Has there been a more humbling time to be British? Perhaps the day after Argentina took the Falklands, or after France fell to the Nazis. That’s the scale of the indignity Britain has just inflicted upon itself.

Britain’s prime minister has spent months cajoling world leaders to take action in Syria. Since the most recent reports of a chemical attack, he has been the most vocal world leader calling for the West to intervene.

Yet Britain will now do nothing. On August 29, Britain’s Parliament voted against taking action in Syria. The British lion still roars, but it doesn’t have the strength of purpose to actually get up and do anything. Britain speaks loudly, but carries no stick.

When Britain speaks in the future, who will pay any attention?

It’s important to get one thing clear right at the start. This isn’t an article calling for Britain and America to intervene in Syria. There are some strong arguments for going to war and there are some strong arguments for not going to war. But the way Britain and America have conducted their foreign affairs in Syria over the past couple of years is an embarrassment. And it’s done huge damage to both nations’ credibility.

If you’re going to go to war, do it. If not, don’t. But don’t keep talking about how you’re going to fight and then sit back and do nothing. That’s the worst possible course of action.

“What is not in any doubt is that this is a catastrophe for British foreign policy,” wrote the Telegraph’s Dan Hodges. “This morning Britain has the international credibility of Luxembourg.”

“Those who wanted to see a loosening, or severing, of the ‘special relationship’ have finally got their wish,” he continued.

“But the implications go far beyond Syria,” Hodges wrote. “There is now no prospect of British support for any military strike against Iran, for example …. Israel will have watched the spectacle of British politicians stating events in the Middle East are not their concern, and she will not forget.”

Who will believe any threats or promises Britain’s prime minister makes now? They’ve seen that Britain’s Parliament is too divided to support him and follow through on what he says.

Abraham Lincoln often quoted Christ, saying that “a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.” In Britain, we’re seeing that in action. The prime minister can no longer speak strongly and firmly on behalf of the nation.

In every conflict Britain has been involved with since the Second Boer War in 1899, both of Britain’s major parties have supported the war. This time Britain could not build a consensus.

What went wrong to see Britain so humiliated? Why did David Cameron talk so tough to the world, sounding so strong on Syria, only to be defeated at home?

A big reason for the failure and the division is a failure of leadership. Mr. Cameron failed to make a compelling case for going to war in Syria. He also made the big mistake of sounding strong without having the support to back that up. But the lion’s share of the blame lies with another individual.

The leader of Britain’s Labor Party, Ed Miliband, sounded like he would support the government in going to war earlier in the week, both in public and, reportedly, in private conversations with the prime minister. Assured by Mr. Miliband’s promises of support, Mr. Cameron spoke very strongly about Syria, knowing that he had the support of the Labor Party, which meant that Parliament would easily support the war.

Then Mr. Milliband changed his mind. He wanted more conditions, including time for the United Nations to conduct investigations. Members of the government, according to leaks to the Times newspaper, were livid. But Mr. Cameron needed Labor’s backing, both to be sure of Parliament’s support and to continue the longstanding tradition of have bipartisan support for war. So he met all of Mr. Miliband’s conditions, watering down the motion he planned to put before Parliament so that a second vote would be required before war began.

But Mr. Miliband decided to vote against the government anyway.

It was this going back and forth that made Britain’s loss of face so dramatic. Mr. Cameron spoke boldly to the world, thinking he had the support of all three of Britain’s major parties. He was wrong, partly because he’d misunderstood the mood of his own party, but, more importantly, he’d been misled by the leader of the opposition.

Isaiah 3:3 warns that God would take away from Britain “the captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator.” In the next verse He continues: “And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.”

That’s what we’re seeing in Britain. Whatever his reasons, Mr. Miliband going back on his word has led to the nation’s disgrace.

America Too

Meanwhile, America is not doing much better. Going by U.S. government statements, any military response won’t do much.

Last August, President Barack Obama drew his famous “red line”: If Syrian leader Bashar Assad used chemical weapons, the United States would respond.

Assad has now almost certainly used chemical weapons. What will America do? Mr. Obama is talking about “a shot across the bow”—a warning shot that does no real damage.

To make matters worse, U.S. and British intelligence is claiming that this is just the latest in one or two dozen uses of chemical weapons.

So America admits Syria has crossed the red line, but it has done nothing. Already, that red line has become a red blur.

The message being sent to nations around the world is, if America sets a red line, you can ignore it repeatedly, and even if America does respond, it will only be a token slap on the wrist.

Again, that’s not to say that going to war in Syria is a good idea. But the time to have this discussion should not have been now, but a year ago, when Mr. Obama set the red line. If America makes a threat, failing to follow through means losing all credibility.

“In the end, a superpower’s most valuable possession is credibility,” wrote the Telegraph’s chief foreign correspondent, David Blair. “If the world’s preeminent nation makes a threat, offers a guarantee—or draws a ‘red line’—it must be prepared to enforce its will. Otherwise, this priceless asset will be tarnished, perhaps indelibly.”

“At this very moment, a range of terrible things are not happening largely because of the power of America’s word,” he wrote. “North Korea is not invading South Korea; China is not laying its hands on chains of disputed islands; Russia is not threatening the Baltic states. And, of greatest relevance to Mr. Obama’s decision over Syria, Iran is not racing to achieve the ability to build a nuclear weapon.”

Stratfor’s George Friedman makes exactly the same point. “Syria was not an issue that affected the U.S. national interest until Obama declared a red line,” he wrote. “It escalated in importance at that point not because Syria is critical to the United States, but because the credibility of its stated limits are of vital importance.”

America should have counted the cost of a war in Syria before promising punishment for any chemical weapons use.

History shows that a simple token response against Syria will not be enough to stop it. Charles Krauthammer pointed out, “In 1998, after al Qaeda blew up two U.S. embassies in Africa, Bill Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles into empty tents in Afghanistan. That showed ‘em.

“It did. It showed terminal unseriousness. Al Qaeda got the message. Two years later, the uss Cole. A year after that, 9/11.”

Britain and America have made a lot of foreign-policy mistakes in recent years that have undermined their credibility. But Syria may be seen, in years to come, as the turning point—the time when the rest of the world stopped listening when Britain and America spoke about the Middle East.

“We often quote Daniel 11:40, which speaks of a clash in this end time between the king of the north—that European empire—and the king of the south, a radical Middle Eastern power led by Iran,” wrote Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry five years ago. “At the time this prophecy is fulfilled, America is so weak, it is not even mentioned!”

That’s what the debacle over Syria is leading to: when Britain’s and America’s influence over the Middle East is so slight it’s not even worth mentioning.

Syria brings us a giant leap closer to that point. British and American credibility is now at an all-time low. To find out where this is leading and what this means to the world, request our free book The United States and Britain in Prophecy.