分类： politics

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has scrapped a planned £50 million AI intelligence partnership between the Metropolitan Police and U.S. tech firm Palantir Technologies, a move that has drawn cautious praise from pro-Palestine advocacy groups and British Green Party politicians who warn that unchallenged smaller existing contracts between the force and the controversial company still stand.

Khan’s official rejection of what would have been Palantir’s largest ever UK law enforcement contract came on Thursday, with the mayor citing a clear, serious violation of UK public sector procurement protocols as the core justification for the decision. Under existing London governance rules, any Metropolitan Police spending exceeding £500,000 requires formal sign-off from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (Mopac), the independent oversight body tasked with ensuring legislative compliance and transparent public spending.

According to Khan’s announcement during Mayor’s Question Time, Mopac identified multiple critical red flags during its review of the proposed deal. The Metropolitan Police failed to submit its full procurement strategy for pre-approval from the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, as required under Mopac’s formal delegation rules. Instead, the force advanced procurement negotiations all the way to the final contract award stage before requesting oversight approval. Beyond procedural violations, Khan’s office added that the agreement failed to demonstrate guaranteed value for taxpayer money and would have left the force locked into a long-term proprietary technological dependence on Palantir.

The proposed £50m deal was intended to deploy Palantir’s artificial intelligence tools to automate criminal investigation intelligence analysis, but the company has long faced widespread condemnation for its deep ties to the Israeli government and military. In January 2024, after Israel launched its large-scale military campaign in Gaza, Palantir signed a formal contract with Israel’s Ministry of Defense to provide technology for “war-related missions”. Company CEO Alex Karp has openly acknowledged strong demand for Palantir’s services following the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas, and the firm’s board held a high-profile meeting in Tel Aviv explicitly framed as an act of solidarity with Israel. Human rights advocates directly link Palantir’s surveillance and AI tools to Israeli military operations in Gaza that have been labeled as genocide by multiple advocacy groups and global political bodies.

Even before the proposed £50m deal, the Metropolitan Police had already secured a series of smaller, lower-value contracts with Palantir that fall just under the £500,000 threshold that triggers mandatory Mopac oversight, a structure that critics say was intentionally designed to avoid public scrutiny. The force launched an initial pilot program with a £10,000 contract, later extending the arrangement for three months at a cost of just under £490,000, bringing the total value to just under the oversight threshold. Under the pilot, Palantir’s AI is already being used to analyze data stored on Met officers’ personal devices, a policy that has drawn fierce criticism from the Metropolitan Police Federation, the union representing Met officers. In late April, the federation warned officers to be “extremely cautious” about carrying their work-issued devices while off duty, arguing that the AI monitoring has severely eroded officer trust in force leadership and sent already plummeting morale even lower.

During a Wednesday meeting of the London Assembly’s Police and Crime Committee, Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Matt Jukes defended the force’s choice to partner with Palantir for the pilot, noting that the firm is already an approved supplier on the UK government’s G-Cloud 14 procurement framework and is widely used across multiple British government departments. Jukes acknowledged that Palantir is a “divisive supplier” from a reputational standpoint, but emphasized that the company’s existing use across 72 NHS trusts and its status on national government frameworks made it a qualified choice for the Met. When asked whether Palantir had offered the pilot at a discounted rate to intentionally avoid crossing the oversight threshold, Jukes said the full cost of the pilot had been clearly documented.

Reaction to Khan’s decision to block the £50m deal has been mixed, with human rights and pro-Palestine groups welcoming the move while pushing for further action to cancel all existing Met contracts with Palantir. Amnesty International UK campaigns manager Kristyan Benedict called the cancellation “positive news”, noting that Palantir tools are currently deployed by the Israeli military during its military campaign in Gaza. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), which has led widespread advocacy against the deal, credited its grassroots campaigning for pushing Khan to reject the contract, arguing that “Palantir supplies Israel with AI and surveillance technology used in its genocide in Gaza. It should not receive a penny of public money.” The group is now calling on Khan to go a step further and cancel the existing nearly £500,000 pilot contract, and is demanding the UK government scrap all national public sector contracts with Palantir, including a £330m deal with NHS England to build and maintain a national patient data platform that has been opposed by health workers, patients and human rights organizers across the country.

