Netanyahu says Israel warned Britain about the Fairford plot, was rewarded with sanctions.

Gary Changing hands. That's the rent in this house exactly — it changes hands every first of the month and somehow never actually arrives anywhere.

Move forward three weeks, to the 30th of September: five British nationals, ages 23 to 25, were arrested near the base, and Prime Minister Andy Burnham said there were "indications" Iran "played a part" — and defended releasing them on bail all the same.

Rob Released on bail all the same. Heavy, that — the system just lets things go and calls it due process, same as this house calls it a rota.

On the 1st of October, Benjamin Netanyahu, asked on Fox News about what the Washington Examiner records as "the recent scare in Britain," said Israel had already given British intelligence word of an "Iranian-sponsored attack" — and that London sanctioned Israel shortly after.

Clive Shortly after. I am drafting the whole business in couplets, the warning and the sanction landing in the very next line, which is more than this government's managed.

Keith Couplets won't shift it. Israeli intelligence, British sanctions, American bombers — that's three flags on one tin, and I can have the tin on a shelf by Thursday.

By that Sunday the Pentagon confirmed what the base had already done without being asked: all twelve B-1s were back at their home stations in America. The Guardian had Downing Street calling the base "safe" the Monday the bombers left it, and RTÉ filed the same evacuation from Dublin the same day.

Gary Safe. That's the landlord's word for the boiler too, and we're still boiling kettles on the hob.

By that Monday the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times were specifying the reason British officials had only given in general terms: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had a plot to destroy the aircraft and kill the service members based there, at a base the New York Post puts ninety miles west of London.

You will be looking for the single report that settles which it was — threat, plot, or drone attack. There isn't one; the three words are what three different offices are using instead of agreeing on one.

The BBC, which is what they have here, ran it as Trump saying a "threat" led to the pull. At home the New York Post and the New York Times specify the same twelve bombers left because of an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps plot to destroy the aircraft and kill the service members based there.

Rob Three different offices. Sounds like the rota again — everyone's assigned a different job and somehow the bin still doesn't go out.

The Pentagon is handled the way you'd handle a chicken — taken by both ends, turned over, and looked at underneath — and underneath it offers only the confirmation that all twelve are already home, nothing about which account above it is the one that's true.

A threat that changes its noun by the day rarely survives a second news cycle; by the third telling, somebody has to write it down the same way twice.

The base at Fairford holds no bombers this week; British intelligence is left to square Mr Netanyahu's account against London's own sanctions, and no official has said which explanation is the one that holds.

Keith Which one holds. I'll box all four and sell whichever one's still standing by Thursday — that's the version with the market.