PNN – Cancellation of the Lebanese army commander’s trip to the United States is not a diplomatic defeat, but a moral victory; this action is a symbol of steadfastness, independence, and defense of the country’s dignity.
The U.S. government cancelled the trip of “Rudolf Heikal,” the commander of the Lebanese army, to Washington, which was supposed to take place on Tuesday. The reason for this action by the U.S. was the anger of its officials over the recent statement issued by the Lebanese Army Command regarding the Zionist regime’s aggressions against Lebanon. U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham also claimed that the Lebanese army should not criticize the Zionist regime and should pay attention to disarming Hezbollah. On the other hand, the newspaper Al-Liwa’ reported that it was General Rudolf Heikal, the commander of the Lebanese army, who cancelled his trip to Washington. He was informed that his appointment with the U.S. Army commander had been cancelled. After the cancellation of his scheduled meetings with American officials, Heikal decided to cancel the trip entirely and described the U.S. behavior as an “insult” to Lebanon and its army.
The cancellation of General Rudolf Heikal’s trip to Washington is not merely a diplomatic issue but a symbol of national steadfastness and defense of the country’s dignity. This decision showed that the Lebanese army is not willing to sacrifice its independence and sovereignty for the sake of external pressure and the interests of others. The recent development provides a clear picture of Lebanon’s internal and external challenges and reflects the deep tension between national institutions and foreign powers.
Read more:
Behind-the-scenes disputes with Washington
The cancellation of the commander’s trip was not merely a reaction to anti-Israeli statements. Lebanese sources revealed that the main problem was a direct disagreement between Heikal and Morgan Ortagus, the U.S. envoy to Lebanon. Ortagus accused Heikal, in the presence of several Lebanese politicians, of “not adhering to his commitments in confronting Hezbollah.” These accusations intensified immediately after Heikal submitted a report to the Lebanese cabinet.
In his report, Heikal referred to the “repeated insults to the army” and the “difficult conditions of army personnel in southern Lebanon under Israeli pressure.” He warned that the continuation of such pressure could lead to the suspension of army operations south of the Litani River. This statement, conveyed to Washington by some Lebanese government sources, triggered a strong American reaction.
Heikal’s opposition to surrendering to foreign demands
One of the most important reasons for the anger of Washington and Israel was Heikal’s refusal to comply with their demands. The U.S. and the Zionist regime expected the Lebanese army to enter the homes of the people of southern Lebanon and search for Hezbollah’s weapons. Heikal believed that such an action would not solve any problem and would instead pave the way for increased pressure and new demands from Israel.
He repeatedly emphasized that the Lebanese army must not become an instrument for implementing foreign agendas and that any cooperation must be based on national principles and the preservation of the country’s dignity. This stance made the cancellation of the Washington trip a necessary action that carried a message of the army’s independence.
Internal message: the army as guardian of national dignity
The cancellation of the army commander’s trip sent a clear message to the people. In a society where many political officials react quickly to satisfy foreign powers, Heikal’s steadfastness was seen as a “calculated defiance.” This action strengthened the credibility of the army and its commander among the people and showed that there are still official figures in Lebanon who prioritize national interests over foreign pressure. The people of Lebanon saw that the army can engage in international cooperation while still maintaining its national red lines. Heikal’s decision was a reminder that the independence of national institutions is still defensible and that no foreign threat can disregard it.
Message to the president and the Lebanese government
In addition to its internal message, the cancellation of the commander’s trip also pointed to the Lebanese government and the president. Analyses indicate that the U.S. pressured Heikal in an attempt to gain control over state institutions and the implementation of foreign policies through the president. Washington’s message was clear: “The issue is not just Hezbollah— the government and its institutions must also submit.”
This warning show that the U.S. is prepared to reduce its financial and security support for the Lebanese army and, if necessary, impose political, financial, and military isolation on the country. Heikal firmly rejected this message and showed that the Lebanese army is not willing to surrender.
External message and redefining relations with the U.S.
The cancellation of the Lebanese army commander’s trip elicited an obvious reaction of dissatisfaction from Washington. The United States may re-evaluate its military and financial assistance or impose new conditions for cooperation. However, Lebanon’s experience shows that weakening the army benefits no one and could pave the way for internal instability and increased activity by armed groups. Heikal’s cancellation of his trip made it necessary to redefine Lebanon’s relationship with the United States: a relationship based on mutual respect and national independence, not dominance and imposition. With this action, the Lebanese army showed that cooperation is possible, but surrender to any foreign pressure is not.
The Lebanese army on the path of preserving identity
This action by the army commander is a symbol of a deep struggle over the identity of the Lebanese army. The army must choose between two paths: becoming an institution that merely pursues foreign objectives, or remaining an independent entity that safeguards internal stability and national security. The cancellation of the trip showed that the second option is still possible and that the Lebanese army can maintain its role as the guarantor of the country’s security through its national authority. This decision also sent a clear message to the world: Lebanon is an independent country capable of making its own decisions without foreign pressure. The Lebanese army is capable of both international cooperation and defending its national interests.
Conclusion
The cancellation of the Lebanese army commander’s trip to the United States is not a diplomatic defeat but a moral victory. This action is a symbol of steadfastness, independence, and defense of the country’s dignity. With this decision, the army commander showed that there are still individuals in Lebanon who prioritize national interests over foreign pressures and are not willing to compromise. The message of the Lebanese army is clear: international cooperation is possible, but surrender to any foreign threat will not take place. The cancellation of the commander’s trip is a moral asset for the country that strengthens national independence and dignity and shows that Lebanon still possesses the ability to make independent decisions.