Green Party London Assembly member Benali Hamdache, who first raised public questions about the Palantir partnership, also welcomed the cancellation of the large contract, but echoed calls to end existing agreements. “It’s good that this £50 million contract was blocked, but the Met still has contracts with Palantir worth nearly £500,000 that haven’t been challenged,” Hamdache said in a statement to Middle East Eye. He added that the current procurement rules, which allow deals under £500,000 to bypass mayoral oversight, create dangerous loopholes that could allow similar controversial agreements to move forward in the future. Hamdache also pointed to additional red flags around Palantir, including the company’s work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for immigration enforcement operations, and a recent public manifesto adapted from Karp’s writings that openly espouses far-right ideological positions and defends high-profile far-right figures including Elon Musk.

Palantir already holds nearly $1 billion in total contracts across multiple UK government bodies, including the Ministry of Defence, NHS, and multiple regional police forces. Founded by high-profile Donald Trump supporter Peter Thiel, the firm has faced growing grassroots resistance across the UK over its human rights record and geopolitical ties. Critics argue that the current case exposes deep flaws in UK public procurement rules that allow controversial contractors to split large projects into smaller agreements to avoid oversight and public accountability.

In the months following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian government, bilateral relations between Lebanon and neighboring Syria have hovered in a tense limbo, caught between shared strategic necessity and decades of accumulated mutual mistrust. Tied together by shared geography, intertwined history, overlapping security interests, and a sprawling backlog of unresolved bilateral disputes, neither nation has managed to shake off the heavy legacy of their fraught past.

Lebanon has remained deeply wary of any return to the era of Syrian political dominance over its domestic affairs, while Syria’s new leadership under President Ahmed al-Sharaa is keenly alert to the risk that unilateral policy moves by Beirut could spill across their shared border and undermine Damascus at a critical transitional moment for the war-torn state. That underlying tension has now flared anew around one of the region’s most sensitive diplomatic topics: direct bilateral negotiations with Israel.

According to a senior Lebanese official with direct knowledge of recent diplomatic exchanges between Beirut and Damascus, Syria has raised clear concerns that Lebanon’s rapidly advancing negotiation track with Israel is proceeding without sufficient coordination with the Syrian government, even as Damascus’s own talks with Tel Aviv remain stalled. The Syrian position was laid out explicitly during Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s recent official visit to Damascus, where he held talks with al-Sharaa.

“The Syrian leader spoke in a diplomatic, non-confrontational tone, but made clear that coordination between the two countries on issues of vital national interest was essential to strengthening the negotiating hand of both sides,” the Lebanese official shared.

Damascus’s unease extends beyond the simple breach of diplomatic protocol: Syrian leaders worry that Beirut’s separate negotiation path could set a precedent that international powers will later pressure Syria to follow. For months, United States officials have cited ongoing Syrian-Israeli diplomatic contacts to push Lebanon to launch its own direct talks with Israel. But with the Syrian negotiation track now largely deadlocked – in large part because Damascus judges Israel unwilling to make meaningful territorial or security concessions – the regional diplomatic dynamic has shifted dramatically. What began as a tool to pressure Lebanon to align with Syria’s approach could now become a mechanism to force Syria to adopt Lebanon’s framework.

Lebanon’s negotiation process carries additional sensitivity given the conditions under which it has unfolded. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun previously pledged that Beirut would not enter talks until a permanent ceasefire with Israel was implemented. Yet diplomatic contacts have continued even as Israeli military strikes on Lebanese territory persist, despite a nominal ceasefire agreement reached in mid-April.

For Damascus, this creates a core strategic threat: if Lebanon advances negotiations amid ongoing violence and makes early concessions to Israel, Syria could face mounting pressure from Washington and other global actors to accept an identical unfavorable framework. The dispute over negotiations has added a new layer of friction to an already deeply fragile bilateral relationship.

The two neighbors are still working through a host of long-simmering unresolved issues: the status of Syrian detainees held in Lebanese prisons, unresolved land and maritime border demarcation, the future of Hezbollah’s role in regional security, the presence of former Assad regime officials in Lebanese territory, and the fundamental question of how to restructure their security relationship after decades of domination, open hostility, and mutual suspicion. Syrian unease over Beirut’s unilateral moves has already emerged across multiple of these files.

Back in December, Damascus raised formal objections to Assad-linked military officers residing in Lebanon, with Syrian security officials sharing name lists with their Lebanese counterparts and warning that some of these figures could use Lebanese territory as a base to plot against Syria’s new government. Damascus has also framed the resolution of the Syrian detainee issue as a non-negotiable prerequisite for any meaningful improvement in bilateral ties.

