Published on: Mon, 07 Sep 2026 22:42:58 GMT
Original Story: UK’s Burnham risks Trump anger with new sanctions on Israel – scmp.com

Another Ally Fails Trump’s Global Loyalty Test

Alright, folks, buckle up. Just when you thought global politics might settle into a predictable rhythm of low-grade existential dread, someone always has to stir the pot, don’t they? This time, it’s Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, wading into the geopolitical deep end. He’s decided to slap some new sanctions on Israel, and, oh boy, is that going to ruffle some feathers – specifically, the rather large, orange-hued feathers of one Donald J. Trump.

The headline itself from scmp.com practically screams it: “UK’s Burnham risks Trump anger with new sanctions on Israel.” And frankly, you could set your watch by it. Trump’s world operates on a very simple, very transactional principle: you’re either with him, or you’re against him. There’s no Switzerland in his worldview, especially not when it comes to long-standing, deeply entrenched foreign policy positions like relations with Israel. So, when a relatively high-profile British politician dares to chart an independent course, particularly one that diverges from the established, pro-Israel line favored by the American right, it’s not just an act of policy. It’s an act of defiance, a litmus test of loyalty, and one that, by Trump’s metrics, seems destined for a failing grade.

Who Dares Defy? Meet Andy Burnham, Mayor Extraordinaire

For those of you not intimately familiar with the intricacies of British local government (and let’s be real, who is?), Andy Burnham isn’t some backbench MP nobody’s heard of. He’s the Mayor of Greater Manchester, a significant figure in the UK Labour Party, and often touted as a potential future leader. He’s got a platform, he’s got clout, and he’s clearly decided to use it. His proposed sanctions aren’t some abstract diplomatic maneuver; they specifically target companies operating in Israeli settlements. We’re talking about a move that directly challenges Israeli policy, and by extension, challenges the tacit approval that policy often receives from Washington, particularly under a Trump administration.

Now, to be clear, this isn’t a UK government initiative. This is a regional leader pushing a specific agenda. But in the grand, interconnected tapestry of international relations, particularly when the specter of a second Trump presidency looms, these distinctions can quickly blur. A prominent British voice taking such a stance sends a message, and that message isn’t one of unwavering solidarity with Trump’s preferred foreign policy alignment.

The Specifics: What’s Got Trump’s Hypothetical Knickers in a Twist?

Burnham’s proposed move isn’t about cutting off all ties or enacting a full-blown boycott, which would be an even bigger headline. Instead, it’s a more targeted approach: preventing companies that operate in Israeli settlements from winning contracts with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. This is a practical, economic lever designed to exert pressure. It’s a classic example of using procurement policy to achieve foreign policy goals, a tactic often employed by various governments and municipalities worldwide.

But the devil, as always, is in the details, and the optics. For Trump and his loyalists, any action perceived as critical of Israel, especially coming from an allied nation, is viewed with suspicion, if not outright hostility. It feeds into narratives of disloyalty, of allies not pulling their weight, or worse, actively undermining U.S. interests as defined by Trump. It’s not just about the sanctions themselves; it’s about the audacity of a supposedly friendly nation (or a significant part of it) to step out of line.

When ‘America First’ Meant ‘Everyone Else For Themselves’ (Unless It Annoyed Me)

Here’s where the delicious irony, and frankly, the exhausting contradiction of Trump’s foreign policy, really comes into play. Cast your mind back to **2016 and early 2017**. Donald Trump, then a presidential candidate and later President-elect, was absolutely railing against multilateral institutions, globalism, and the very concept of allies being anything other than transactional partners. He famously declared NATO “obsolete” in a **January 2017** interview with *The Times* (UK) and *Bild* (Germany), suggesting European nations weren’t paying their fair share and should essentially stand on their own two feet.

He was a vocal proponent of nations pursuing their own national interests with gusto, even if it meant disrupting long-established alliances. Remember his enthusiastic embrace of Brexit, often citing it as a prime example of a nation asserting its sovereignty and escaping the clutches of a “globalist” European Union? His whole pitch was that countries should be *independent*, make their *own decisions*, and prioritize *their own people* over some nebulous international consensus. He essentially told the world to “America First” themselves.

Yet, here we are. A prominent British political figure, arguably acting in what he perceives as his constituents’ interest or the UK’s moral stance, takes independent action. And what’s the expected outcome? “Trump anger.” The very independence Trump once championed for allies, the notion that countries should chart their own course, evaporates the moment that course deviates from his specific, often narrow, foreign policy agenda. It’s a classic case of “do as I say, not as I do,” or rather, “be independent, but only if your independence aligns perfectly with my personal preferences.” It’s a loyalty test, pure and simple, and any deviation, no matter how principled or locally driven, is seen as a betrayal.

The Global Implications: More Than Just a Mancunian Maneuver

This isn’t just about Greater Manchester; it’s a microcosm of the larger challenges facing U.S. allies should Trump return to the White House. The expectation of unwavering deference, particularly on issues considered sacrosanct by his base, will be paramount. Any independent foreign policy moves by allies that don’t align perfectly with Washington’s (or Mar-a-Lago’s) directives will likely be met with public scolding, threats of trade penalties, or withdrawal of support.

The U.S.-UK “special relationship,” already strained by various post-Brexit maneuvers and internal political shifts, would be put under immense pressure. The delicate balance between national sovereignty and alliance solidarity would be tipped heavily towards the latter, but only if that solidarity means falling in lockstep with Trump’s vision. It creates a global environment where allies are constantly looking over their shoulders, second-guessing every policy decision for fear of incurring the wrath of a U.S. president who values personal loyalty above all else.

And let’s be honest, for us elder millennials who thought we’d seen it all in terms of geopolitical chaos, this constant loyalty testing is just… *tiring*. Can’t we just have coherent, predictable foreign policy that isn’t dictated by the whims of one person’s personal grievances or transactional calculations? Apparently not. The world’s a stage, and everyone’s auditioning for the role of ‘Trump’s Favorite Ally’ – or risking being cast as the villain.