Two Iranian men face UK terror charges over an alleged bomb plot targeting Manchester's Jewish community, with Old Bailey hearing on Oct 23.
MANCHESTER, UNITED KINGDOM — Two Iranian men face terrorism charges over an alleged plot targeting Jewish sites, as prosecutors say bomb materials and reconnaissance formed part of preparations there.
Two Iranian nationals have been remanded in custody after appearing in a London court accused of preparing a terrorist attack against Manchester's Jewish community, in a case that prosecutors say involved reconnaissance of Jewish institutions, the acquisition of bomb-related materials and contact with an overseas third party.
Rahman Salehi, 34, of Salford, and Salam Ahmadyan, 36, of Liverpool appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Saturday. They are charged under Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 with engaging in conduct in preparation for terrorist acts, or assisting another person to commit such acts, on or before 20 September.
Neither man was asked to enter a plea at the hearing. District Judge Nina Tempia remanded both defendants in custody until 23 October, when they are due to appear at the Old Bailey.
The charges remain allegations. The Crown Prosecution Service has stressed that the defendants are entitled to a fair trial and that the decision to prosecute is not a finding of guilt, which can be determined only by a court.
Prosecutors allege reconnaissance of two Jewish sites
The prosecution case alleges that the defendants researched potential targets online and conducted reconnaissance in Manchester's Jewish community. Locations identified in court included Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue in Crumpsall and Manchester Jewish Museum in Cheetham Hill.
Prosecutors also allege that the men obtained images, plans and maps of potential locations and acquired liquids, components and equipment intended for an improvised explosive device. Court reporting described the alleged device as chlorine-based.
The allegations also include possession of written and video material concerning the manufacture of an improvised explosive device. Reporting those allegations does not establish that a viable device had been completed, nor that any attack had reached the point of execution.
Salehi and Ahmadyan were arrested in Manchester on 20 September during what Counter Terrorism Policing has described as a long-running proactive investigation. Police initially detained them under terrorism legislation before prosecutors authorised the Section 5 charges on 2 October.
Counter Terrorism Policing has said investigators believe the arrests disrupted a suspected plot and that officers do not consider there to be an ongoing threat to the public from this particular case.
Alleged overseas contact remains a central unanswered question
Police and prosecutors say the two defendants were in contact with an overseas third party who may have been in Iran. In court, prosecutors alleged that the person directed and coordinated the planned attack and provided instructions concerning an explosive device.
That allegation is significant but requires careful distinction from a finding of Iranian state responsibility. The available charge information does not establish that the Iranian government directed the alleged plot, and the case has yet to be tested at trial.
The wider security environment nevertheless gives investigators a reason to examine any suspected overseas connection closely. MI5 said in its October 2025 threat update that it had tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots in the preceding year. In June 2026, the United Kingdom joined 23 other governments in condemning alleged actions by Iranian security organisations against dissidents, journalists and Jewish or Israeli communities and interests in several countries.
The UK government has also imposed sanctions on a group it described as Iran-linked after attacks claimed against Jewish, Israeli and Persian-language media targets. Those developments form part of the national-security backdrop to the Manchester prosecution but are separate from the evidence that will have to be proved against Salehi and Ahmadyan.
Section 5 allows intervention before an attack occurs
The charge illustrates an important feature of British counter-terrorism law: prosecutors do not have to wait for a completed attack before bringing a preparation offence.
Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 applies when a person, intending to commit terrorist acts or assist another person to commit them, engages in conduct preparing to give effect to that intention. The law also states that the preparations do not need to relate to a single specifically identified terrorist act.
A conviction on indictment can carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. That potential penalty reflects the seriousness Parliament attaches to preparatory conduct, but it says nothing about the guilt of the two defendants in this case or the sentence that would follow if either were eventually convicted.
For the prosecution, the eventual question will be whether admissible evidence proves both the necessary intention and conduct beyond reasonable doubt. The defence will have the opportunity to challenge the interpretation, reliability and significance of the evidence in later proceedings.
The CPS said its prosecutors had concluded that there was sufficient evidence for the case to be put before a court. It also issued a warning that the proceedings are active, meaning reporting and public commentary must avoid material that could prejudice a future trial.
Case lands one year after fatal Heaton Park attack
The naming of Heaton Park synagogue carries particular significance because the congregation was attacked on 2 October 2025, almost exactly a year before the current defendants were charged.
During that earlier incident, an attacker drove a car at people outside the synagogue and then used a knife as worshippers gathered for Yom Kippur. Two members of the congregation died and other people were seriously injured. Police shot the attacker dead.
The 2025 attack and the current prosecution are distinct cases. No evidence presented publicly in the new proceedings establishes a connection between the people involved in them.
Their proximity in time and location nevertheless adds to the concern surrounding the new allegations. The arrests on 20 September 2026 came at the beginning of Yom Kippur, one of the most important dates in the Jewish calendar, when synagogues and communal sites typically experience increased attendance.
Counter Terrorism Policing has said officers continue to work with community leaders, local police teams and the Community Security Trust and that visible security arrangements around Jewish communities will continue.
Antisemitic incidents remain far above pre-2023 levels
The case also emerges against a documented period of unusually high antisemitic incidents across the United Kingdom.
The Community Security Trust, a charity that monitors antisemitism and works with police and Jewish institutions on security, recorded 3,700 antisemitic incidents in the UK during 2025. That was the second-highest annual total in the organisation's records, 4 per cent above the 3,556 incidents it recorded in 2024 and below the record 4,298 recorded in 2023.
The figures should be interpreted according to CST's methodology rather than as a complete census of every antisemitic offence in Britain. Its records include incidents reported directly to the organisation and information shared through established channels, and they are not identical to police hate-crime statistics.
Even with that qualification, the longer-term comparison is striking. CST recorded 1,662 incidents in 2022, meaning its 2025 total was more than twice the level recorded three years earlier.
The organisation has also said it receives many reports involving suspicious behaviour around Jewish locations that do not ultimately meet its definition of an antisemitic incident. That distinction is relevant to security work because unusual reconnaissance or information gathering can require investigation even when it is not itself recorded as a hate incident.
Immigration status is separate from the terrorism evidence
The defendants' immigration histories have also entered the public debate. According to information reported from the court proceedings, Salehi arrived in the UK by small boat in 2020 and was later granted permission to remain, while Ahmadyan arrived in 2023 and has an outstanding asylum claim.
Those facts form part of their personal histories but do not establish involvement in terrorism. Immigration status and criminal liability are separate legal questions, and the terrorism charge must be proved on the evidence relating to the alleged preparatory conduct.
The distinction is particularly important while proceedings are active. Statements by politicians about border security, asylum policy or foreign-state threats may form part of the wider political debate, but they cannot determine whether either defendant committed the offence charged.
The next significant stage will be the Old Bailey hearing on 23 October. That proceeding is expected to move the case into the Crown Court process, where future hearings will establish the timetable for pleas and, if the charges are contested, any eventual trial.
For now, the publicly established facts are narrower than the allegations: two men have been charged, appeared before a district judge and been remanded in custody. Prosecutors say the case concerns preparations for an attack on Manchester's Jewish community, while the defendants retain the presumption of innocence unless and until guilt is proved in court.
COMMENTS