Britain once thrived on the quiet confidence of its alliances. That talent is fading, replaced by a Labour government intent on gestures that soothe its conscience while unnerving the partners who keep the country safe. The damage spans both pillars of Britain’s security architecture: the United States and Israel. And if Shabana Mahmood rises once Starmer stumbles, the drift will harden into doctrine.

The warning signs began with the Chagos settlement. London called it an overdue act of moral repair; Washington recognised a shift in the balance of strategic seriousness. Diego Garcia is not a colonial artefact. It is the hinge of American force projection across the Indian Ocean, and a pressure point against adversaries who test the free world’s resolve. Mauritius may have celebrated a diplomatic prize, yet the United States saw a partner willing to trade the continuity of a vital base for a round of applause that played well in certain domestic circles. The treaty did not rupture the alliance, but it introduced doubt about London’s willingness to safeguard shared assets without flinching.

Starmer’s latest betrayal has made UK unreliable

That doubt deepened and has now turned into a certainty, after Britain announced it suspended intelligence sharing tied to operations against Nicolas Maduro’s narcotics fleets in South America.

The official line was legal caution. The political reality was a government eager to signal that its hands were clean, regardless of the message this sent to a superpower that had long trusted Britain’s judgment. Washington did not explode in public; it simply recalibrated. The UK could no longer be counted on to treat common threats as genuinely common. An intelligence partnership built on continuity suddenly carries the scent of conditionality.

As in Washington, so in Tel Aviv

Israel’s experience has echoed the same pattern. Britain announced recognition of a Palestinian state with theatrical confidence and without any accompanying framework that might produce stability rather than reward belligerent factions.

Jerusalem has little patience for this flavour of political morality. It noted the absence of sequencing, the disregard for security realities, and the indifference toward the way recognition would be interpreted by those who treat violence as strategy. The companion measures, license suspensions and the exclusion of Israeli officials from the arms exhibition only confirmed the new tone. Britain now behaves as though Israel is a reputational hazard to be managed, not an ally contending with existential stakes.

Political gestures have consequences

The common thread is a government infatuated with symbolism that flatters its internal audience. Washington sees a partner stepping back from hard obligations. Israel sees a partner substituting virtue messages for strategic thought. Both now approach Britain with caution once reserved for unreliable intermediaries. This is not a diplomatic mood swing; it is a consequence of political choices.

Prime Minister Mahmood would make things a whole lot worse

Shabana Mahmood’s potential leadership would worsen all of it. Her public record reveals deep alignment with identity-driven narratives that elevate moral presentation over strategic discipline.

She has every right to root her worldview in faith and community. Allies, however, operate on a different plane. They require constancy, discretion, and a cold grasp of threat hierarchies. Mahmood’s instinctive framing of foreign affairs leans heavily on moral sorting and heavily on symbolism. Washington would read that as further volatility in an already unsettled partnership. Israel would interpret it as confirmation that London has migrated from the security camp to the commentary camp.

Playing to the home vote doesn’t play well internationally

The intelligence world does not run on good intentions. It runs on the assumption that partners will honour the logic of cooperation even when domestic politics apply pressure. Mahmood offers no reassurance on that front. Her rise would signal to both capitals that Britain is governed by a party whose emotional commitments override its strategic ones. That means less intelligence shared by the United States, fewer sensitive channels left open, and a steady downgrading of access that Britain once took for granted. It means Israel recalibrating toward partners that may disagree with it loudly but do not indulge in moral theatrics at the expense of reality.

Labour inherited a network of alliances built on trust earned over decades. It is squandering them for the comforts of self-congratulation. Mahmood would not halt that trend; she would embody it.

A country that chooses posture over partnership soon discovers that the world’s most valuable allies never waste time chasing a drifting friend.

- By Bepi Pezzulli

About the author: A lawyer qualified in the UK, the US, and Italy and a foreign policy scholar, Bepi Pezzulli advises politicians and large corporations on several continents. He is a prolific writer and commentator whose work appears on CNBC, Rai News (Italy), Sky News, NATO Defense College Foundation, The Critic, The American Thinker, and on the Bloomberg terminals via Alliance Newswire. In addition he is the Research Editor for Longitude Magazine and maintains a well-read blog on The Times of Israel.

In the UK, Bepi is a member of Advance UK’s College as well as a councillor of the Great British PAC. He tweets at @bepipezzulli.