found on a table in her home. Then, once the trial began, all charges against Zekra were dropped. Another Palestinian, Mahmoud Abu-Wardeh, was charged, but the jury acquitted him on all charges. And in the pre-trial period, the judge allowed both Alami and Botmeh to go free on bail.”
Fisk noted that Alami and Botmeh had expressed their belief that a shady figure known as Reda Moghrabi was an Israeli agent and had set them up. Yet, following the bombing, Moghrabi disappeared. The claim of responsibility for the attack was also strange, anonymously submitted by the “Jaffa Team” of the “Palestinian resistance,” a group that never existed prior to, nor since, the attack.
On top of this, the pair were released early. Botmeh was set free in August of 2008, and Alami was released in April 2009 and deported to Lebanon. Their early release, combined with the fact that the two were allowed to walk the streets of London on bail until their conviction, raised even more questions about the nature of the bombing incident.
Even more damning were later revelations by former MI5 agents. David Shayler disclosed that British intelligence “hid” documents related to the bombing. Annie Machon, another ex-MI5 officer, revealed that an internal assessment concluded that Mossad itself had staged the explosion to justify demands for increased security at its embassy. The sophisticated device caused no fatalities, and the real perpetrators were never apprehended.
Keeping all of this information in mind, there is currently not enough evidence to draw any conclusions regarding the arrests of Iranian nationals and the alleged plot to attack the Israeli embassy. However, British media outlets and several members of parliament were quick to seize on the incident, using it to push the agenda of designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
Politics trumps evidence
With all this context in mind, the latest arrests of Iranian nationals – and the unsubstantiated claim of a planned embassy attack – must be scrutinized. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has categorically denied involvement, asserting that “Iran stands ready to engage to shed light on what has truly transpired, and we reiterate that UK authorities should afford our citizens due process.”
Meanwhile, The Guardian has spun the case to highlight fears among Iranian dissidents in the UK, presenting the arrests as validation of threats from Tehran.
By rushing to implicate the IRGC, British media and officials are once again politicizing an unverified security incident. This tactic mirrors accusations they often level at Iran: weaponizing arrests for political ends. Regardless of who was truly behind the supposed plot, its timing conveniently serves those advocating for the IRGC’s proscription.
What is clear is that claims of Iranian-linked terrorism continue to surface whenever Tel Aviv or its allies seek to ramp up pressure on the Islamic Republic.
