US hard line pressure mounts as Lebanese Army statement on Israel...

4^min

Report by Lara El Hachem, English adaptation by Mariella Succar

In an unprecedented development, the Lebanese Army Command’s statement referring to Israel as “the enemy” became a highly circulated post on the social media accounts of U.S. senators Joni Ernst and Lindsey Graham.

Ernst described the statement as “disappointing,” while Graham called it a setback to efforts aimed at moving Lebanon forward.

That single word triggered not only a wave of reactions but also the cancellation of key meetings scheduled for Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal in Washington. One after another, meetings with members of Congress and other officials were called off—culminating in the cancellation of Haykal’s talks with the U.S. Army chief. Haykal subsequently decided to call off his trip.

According to political sources, the incident is not solely about the use of the word “enemy,” nor is it directed personally at the army commander. It was viewed instead as a final warning addressed to President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam through Haykal, signaling that U.S. patience has run out.

In Washington, two competing approaches have shaped U.S. policy toward Lebanon: a hard‑line camp calling for a return to confrontation and a decisive resolution to the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons, and a more moderate approach arguing that Lebanon’s current political leadership deserves a chance.

For now, the hard‑line position appears to be prevailing, with officials insisting that the commitments made by Aoun and Salam before their election—ranging from consolidating weapons under state authority to implementing financial, economic and judicial reforms—remain unfulfilled.

From the U.S. perspective, more than nine months have passed with Lebanon recording what officials describe as a series of “failed obligations.”

On Hezbollah’s weapons, officials say nothing has changed beyond rhetoric. President Aoun introduced a new argument in an April 2025 interview with The New Arab, saying Lebanon seeks to remove unauthorized weapons but does not want to ignite a civil war.

Those positions were later reflected in statements issued by the Army Command and in comments attributed to its leadership, including the army’s threat to freeze cooperation with the ceasefire monitoring committee following the strike on the southern suburbs on the eve of Eid al‑Fitr, and President Joseph Aoun’s call for the army to confront Israeli forces after they entered Blida.

General Haykal then urged the president and cabinet to halt the implementation of the army’s phased plan to consolidate weapons until Israeli violations cease.

These and similar positions—such as the army’s refusal to conduct home inspections in southern Lebanon—were interpreted by U.S. and Arab officials as negative signals.

The reform track has fared no better. Reforms fall under the responsibility of the government, starting with the prime minister, yet they have remained caught in Lebanon’s political labyrinth—from delays in approving the financial gap law and banking reforms to restricting the cash‑based economy and implementing judicial reforms.

The frustration in Washington was underscored by a visiting U.S. Treasury delegation that gave Lebanese authorities 60 days to turn reform promises into concrete action.

This increasingly hard‑line U.S. stance, backed by Arab partners, reflects the strengthening of the more assertive camp in Washington.

To avoid deeper fallout, Lebanese officials are expected to adopt a clear strategy that realistically acknowledges the new U.S. landscape—one shaped by the image of President Donald Trump seated alone after his tariff dispute victory, with all European leaders gathered before him.

It is a message Lebanese officials must heed, as a Trump administration that was prepared to challenge Europe is unlikely to show leniency toward Lebanon, which some in Washington now view as a problem to be eliminated rather than managed.