Lebanon Between the American Hammer and the Israeli Anvil: Where Does the Army Stand?
September 23, 2025965 ViewsRead Time: 2 minutes
Font Size
16
In a new diplomatic escalation, the issue of disarming Hezbollah once again dominates the Lebanese political scene, following statements by American envoy Tom Barak, who criticized Washington's handling of this issue with Beirut. The Lebanese response came from the Speaker of the Parliament, Nabih Berri, who affirmed that the Lebanese army "is not a border guard for Israel."
The Lebanese government, which decided last August to restrict arms to the state, faces a threefold challenge: escalating American pressure, rejection from armed factions of the disarmament decision, and ongoing Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement. This difficult triangle places Lebanon before a real test of national sovereignty.
On one hand, the United States asserts that Lebanon "has done nothing" regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah, while the Lebanese side responds that the army will not be a border guard for the benefit of Israel. This equation reflects a deep issue in the international and regional visions of the role of the Lebanese army.
The Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement, which have exceeded 4,500 violations according to official data, add another dimension to the crisis. While Lebanon adheres to the agreement according to Berri's statements, Israel continues its violations and expands its presence in occupied Lebanese hills.
The government decision to disarm seems closer to a political statement than to a feasible operational plan, especially in light of the clear objections from Hezbollah and the Amal Movement. This reality places the Lebanese army in a highly sensitive position, between the duty to implement government decisions and the necessity of maintaining internal stability.
The biggest challenge facing Lebanon today is how to balance international pressures with national interests, at a time when the effects of the last war are still present in the collective memory. The decision to disarm requires more national consensus than a government decision, especially in light of the ongoing security challenges.
The Lebanese equation remains complex: national sovereignty that must be protected, international pressures that cannot be ignored, and a political and security reality that requires practical solutions. Lebanon's success in emerging from this impasse will depend on the ability of all parties to place national interests above all other considerations.
The Lebanese government, which decided last August to restrict arms to the state, faces a threefold challenge: escalating American pressure, rejection from armed factions of the disarmament decision, and ongoing Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement. This difficult triangle places Lebanon before a real test of national sovereignty.
On one hand, the United States asserts that Lebanon "has done nothing" regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah, while the Lebanese side responds that the army will not be a border guard for the benefit of Israel. This equation reflects a deep issue in the international and regional visions of the role of the Lebanese army.
The Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement, which have exceeded 4,500 violations according to official data, add another dimension to the crisis. While Lebanon adheres to the agreement according to Berri's statements, Israel continues its violations and expands its presence in occupied Lebanese hills.
The government decision to disarm seems closer to a political statement than to a feasible operational plan, especially in light of the clear objections from Hezbollah and the Amal Movement. This reality places the Lebanese army in a highly sensitive position, between the duty to implement government decisions and the necessity of maintaining internal stability.
The biggest challenge facing Lebanon today is how to balance international pressures with national interests, at a time when the effects of the last war are still present in the collective memory. The decision to disarm requires more national consensus than a government decision, especially in light of the ongoing security challenges.
The Lebanese equation remains complex: national sovereignty that must be protected, international pressures that cannot be ignored, and a political and security reality that requires practical solutions. Lebanon's success in emerging from this impasse will depend on the ability of all parties to place national interests above all other considerations.
