To be fair "global security" has been cried wolf about enough given its use as a scurtiny terminating cliche for reasons that are irrelevant like embarrassment

To be fair "global security" has been cried wolf about enough given its use as a scurtiny terminating cliche for reasons that are irrelevant like embarrassment to officials that it could be replaced with "nothing" and have approximately the same meaning. If you don't trust the message the argument goes the other direction it becomes "compromising nothing for a little profit". Why leave money om the table for the sake of a known bad actor? If you sincerely believe it that loss of credibility should be deeply troubling. If you don't it is as it should be - they lost their abused cudgel and can deal with it.