A week ago I responded to reports in the UK press that the British government was set to ban Chinese telecommunications firm Huawei from participating in the construction of 5G network through a new national security bill which needed to be recodified as part of a process of synchronizing European law as a result of Brexit.

Although the reports were little more than tabloid gossip, there were some reasons to believe them: The United Kingdom is part of the self-proclaimed "five eyes" group, an intelligence-sharing organization that also includes the U.S., New Zealand, Australia and Canada. For months, media had speculated that the group was working in tandem to "cook up a campaign to kill Huawei," with Washington leading the initiative.

With the United Kingdom highly dependent upon diplomatic support from America, owing to the fallout of Brexit, and the U.S. not keeping it a secret that it is lobbying all around the world for countries to ban the Shenzhen firm from their networks, I concluded that such a ban from Westminster was inevitable.

Indeed, big companies such as BT were already backing off on their own accord. Inflammatory comments from Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson only led me to further note that the UK was taking a path of contention towards China.

This morning however, some news surprised me. The front page of the Monday issue of the Financial Times carried a headline announcing that Britain's national security review of Huawei had been concluded.

Contrary to all expectations, the result was a surprise. The review had, according to insider sources, stated Huawei's participation in 5G was a "manageable risk" and that there was no need to ban the company's participation.

For the United States, hell bent on gas-lighting fears of the company all around the world, this is damning news. It exposes the reality few people have wanted to confront, that the campaign against Huawei is without a doubt, politically motivated instead of being based on legitimate fears.

Whilst Britain has always been robust in its security cooperation with the United States and committed to the transatlantic alliance, it appears that in this review London chose to opt for a balanced and honest approach. This confirms that old trends in British policy continue to be upheld: whilst America remains obsessed about security, the United Kingdom persists in seeing economic benefits in Chinese investment and to develop strong commercial ties, not least in infrastructure.

To ban the network outright would have been music to Washington's ears, but as I noted it would have been economically calamitous for Britain to take on both China and Europe at the same time. Washington's concerns were undoubtedly taken seriously, but nonetheless they were found to be built on opportunism.

With a "five eyes" member country now taking a position contrary to Washington's on Huawei, this can only mean that the American crusade to derail the company is hitting the rocks. A credible assessment by the pro-U.S., British intelligence is enough to reassure most countries that there is no threat. This week alone, there have been multiple setbacks for them on this front.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's outreach to central Europe went down like a brick as Slovakia and Hungary publicly dismissed criticism over Huawei, the latter saying there was "no evidence" of such concerns. The Philippines likewise publicly dismissed accusations of Huawei espionage, whilst African countries are also reportedly ignoring Washington's call.

How the Trump administration responds to this remains to be seen. It is unlikely to shift its diplomatic lobbying against Huawei. Given its well-established pattern of leveraging politics against allied countries, it is likely Washington will become more coercive and threaten an escalation of consequences to those who go against it.

Of course, none of it will see the White House coming out smelling of roses. This report is a dagger through the heart of the Huawei espionage narrative, for an administration that has built itself on a mountain of misinformation, abject lies and negative hysteria, nobody should be surprised.