The Israel negotiation file is now the latest addition to this complex web of competing interests. For Syria, the dispute is not merely a matter of diplomatic etiquette – it is a question of strategic leverage. Damascus argues that despite their bitter shared history, Lebanon and Syria face overlapping regional vulnerabilities, meaning any concession Lebanon makes to Israel – particularly on security arrangements, border demarcation, or post-war security guarantees – will indirectly erode Syria’s own future negotiating position.

“This is why Sharaa stressed that coordination on vital issues was not an optional courtesy, but a strategic necessity,” the Lebanese official said. “If Syria takes one step in favour of Lebanon, Lebanon should understand that its own vital interests require it to take many steps in favour of Syria.”

That comment underscores the core asymmetry in how the two sides view their relationship: while Lebanon fears a return to Syrian dominance, Syria believes that Lebanese policy decisions can still expose it to severe strategic risk.

The dispute over maritime energy rights adds further complexity to the dynamic. Turkey has already raised sharp objections to Lebanon’s 2025 exclusive economic zone agreement with Cyprus, arguing that the deal was reached without sufficient consideration of Syrian and Turkish economic and security interests in the Eastern Mediterranean. The incident has reinforced a widespread regional perception that Beirut often pushes ahead on sensitive cross-border issues without adequate consultation with neighboring stakeholders.

Against this backdrop, Damascus does not view Lebanon’s separate talks with Israel as an isolated domestic decision by Beirut. Instead, it frames the move as part of a broader pattern of unilateral action by Lebanon on issues that carry implications far beyond its own borders.

A senior Syrian official noted that Damascus has repeatedly emphasized to Arab regional states the need for coordinated diplomatic strategy and the risk of separate negotiation tracks that weaken the broader Arab position in talks with Israel. “There is a positive atmosphere, but there are realities on the ground that cannot be ignored,” the official said. “Cooperation with Lebanon is growing, but it has not yet reached the required level. The issue is less about disagreement and more about poor coordination.”

The official added that Syria has a clear stake in a stable, prosperous neighbor: “The Syrian state wants Lebanon to be strong and capable of standing on its own feet,” he said, noting that al-Sharaa has stressed in meetings that Lebanon is navigating an unusually sensitive period and requires more innovative solutions than the outdated frameworks it has relied on in the past. Damascus believes Lebanon needs “precise tools” to navigate this transitional phase, and that Syria’s role is to support Beirut rather than add to existing pressure, the official added.

For Lebanon, the core risk is that what appears to be an effort to expand diplomatic room for maneuver could end up narrowing its long-term options. A unilateral negotiation track with Israel could deepen Syrian mistrust, alienate Turkey, complicate Beirut’s own domestic political relationship with Hezbollah, and leave Lebanon exposed to pressure from international actors pushing for a quick, superficial deal rather than a durable, sustainable peace settlement.

For Syria, the risk follows a different logic. Having inherited a fractured state, a weakened regional position, and already difficult talks with Israel, Damascus fears that Lebanon’s acceptance of a US- and Israeli-backed negotiation framework could create a regional precedent that Western powers will later use to pressure Syria into accepting identical terms.

That said, the current tension does not signal an imminent slide into open confrontation between the two neighbors. On the whole, diplomatic exchanges between the two sides remain cautious and pragmatic. Both states still depend on one another: Syria needs Lebanon to prevent its territory from becoming a staging ground for anti-Damascus opposition activity, while Lebanon relies on Syria for border management, progress on the detainee file, refugee repatriation, anti-smuggling oversight, security coordination, and any credible regional peace settlement.

For Lebanon, the central question now is whether it can advance negotiations with Israel while maintaining a coherent, aligned regional posture. For Syria, the key challenge is whether it can prevent Lebanese policy decisions from becoming a precedent that undermines its own negotiating position.

The latest developments make clear that the post-Assad bilateral relationship has not yet evolved into an institutionalized, trust-based strategic partnership. It remains largely transactional, reactive, and still shaped by the lingering suspicions of the past. Caught between the legacy of the old order and the demands of a new regional landscape, the two neighbors face a familiar dilemma: they are no longer bound by the old hegemonic relationship, but neither can afford to ignore one another’s core strategic interests.